Charles & Camilla: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
What are some other ways that Charles and Camilla can neutralize some of the damage that Diana caused to their public reputations (and no I don't mean abdicate from the throne ;) )

Ignore them and show the people two people in love doingt heir duty together for the people they care for and feel responisble for. And let historians deal with their image in the afterlife.
 
It's reflective enough that Camilla had to back down from going to that service because of the depth of public feeling it managed to generate. Don't underestimate the power of the popular press to influence the populace.

I believe the way the media writes about Charles and Camilla will change the moment he becomes king. The media dares to make fun of a pronce and heir, they won't do that to His Majesty the King and his wedded wife, be she known as Princess Consort or Queen then. I don't even think it is in reality such a personal thing, it's more that like in Soap Operas fixed position must be filled and that the Royals are sort of audition material to be written into the position they have the most potential. OKay, the soap opera's storybook changed when Diana came on the scene - she was casted as the wonderful next queen at first (like Alexandra or May before her) - beautiful and untouchable, then she was slandered a bit for her money spending habits, ok, but still she stayed a girl right out of a Mills & Boon-novel till the Morton-book came out and she herself had rewritten the storyline of the part: The Heir and his wife. But none-the-less the storyline of The Matriarch/Patriarch does a good job runs sucessfully and runs and runs, no matter what the storylines of second son ("The Nuisance and his much too common wife"), the daughter ("She would have made a great man, but, alas, she's a girl") and the third son (THe Incapable Bore, but has a nice wife he loves, at least that!") plus the other minor roles, ähmmm, minor Royal relatives... It's the Forsyth-Saga all over with as much of Upstairs, Downstairs thrown into the mix.

But once "The Heir" becomes "The Patriarch" of the soap opera, his characterization will change immediately and his wife will no longer be the witch of the play, but "The Supporter at the Heart of the Family". I bet it'll happen that way.
 
Ignore them and show the people two people in love doingt heir duty together for the people they care for and feel responisble for. And let historians deal with their image in the afterlife.

I hate to say it, Jo but as much as I'd like to believe you, ignoring them is precisely what Charles did when Diana first began to wield her devastating hate campaign and as kimebear so wisely noted, their silence made them appear as the aggressors. Just ignoring your enemies in this situation gives them a wide berth to paint whatever picture they want of you and you are left appearing like the fools or the ogres that your enemies paint you as being.

I'm not convinced that Charles and Camilla just showing the world how much they love each other is going to change anything. People already see how much Charles and Camilla love each other and the fact that they should have been together, but it doesn't make a difference to them. COUNTESS sees their love, knows that they were always meant to be together but this simple fact rather makes her more compassionate to them actually hardens her heart against them and makes it easier for her to cast off names like witch and ogre to describe them. I suspect that a lot of people are like COUNTESS and they aren't impressed by the fact that Charles and Camilla are truly in love.

The fact that Charles really loves Camilla probably makes them despise him even more because it makes it clearer that he could not love Diana.
 
We should all thank Fayed, by making his allegations and demanding a full, if prolonged inquest, some of Diana's affairs were confirmed to the general public and that will help change peoples perception of Diana the victim. Some of those that dismissed her affairs and put all the blame on Camilla have been able to see how manipulative she was and how she treated her friends. I even heard one staunch Diana supporter saying 'if she treated Charles like that, I'm surprised he stayed with her so long'.

Meanwhile the younger ones, who now have children at school, can see how devastating the Morton book would have been to William and Harry, bad enough when mummy & daddy separate, but to write about it for the whole world to read, is abhorant. How could she have done that to the children she said she loved.

Camilla on the other hand has been seen to try to protect her children and that does earn her points with many people.

The only way Camilla can change some people's opinions, would be to do a Diana and start telling tales, projecting the 'I'm a victim' to the likes of Kay or she can just do as she is doing, continue to retain a regal and dignified silence. Lets not forget also, that Diana was not popular with everyone in the UK and putting it bluntly, it doesn't really matter what those in the US think of our future Queen Consort. :flowers:
 
Well al Fayed succeeded in hurting Diana's reputation with the masses but I think that Diana's reputation as a victim couldn't hold for long for the majority of the public who didn't care about these things. I mean when she cultivated the types of friends that she did, James Hewitt, Simone, Paul Burrell, the al Fayed's and they continue to show their true character through their words and actions, it becomes much harder for the disinterested person to remain sympathetic to Diana who would consort and become friends with such sleazy characters. Its far easier for someone to cast her off as a crazy and a sort of Glenn Close in every man's worst nightmare the same way that COUNTESS cast off Charles as the ogre and Camilla as the witch.

