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

[tinkerbell1948]

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.

And you believe the papers? Look at the photos, does she look too tired, too old, bored , whatever else they put? I think not

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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'd say in case you're female you probably have never been to a serious business or representation trip before, otherwise you wouldn't put your opinion (to which you of course have a right!) in such a way. I went to my first trip as a visting journalist at age 23 and it was "only" 4 days/3 nights. We stayed at the "Imperial" hotel in Vienna, went to dinner at Schwarzenberg Palais, had a late night supper after the opera at Sacher and enjoyed one evening at a posh Heurigen-location, while during the days we took a cruise down the Danube tasting wine or went to the Neusiedlersee and had a cruise there drinking wine. Plus we vistied around 10 winegrower and had several tastings where the whole region could present their wines to us. Lord, was I tired afterwards. And I had only to change dress and make-up in the evening. But alone doing all the talking and tasting etc. - it is soo tough doing this kind of duties, even though it looks so easy from the outside.

By now I feel much too old for that kind of stress and leave it to others. Doing a representation or business trip is simply not a vacation and a lady simply needs more time to get ready for an evening, especially if she is 60 years old. The argument that she was "too tired" only comes from the D.... Mail, claiming it came from one of her friends - such friends to have!

Before I'd use a word like shame I would check if there was even one engagement Camilla skipped or if it was just that on planning the trip the people responsible for the schedule realised that Camilla needed more time to get ready for the evening task and planned accordingly. I'd be grateful if you could provide a souce saying that she "skipped an engagement because she was too tired". In this case there would be an official reason given for her absence and so far I missed this official declaration.

But the whole things just shows how gullable envious people are = caribbean = vacation...what a simple equation. Nooen ever thinks of the poor people who have to work in such a climate.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

D. Mail

Gratitude for what? That due to the fact that someone else considers her now a person under threat and decided that her property has to be looked after she now has to take not only the risk but the responsibility for these decisions (which are surely well founded in the assessment of dangers to members of the RF)? Or working in a sort of pay back because she has had the "impertinence" of keeping her own home even though she married into a palace? If you were my daughter and I was in a situation like Camilla's and you would tell me I have to give up my own home, all that is left from my former life to rely completely on my new husband without the chance to be my old self for even a stolen moment any longer, I'd call you presumptious and impudent. And I hope Camilla is thinking along these lines when it comes to members of the public who have an opinion like you.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

Just to recall what you deem a "funny" comment:

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

Seems we don't share the same kind of humour.

 

[Skydragon]

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.

Perhaps you have misunderstood what was written, - 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. - We certainly didn't read any books or watch any Panorama interviews of Camilla trashing her childrens father, did we? So I think we can apply it to both husbands, her children and step children.

 

[Skydragon]

I am still scratching my head over the taxpayers having to foot her security bill for her pre-Duchess home:

Why, it is easy to understand. Any member of the Royal family is entitled to extra protection from the terrorist factions that live in the UK, enjoy all the UK has to offer, including free speech but want to destroy anything British - an HRH would be a marvelous target. Where else is Camilla supposed to meet up with her children and grandchildren, in private? Do you complain that ex prime ministers have their homes guarded. Of course it has to be guarded 24/7, or are we to presume that a terrorist or gunman will only go there when Camilla is in residence?

 

[Gaia]

Just to recall what you deem a "funny" comment:

Seems we don't share the same kind of humour.

The death of the security of this particular family is disturbing, starting with Manakee, but a discerning person like yourself should be able to see that I was referring to her beefed up security.

I don't adore Camilla, as I find her behavior during her first marriage deplorable and now that she has the coveted position many of us are watching her coming out. I dare say she does not have the stamina of Queen Elizabeth.

As for career comparisons, when I was corporate manager over 100's of people I was not pampered, but worked in negotiations from sunrise to sunset and it was gruelling...but I had to suck it up and put on my game face. Vacations on yachts didn't come until I retired and those trips had a very active social calendar that I enjoyed attending at my advanced age.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

T
As for career comparisons, when I was corporate manager over 100's of people I was not pampered, but worked in negotiations from sunrise to sunset and it was gruelling...but I had to suck it up and put on my game face. Vacations on yachts didn't come until I retired and those trips had a very active social calendar that I enjoyed attending at my advanced age.

Maybe one should simply accept that not all people are the same and what one enjoys others don't. But talking about a 11 day official visit to the Caribbean as some sort of "vacation onboard a yacht with an active social calender" simply don't seem to realise what such official visits are all about. IMHO, of course.

 

[Skydragon]

By now I feel much too old for that kind of stress and leave it to others. Doing a representation or business trip is simply not a vacation and a lady simply needs more time to get ready for an evening, especially if she is 60 years old.