But I don't think that trashing Diana in the minds of the general public is really going to mean that Charles and Camilla appear sympathetic by comparison. I think that most people's natural reaction is to throw their hands up and say the whole lot of them are screwed up and close the door on Diana, Charles, Camilla, the Queen, Andrew, Prince Philip, William, Harry, etc. It is possible to think both that Diana was a manipulative conniving psychotic nitwit and still think of Charles as the loser and the ogre and that Camilla was the ugly evil stepmother.

On a last note, I think that while non-British opinions don't matter as much as British opinions, for a future head of state and his wife they do matter somewhat since the monarch and his consort undertake some responsibilities of representing their country abroad.

I think the question boils down to how comfortable people are with Charles and Camilla representing Great Britain and the Commonwealth? Will they be seen as a detriment or an asset? This question can be answered by both Brits and non-Brits.
 
I agree with anyone who thinks that the monarchy is less stable due to what happened and I see hard times ahead for a King Charles and Queen Camilla or whatever her title will be. If Charles & Diana had been a love match and great team until this day Britain would have the most stable monarchy we can imagine. Unfortunately, it was not meant to be and given Diana was unique in her impact on people Camilla cannot / does not want to / should not fill this gap. I don't have any objections towards her but she is not a people person who will make Charles sparkle and catch peoples' interest or imagination with a positive impact on the institution. They might be a happy couple in private and I like them and wish them well but they will certainly have a tough time as reigning couple ... at least until Wills will get married to a girl who brings along some of the qualities that made his late mother so special (and sorry, I am not talking about Kate).
 
I think the question boils down to how comfortable people are with Charles and Camilla representing Great Britain and the Commonwealth? Will they be seen as a detriment or an asset? This question can be answered by both Brits and non-Brits.

I wonder how many people are still interested in Heads of State? I wonder how many could name their own if he/she is not head of the government as well?

So I think that monarchs are still a rare breed and get much more public interest than any "common" Head of State. But I think it's a current trend to cut down on public expenses and thus monarchies will suffer, probably even more than other democracies.

Ceremonial functions and the people performing it need to give the people they are aiming at with their ceremonies something in return. It has to do with the subconcious value of rituals.

That's why I think the fact that Camilla does not attend as much events as Charles doing their trip is so important for some - because Royal visits are some sort of ritual. But while one can be unhappy about a performance at a certain ritual, it doesn't necessary mean that all rituals are not longer doing their magic charm. Once Camilla is anointed and crowned as Charles' queen, she, too, will be surrounded by that magic charm of rituals, ancient rituals transported into our modern world. The magical transformation will happen in the mind of most people - because she then will be a symbol for the fact that there are some securities in our ever-changing world. Thus I doubt that whatever Charles and Camilla are doing now, as long as they are not doing something to force Charles to give up his claim as the Heir to the Throne, will seriously endanger their future as king and queen of Britain.

And believe me, the media knows that and will act accordingly as soon as the "The Queen is dead! Long live the King!". Diana's death for example is IMHO proof of that: death makes people run for cover and look out for securities. But as no new beginning happened when Diana dies, they (represented by media, but at their own as well) stroke out against those who are responisble to offer this security, but couldn't and didn't.

What I find interesting is that the inquest and the media coverage of it, while it refocusses public interest of Diana, is not able to create that public interest that some people had hoped. The masses are over the fact that Di's dead, they look forward, not back. Which seem to surprise some media outlets. :D
 
If Charles & Diana had been a love match and great team until this day Britain would have the most stable monarchy we can imagine. Unfortunately, it was not meant to be and given Diana was unique in her impact on people Camilla cannot / does not want to / should not fill this gap. I don't have any objections towards her but she is not a people person who will make Charles sparkle and catch peoples' interest or imagination with a positive impact on the institution. They might be a happy couple in private and I like them and wish them well but they will certainly have a tough time as reigning couple

Truly, I doubt people want a sparkling king. They want a reliable king, one to offer security in an unstable world.