I am also around Camilla's age and just traveling between London, Scotland and various other counties, is tiring and that is without the difference in heat and humidity Camilla is dealing with! When getting ready for formal events, of course women need more time, ensuring that you change for meals at home is bad enough. The only time I am close, time wise, with Mr S or the little S's, is when they are putting their dress uniforms on!

 

[Skydragon]

The death of the security of this particular family is disturbing, starting with Manakee, but a discerning person like yourself should be able to see that I was referring to her beefed up security.

The extra costs were to erect a building for the officers to use, including a WC and small kitchen, thus saving the taxpayers having to foot the bill of constant change overs in staff, for their statutory breaks. So it is not 'beefed up security' at all.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Ta discerning person like yourself should be able to see that I was referring to her beefed up security.

Sorry, sometimes it takes me a bit longer to answer to a certain statement because I mull over some English expressions.

Hm, "beefed up" - I like the expression as it is so seemingly speaking for itself, like a sandwich that gets an extra layer of salt beef to add to the boring tomato-lettuce-bacon-choice (Thank you, Skydragon, for pointing that out to me when I asked some times ago ). Of course, that extra layer makes the sandwich more costly, while I doubt it adds so much to the overall taste - the bacon should be able to "catch" that extra taste, shouldn't it?

So what I read into your expression is that you believe Camilla is responsible for added security costs of her private home because she wanted everything to be more posh while in the end the extra costs did not give any real extra value.

Now there is Skydragon's explanation where the money went... Hmmm... sorry, I don't see your point. Even worse, you mentioned your former job included being responsible for quite some people and still I don't get your way of thinking. Call me nasty, if you like but I guess your former subordinates would prefer Camilla as a boss. Because she learned the hard way how to deal with human weaknesses.

 

[Russophile]

Is there a particular reason why you are using an exclamation point?

I like punctuation!

 

[COUNTESS]

Perhaps you have misunderstood what was written, - 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. - We certainly didn't read any books or watch any Panorama interviews of Camilla trashing her childrens father, did we? So I think we can apply it to both husbands, her children and step children.

When she had the affair with Charles during her marriage, she was trashing her husband, whether she spoke of it or not. The Camillagate Tapes had to agony for her kids to hear and read. They all brought misery to their respective children, Camilla included. Sorry, a paragon of virtue she "ain't".

 

[Jo of Palatine]

When she had the affair with Charles during her marriage, she was trashing her husband, whether she spoke of it or not. The Camillagate Tapes had to agony for her kids to hear and read. They all brought misery to their respective children, Camilla included. Sorry, a paragon of virtue she "ain't".

IMHO this a rather too easy, too moralistic point of view. Are there any such paragons at all? And who are the people to judge them and award the medals? Not only courts of law but society has accepted during the last 150 years (at least the European ones have) that it's always worth to judge the circumstances as well as the people. Okay, it's different in the US where someone poor and famished can get imprisoned for life because he was caught stealing bread three times in a row...

To come back at your point: yes, Camilla had an affair with Charles. Her children claim none-the-less that she has loved and protected them in interviews. Camilla did not play out an erotic scene with Charles in front of her children, she was illegally intercepted while on the phone and that transcript was published by a media outlet hungry for money. In this respect she was a victim. Her husband at at that time was cheating on her.
Without the media catering to noisy people not involved in her life, no one would have realised Camilla was doing the same that her husband did to her. some sort of "fallen woman"!

 

[Skydragon]

When she had the affair with Charles during her marriage, she was trashing her husband, whether she spoke of it or not. The Camillagate Tapes had to agony for her kids to hear and read. They all brought misery to their respective children, Camilla included.

Really, could you name the book that she co wrote trashing Andrew & his entire family, could you name the TV programme where she recorded an interview telling the world how much she loved James, how about using the childrens' riding lessons to have a roll in the hay? The Squidgygate tape must have been absolute agony for William and Harry, to hear their mother simulating sex on the telephone.

Camilla never locked herself in the bathroom and had her children push tissues under the door, any crying she did, was done in private, not for the benefit of the press. Nor did she introduce a multitude of boyfriends into Laura and Tom's lives. As far as I recall, she never leaked stories to the press or snuck about telling favoured reporters little stories, she never claimed to have thrown herself down the stairs while pregnant either.

So I stand by my original statement, "Someone who will always put her husband and their children first"

 

[COUNTESS]

And I stand by my "which husband". You can't stand by your husband and have an affair. You may not broadcast it, but it is still a betrayal. You all like to point out Diana many faults, which were there. No argument. But since Andrew was having an affair, it was okay for Camilla, but not Diana? Lots of double standards. Oh, do you think they boys wanted to hear that their father wanted to be a tampon for another woman. Please. They are all far beneath good parents or spouses. None can claim anything in those titles. Whitewashing the past does not remove it. Diana did a lot of dumb things, Charles was a rapid contender. Reporters were never interested in Camilla and she knew which side her bread was buttered on.