Diana was so sucessful because she re-introduced medieval/supersticious methods into modern royality (being touched by her meant redemption or salvation for a lot of her fans). I wouldn't be surprised if Charles has its own way to reintroduce values aimed at the subconcious wish of his subjects to feel safe and well-guided once he is the one to put his mark on the way monarchy works. :flowers:
 
The difference is that the monarchy isn't as stable today as it used to be. He may be happy personally, but Diana thought she could manipulate the press skillfully enough to attack Charles without damaging the monarchy, and she couldn't. That might not mean as much to you as the personal side of things, but it means a great deal to a lot of British, Australian, Canadian, and other people who live with this monarchy.
I agree that, unfortunatelly, Diana has damaged monarchy by her interviews against Charles.
I used to dislike Camilla, considering her home wrecker. But I began to appreciate her after a while. She is very supportive to Charles, she lets him shine, what is very smart. There is no doubt her role is more difficult than Diana's. Many people hated Camilla, being the former misstress, not young not as attractive like Diana, blamed for divorce, it was difficult for Camilla. But she handled this very well. She is clever woman. I like her behavior during official trips, she is very dignified, knows her role. I consider her asset to British monarchy. The more I know her, the more I appreciate her.
 
Well al Fayed succeeded in hurting Diana's reputation with the masses but I think that Diana's reputation as a victim couldn't hold for long for the majority of the public who didn't care about these things. I mean when she cultivated the types of friends that she did, James Hewitt, Simone, Paul Burrell, the al Fayed's and they continue to show their true character through their words and actions, it becomes much harder for the disinterested person to remain sympathetic to Diana who would consort and become friends with such sleazy characters. Its far easier for someone to cast her off as a crazy and a sort of Glenn Close in every man's worst nightmare the same way that COUNTESS cast off Charles as the ogre and Camilla as the witch.

But I don't think that trashing Diana in the minds of the general public is really going to mean that Charles and Camilla appear sympathetic by comparison. I think that most people's natural reaction is to throw their hands up and say the whole lot of them are screwed up and close the door on Diana, Charles, Camilla, the Queen, Andrew, Prince Philip, William, Harry, etc. It is possible to think both that Diana was a manipulative conniving psychotic nitwit and still think of Charles as the loser and the ogre and that Camilla was the ugly evil stepmother.

On a last note, I think that while non-British opinions don't matter as much as British opinions, for a future head of state and his wife they do matter somewhat since the monarch and his consort undertake some responsibilities of representing their country abroad.

I think the question boils down to how comfortable people are with Charles and Camilla representing Great Britain and the Commonwealth? Will they be seen as a detriment or an asset? This question can be answered by both Brits and non-Brits.

See, I actually think (as you acknowledged) that people's opinions of Charles and Camilla, and Diana, have changed significantly since Diana's death. Though I admit, this is just as a casual observer living in a Commonwealth country outside Great Britain, reading comments on news stories, and hearing that pollled support for Charles and Camilla has gone up. I don't have hard facts to prove how much the public mood has changed. But basically what I see in the media is that while Diana was once typically portrayed as a heroine and a victim, nowadays she's more commonly portrayed as emotionally disturbed and manipulative. Likewise while Charles and Camilla were once criticized harshly for their affair, there seems to be more of a grudging tolerance or even romantic potrayal of them as a couple. When people comment on news stories about C&C I see mixed reactions. Some people still loathe the two of them for "what they did to Diana." Others find their story romantic. And a lot of people just say "get rid of the whole lot altogether" (like you said ysbel).

Actually that latter reaction seems to be pretty common. I have a professor who recently came over from Britain and he was saying that while his whole family are royalty fans, he has no use for the monarchy. He said basically, "All the queen's children are messed up, none of them could keep their marriages together." And that statement is true. Sure, I think Diana did some damage to the monarchy by painting Charles as a villain. But in the end, I think Charles, Diana, and Camilla did the biggest damage to themselves. Diana's ugly side has now come to light, but that doesn't wipe away the reality of Charles and Camilla's less-than-admirable behaviour. The personal lives of the queen's children during the late 1980s/early 1990s were just disastrous, even if you look at the bare facts and ignore rumour/imbellishment.

So of course people have lost respect for the monarchy. I think more people do support Charles and Camilla than once did. But support isn't the same thing as real respect and admiration, the way people once felt about the monarchy. I guess now that the mystique has been lost and the royals have shown themselves to be ordinary people with glaring faults like anyone else, it will be nearly impossible to win back real esteem for the monarchy.
 