 

[rmay286]

And I stand by my "which husband". You can't stand by your husband and have an affair. You may not broadcast it, but it is still a betrayal. You all like to point out Diana many faults, which were there. No argument. But since Andrew was having an affair, it was okay for Camilla, but not Diana? Lots of double standards. Oh, do you think they boys wanted to hear that their father wanted to be a tampon for another woman. Please. They are all far beneath good parents or spouses. None can claim anything in those titles. Whitewashing the past does not remove it. Diana did a lot of dumb things, Charles was a rapid contender. Reporters were never interested in Camilla and she knew which side her bread was buttered on.

I mostly agree with this--ie. that they all had their faults though I wouldn't say they were all far beneath good parents--I think Charles, Camilla and Diana all loved their children. Of course Diana portrayed herself as the victim for years and perhaps Charles and Camilla were "victims" of this, but I still stand by my opinion that all of them were more the victims of their own actions than anything else.

As for whether it was worse for Diana to be crying in front of her children or worse for Charles and Camilla to be saying things in private that could hurt or embarrass their children, I don't really see much of a difference. Private or public the actions hurt people, they were wrong. I have never been inside either of their heads. Maybe lashing out and manipulatively hurting people was the first form of coping that entered Diana's mind, having seen this between her parents. Sure, she could have stopped doing this, but it would have been much harder for her than for Camilla, who had grown up in a much more stable family and who maybe never even thought of doing the things Diana did. Why would I give Camilla credit for not doing something she never even felt like doing? On the other hand, why would I give Diana credit for (depending on who you believe) not being the first one in the marriage to have an affair, when she didn't have an ex-lover to fall back on?

You have to remember I am honestly no more a fan of Diana than of Camilla, or vice versa. People tend to take sides in this debate because they can relate to one woman more than another--nothing wrong with that--but I really don't feel any particular affinity with either of them. So if my comments come across as too hard on one woman or the other, it's not because I'm privately on one "side".

 

[BellaFay]

And I stand by my "which husband". You can't stand by your husband and have an affair. You may not broadcast it, but it is still a betrayal. You all like to point out Diana many faults, which were there. No argument. But since Andrew was having an affair, it was okay for Camilla, but not Diana? Lots of double standards. Oh, do you think they boys wanted to hear that their father wanted to be a tampon for another woman. Please. They are all far beneath good parents or spouses. None can claim anything in those titles. Whitewashing the past does not remove it. Diana did a lot of dumb things, Charles was a rapid contender. Reporters were never interested in Camilla and she knew which side her bread was buttered on.

Andrew and Camilla's marriage was an arranged marriage - arranged for the benefit of those who wanted to ensure that Camilla was not still single when Charles sailed back from naval duties in September 1973. Who says - Andrew himself told one of his friends at the time in 1973 Jonny Bowes-Lyon he then told Woodrow Wyatt who wrote it in his diary which was published posthumously in about 1998. The arranged marriage suited Andrew as he simply continued to have adulterous affairs. In 2006 it was revealed after the death of the Earl of Pembroke that Diana's 1st affair was with the Earl in 1983 - only 2 years after her marriage to Charles and long before Charles got back together with Camilla. That only happened after he found out about her affair with Barry Mannakee in the summer of 1986. Sorry, but there are some of us who are fed up with having Diana's lies regurgutated as the truth ad infinitum.

 

[Skydragon]

And I stand by my "which husband". You can't stand by your husband and have an affair. You may not broadcast it, but it is still a betrayal.

Oh dear, you certainly seem to be having trouble reading my posts, I did not use your expression - stand by your husband - I said and I can't really put it in any other simple way -
"Someone who will always put her husband and their children first".

Once again, sadly, you appear to have misunderstood/misquoted what Charles actually said in the conversation, just repeated the tabloid headline.

far from the press not being interested in Camilla's side of the story, they would have paid many millions for it, goodness they have, I understand, offered thousands to any friend who will speak, without any success to date. That is the mark of a good woman who can gather such loyal friends.

 

[TheTruth]

Oh dear, you certainly seem to be having trouble reading my posts, I did not use your expression - stand by your husband - I said and I can't really put it in any other simple way -
"Someone who will always put her husband and their children first".

Once again, sadly, you appear to have misunderstood/misquoted what Charles actually said in the conversation, just repeated the tabloid headline.

far from the press not being interested in Camilla's side of the story, they would have paid many millions for it, goodness they have, I understand, offered thousands to any friend who will speak, without any success to date. That is the mark of a good woman who can gather such loyal friends.