I agree with anyone who thinks that the monarchy is less stable due to what happened and I see hard times ahead for a King Charles and Queen Camilla or whatever her title will be. If Charles & Diana had been a love match and great team until this day Britain would have the most stable monarchy we can imagine. They might be a happy couple in private and I like them and wish them well but they will certainly have a tough time as reigning couple ... at least until Wills will get married to a girl who brings along some of the qualities that made his late mother so special (and sorry, I am not talking about Kate).
I felt the same way about Diana as you now feel about Catherine. Times and people change and although Diana caused a great deal of damage to the monarchy, it was hardly going to survive all the changes that have happened in the world, in a time warp. Although Diana had a following, it was not the whole of the UK or commonwealth countries, many like me couldn't stand her, many simple couldn't care less, for all the photo's and articles many saw her as a 'nice but dim opportunist'.

Bearing that in mind, the monarchy would still have been looking at ways to survive. As information has been easier to obtain, people with or without the 4 or so in the marriage, have been able to see exactly what they are getting out of the arrangement. The UK gets nothing from the CW countries and they get nothing from us, no monies, no influence, nothing.
given Diana was unique in her impact on people Camilla cannot / does not want to / should not fill this gap. I don't have any objections towards her but she is not a people person who will make Charles sparkle and catch peoples' interest or imagination with a positive impact on the institution.
On the contrary, Camilla appeals to the people who don't live their lives glued to soaps or BB, the very people who saw through Diana. Diana was as unique in her impact of some people, as any 'celebrity culture creatures', which is to say she was not unique at all, just one in a long line. Someone who IF she had an illness, would get it treated and say nothing, a woman who is the epitome of an HRH. She is seen as warm, caring and with a great sense of humour. Someone who will always put her husband and their children first.
 
So of course people have lost respect for the monarchy. I think more people do support Charles and Camilla than once did. But support isn't the same thing as real respect and admiration, the way people once felt about the monarchy. I guess now that the mystique has been lost and the royals have shown themselves to be ordinary people with glaring faults like anyone else, it will be nearly impossible to win back real esteem for the monarchy.
But people have also lost respect for the law, for our servicemen, for honesty, discretion, integrity, it is all part of the natural cycle.
 
I believe the way the media writes about Charles and Camilla will change the moment he becomes king. The media dares to make fun of a pronce and heir, they won't do that to His Majesty the King and his wedded wife, be she known as Princess Consort or Queen then.

I sincerely hope you're right, but I think the press has become so bold that I wouldn't count on it. They still don't really attack the Queen because there's no mileage with public opinion in doing so, but King Charles with his ex-mistress by his side, and his earnest manner and his big ears and his bald patch? Considering the way some of the tabloids are going after Charles and Camilla now and managing to get a lot of support, it'll be much better for their bottom line if they can keep controversies going about whether William should really be King or whether we need a monarchy at all.
 
For a while I thought Camilla was starting to learn to work, after this last cruise.....well.....she needs a good talking to----toooo tired having another vacation. Regardless on what you think of Charles he does his duty. Camilla claims (at age 60) she is too old to work so hard. Wonder if she has looked at the Queen & Prince Phillip events. Shame on Camilla.
 
I am still scratching my head over the taxpayers having to foot her security bill for her pre-Duchess home:

Despite her rare visits, the Duchess insisted on beefing up security to a round-the-clock team of armed officers costing the taxpayer £2.6million.
I would think she would be obligated to work her old buns off in gratitude.:rolleyes:

D. Mail
 
I agree with anyone who thinks that the monarchy is less stable due to what happened and I see hard times ahead for a King Charles and Queen Camilla or whatever her title will be. If Charles & Diana had been a love match and great team until this day Britain would have the most stable monarchy we can imagine. Unfortunately, it was not meant to be and given Diana was unique in her impact on people Camilla cannot / does not want to / should not fill this gap. I don't have any objections towards her but she is not a people person who will make Charles sparkle and catch peoples' interest or imagination with a positive impact on the institution.

I think you hit the nail on the head DoM. The people have to care about the Royal Family and the people in them. And for all of Diana's sparkle, even in the early years before she turned against Charles, Diana failed miserably in getting Charles to sparkle or in catching the people's imagination in the Royal Institution itself.

Diana was only good at making Diana sparkle; she couldn't make the people and the institution around her sparkle unlike the late Queen Mother who did wonders with the public opinion of her somewhat stammering and socially awkward husband George VI. The late Queen Mother's sparkle enhanced the prestige of the Royal Family, Diana's sparkle only enhanced Diana's prestige and the more Diana sparkled, the worse the Royal Family's repuation became in comparison to Diana even so that even in the beginning when all were hopeful for the marriage, Diana's impact was detrimental to the reputation and the respect of the Royal Family without her even meaning to.

Maybe sparkle is the wrong word, the Royal Family does not need another Diana or someone who enhances her own reputation to the expense of the institution that gave her the center stage from which to charm and delight.

But I agree that Charles and Camilla need to find something that makes the people care about them and want them to be their King and Queen even with all their faults.

I mean, seriously, the Queen Mother was incredibly lazy, pompous, and she spent money like crazy and everybody loved her.
 
So I think that monarchs are still a rare breed and get much more public interest than any "common" Head of State. But I think it's a current trend to cut down on public expenses and thus monarchies will suffer, probably even more than other democracies.

Ceremonial functions and the people performing it need to give the people they are aiming at with their ceremonies something in return. It has to do with the subconcious value of rituals.

That is very true, I think Jo. So I think there the more that Charles and Camilla can connect to the familiar and traditional rituals that mean something to people the stronger the connection would be.
 
And a lot of people just say "get rid of the whole lot altogether" (like you said ysbel).

Actually that latter reaction seems to be pretty common. I have a professor who recently came over from Britain and he was saying that while his whole family are royalty fans, he has no use for the monarchy. He said basically, "All the queen's children are messed up, none of them could keep their marriages together." .

Yes that is what I'm afraid of. I think the more common reaction is to wipe the whole lot of them away.

However, the society that Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward sprang from is not innocent as a newborn babe. Divorces, adulteries, etc. are on the rise in all strata of society so a lot of people can empathize with them. I don't think that real esteem is forever lost simply because the royals have shown themselves to be human like the rest of us though.
 
I am still scratching my head over the taxpayers having to foot her security bill for her pre-Duchess home:

I would think she would be obligated to work her old buns off in gratitude.:rolleyes:

D. Mail


How often Camilla spends at Raymill is just a guess by the Daily Mail.:rolleyes: They have never said in any article they had anyone standing watch at Raymill for 365 days a year. Letting people know exactly how much time Camilla spends in Raymill, Highgrove or Clarence House would be a security issue.So I seriously doubt if the Mail really knows the real amount of time. Raymill was given better security because she obviously spends enough time there to warrant improved security. They claim that she barely spends any time there because the Mail caters to people like you who would get upset by it.:bang:
 
They claim... Mail caters to people like you who would get upset by it.:bang:

I don't care a wit as I don't foot the bill...as for catering to "people like me" you are assuming you know something about my reading habits. I was sent that site and thought it was funny.:ROFLMAO:
 
With all due respect, I believe that Diana gave Charles sparkle in the early years of their marriage. They both seemed to be happy and in love then, and they were an attractive couple to watch. Only time will tell what Prince Charles will be like as a king and how Camilla will complement him. I think that she is a good wife to him BTW.

even in the early years before she turned against Charles, Diana failed miserably in getting Charles to sparkle or in catching the people's imagination in the Royal Institution itself.
 
I looked at them in pictures from the islands today and thought wow he is really having a good time with her. I don't remember him smiling like this on tours with Diana after the first few years they were married.
I have to admit I looked at her and thought today Gosh I hope she never becomes Queen but look at him with such sadness that he married the wrong woman for him, spent years hiding Camilla only to marry her and think of all the years they lost in other marriages.
I also have to say looking at those pictures of her working by his side she really really must LOVE him to have taken on the role of his Duchess. It isn't a easy job and she could have easily said nope let's live like this unattached so I don't have to put up with all the other mess that comes with being married to you. LOL
She might have married him but please please don't make her the Queen of England. I think they are a great couple though.
Michelle
 
I think that Diana gave the RF celebrity in a world in which the cult of celebrity was rising and spreading. These days the public expects to be entertained constantly and instantly. They can see bright, shiny people with bright shiny smiles and bright shiny clothes on their televisions day and night, and in magazines, and on the internet anytime they want to. The Royal Family can't compete with that sort of entertainment; they have to offer something different. What can they offer? Tradition and heritage.