Since when you need to be a good person to gather loyal friends ? Many examples in History would prove the contrary.

Anyway, I agree with you that Diana has been to far in making her private life public. She, IMO, paid the price but all her relatives paid double : they were sadden by her revelations AND by her death.

 

[Skydragon]

Since when you need to be a good person to gather loyal friends ? Many examples in History would prove the contrary.

I disagree, if you are not well thought of by your friends, they have no loyalty towards you.

What is your explanation for her friends silence, for all these years? There has to be something about her that attracts such loyalty and I believe it to be her loyalty and general treatment of the people lucky enough to be counted by her as friends. That to me is the mark of a good woman.

 

[TheTruth]

I disagree, if you are not well thought of by your friends, they have no loyalty towards you.

What is your explanation for her friends silence, for all these years? There has to be something about her that attracts such loyalty and I believe it to be her loyalty and general treatment of the people lucky enough to be counted by her as friends. That to me is the mark of a good woman.

What I actually meant is that you don't need to be a good woman/man to have loyal friends. Here's a random example (no comparison AT ALL with Camilla but I don't know how I could explain it otherwise). Hitler had very loyal friends and many never betrayed him ; does this make him a good man ?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

What I actually meant is that you don't need to be a good woman/man to have loyal friends. Here's a random example (no comparison AT ALL with Camilla but I don't know how I could explain it otherwise). Hitler had very loyal friends and many never betrayed him ; does this make him a good man ?

Kelly, please - no Hitler comparisons - this normally ends any discussion. And there were (thank the Lord!) lots who talked - they were not listened to, that was the sad thing!"

 

[COUNTESS]

I, too, was going to use the Hitler analogy, thank you. He still has loyal followers. As for protection, John Kennedy, said it best. It they want to kill you there is always a way. And, sadly, they did. Camilla is probably one of the least likely targets, but heck, it is not up to us. And, as Al Bina has stated, we're not paying for it. And, yes, there can always be some nut out there at any time, you can never prevent that.

 

[TheTruth]

Kelly, please - no Hitler comparisons - this normally ends any discussion. And there were (thank the Lord!) lots who talked - they were not listened to, that was the sad thing!"

Yep, you're right, sorry about that. But to me, no matter how loyal are your friends, it doesn't represent the person you are.

 

[Russophile]

But to me, no matter how loyal are your friends, it doesn't represent the person you are.

I dunno. I look at the Paris Hilton's and the Nicole Richies who run around talking about how loyal they are then turn around and stab each other in the back.
I think it's a tribute to The Duchess that she has a tight group of people zipping it, so to speak. Too many "Loyal" people were only too willing to give up Diana and Fergie. . . .

 

[Skydragon]

What I actually meant is that you don't need to be a good woman/man to have loyal friends. Here's a random example (no comparison AT ALL with Camilla but I don't know how I could explain it otherwise). Hitler had very loyal friends and many never betrayed him ; does this make him a good man ?

I think that was more a case of loyalty through fear of Hitler and then loyalty for fear of what the allies would do. Many of his so called friends supported him because they too were evil. Many of his acquaintances spoke out, some to defend, some to condemn. So I think your comparison, however vague, falls at the first hurdle.

The only friend who has spoken, was Jilly and that was with tacit approval and an agreement that she would be very careful in what she said, I understand.

I was originally going to put 'a good egg', but reasoned that the other poster was having enough trouble understanding my posts, without confusing her further, however I still think Camilla to be a good person, good mother and someone who always puts her husband and children first - both husbands!

 

[Skydragon]

Yep, you're right, sorry about that. But to me, no matter how loyal are your friends, it doesn't represent the person you are.

I on the other hand believe it does. Respect and loyalty are earned not just given.

 

[Gaia]

Call me nasty, if you like but I guess your former subordinates would prefer Camilla as a boss. Because she learned the hard way how to deal with human weaknesses.

Quite the contrary, my sub's respected hard workers and honorable behavior, it is/was our corporate culture, in fact I guess our country tends to lean toward this benchmark too. Queens Elizabeth, Beatrix, Sofia etc. seem to fit this description and they are all older.

As for calling you nasty, no..the comment amuses me.

 

[Skydragon]

Quite the contrary, my sub's respected hard workers and honorable behavior, it is/was our corporate culture,

Really, from what we see of many businesses, honour does not come into it.

Even the various religions have problems with the concept of honour. It all depends on a personal view, after all, many women are killed each year in 'honour killings' and the people involved believe they acted to protect their code of honour. So as we can see, what is one persons idea of honour is not everyones idea of honour.