I think that whether Charles & Camilla ultimately sink or swim will depend on how much the British people value tradition and heritage, for I think that is what C&C offer. Charles, because he is the heir and the link with tradition and heritage, and Camilla because she is the sort of woman who should be his Queen. She is more than passingly similar to the beloved Queen Mother and is a warm, sensible, outdoorsy, type who does not seek to hog the limelight and has shown that she can make Charles laugh and enjoy himself in the discharge of his duties, and probably brings out the best in him even if he does not actually sparkle.
 
Last edited:
I felt the same way about Diana as you now feel about Catherine. Times and people change and although Diana caused a great deal of damage to the monarchy, it was hardly going to survive all the changes that have happened in the world, in a time warp. Although Diana had a following, it was not the whole of the UK or commonwealth countries, many like me couldn't stand her, many simple couldn't care less, for all the photo's and articles many saw her as a 'nice but dim opportunist'.

Bearing that in mind, the monarchy would still have been looking at ways to survive. As information has been easier to obtain, people with or without the 4 or so in the marriage, have been able to see exactly what they are getting out of the arrangement. The UK gets nothing from the CW countries and they get nothing from us, no monies, no influence, nothing.
On the contrary, Camilla appeals to the people who don't live their lives glued to soaps or BB, the very people who saw through Diana. Diana was as unique in her impact of some people, as any 'celebrity culture creatures', which is to say she was not unique at all, just one in a long line. Someone who IF she had an illness, would get it treated and say nothing, a woman who is the epitome of an HRH. She is seen as warm, caring and with a great sense of humour. Someone who will always put her husband and their children first.

As I have not seen a soap opera for 40 years and have no idea of what BB is, I guess your assessment is quite wrong. The derogatory inference that if one prefers Diana to Charles and Camilla they are "celebrity culture creatures", whatever that might be. As to the "someone who will always put her husband and their children first, which husband? She, certainly, didn't put either Andrew or her children first.
 
I looked at them in pictures from the islands today and thought wow he is really having a good time with her. I don't remember him smiling like this on tours with Diana after the first few years they were married.
I have to admit I looked at her and thought today Gosh I hope she never becomes Queen but look at him with such sadness that he married the wrong woman for him, spent years hiding Camilla only to marry her and think of all the years they lost in other marriages.
I also have to say looking at those pictures of her working by his side she really really must LOVE him to have taken on the role of his Duchess. It isn't a easy job and she could have easily said nope let's live like this unattached so I don't have to put up with all the other mess that comes with being married to you. LOL
She might have married him but please please don't make her the Queen of England. I think they are a great couple though.
Michelle

Camilla is his wife she will be queen when he ascends the throne.
Some people may not like the idea but it is what it is.:)
 
A lot of people don't like that idea. That's why we're debating in this forum!
 
Is there a particular reason why you are using an exclamation point?
 
If Charles becomes King, does that automatically make Camilla the Queen?
 
This may indeed be the common, and understandable, reaction of women who have cheating husbands .............. when the woman herself is not cheating. But when she is also cheating (Hewitt, et al), and may in fact have been the first to do so (Manakee and possibly also Henry Pembroke*, even earlier), the word that springs to my mind is hypocrite.
[my bolding]
(*See The Real Diana, Lady Colin Campbell, 2004 edition, Chapter 10.)
A fair number of ladies from the stable European monarchies opt for love affairs, thereby drowning-healing their hurt feelings in the ocean of passion with other partners and avenging themselves. However, it tends to be a short-term measure as cheating husbands may not display enough interest and jealousy to their wives' endeavours. This was Princess Diana's case, I dare to assume.
...[snipped]

But it appears that Charles and Camilla are not serial cheaters. They seem to prefer a boring, sedentary, somewhat bookish, and perfectly pleasant lifestyle. That is the image that they most convincingly portray because I think it is what they truly are despite everything that has happened.
Cheating is morally wrong and physically dirty. I for one think that one should not be a serial cheater to be a moral cripple. I can neither excuse Princess Diana for casting prudence to the wind and "drowning her sorrows" with other men nor Prince Charles for running to safe habours of his mistress as fast as he could. Both Prince Charles and Princess Diana behaved immaturely without fully comprehending the far-reaching implications attached to their actions and decisions.
... [snipped]
I guess now that the mystique has been lost and the royals have shown themselves to be ordinary people with glaring faults like anyone else, it will be nearly impossible to win back real esteem for the monarchy.
You are absolutely right... By showing their human side, royals tend to erode their celestial image and diminish respect of ordinary people.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom