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

[Elspeth]

General discussion about religion and ethics should be done in the chat room, please.

 

[Empress]

Frankly, I think that it all boils down to a few things. Camilla, as a divorcee, was not entirely acceptable as a spouse for a future sovereign historically speaking. Diana or no Diana. However, times change, and she was accepted. Frankly, I find this a bit sad, not because I like her or don't like, I don't have any particular feelings for her or Diana, but I think that it is sad because as a future monarch and supposed "upper crust" it is the job of Charles to set the standards for his "people". Anyone who is in any position of influence should realize this and take it seriously. I think the behaviour of all three was appalling! And not at all respectable, and then to follow it up by breaking entirely with tradition in one fell swoop, marrying a divorcee, and then giving her a lesser title is just stupid.

Now as to whether a new title should be created for Camilla, I should hope not. Titles should have some historic signifigance and not be thrown about willy nillly as an "I'm sorry" or other senseless gesture.

And I agree that her children from a previous marriage should not benefit from her current marriage publicly at least.

 

[Skydragon]

..... I find this a bit sad, not because I like her or don't like, I don't have any particular feelings for her or Diana, but I think that it is sad because as a future monarch and supposed "upper crust" it is the job of Charles to set the standards for his "people".

Divorces have happened within the 'upper crust' (upper class & Aristocracy) long before Charles' time, even before Henry. I find it hard to believe that anyone from Charles' social circle or class, expects anyone to set them an example.

Aristocrats and upper classes are still human.

 

[Empress]

I agree that they are still human, and it's not so much the divorce that is sad, but the behaviour that surrounded it, before and after. And so publicly...

 

[Skydragon]

I agree that they are still human, and it's not so much the divorce that is sad, but the behaviour that surrounded it, before and after. And so publicly...

Unfortunately it wasn't Charles or Camilla that fed the gossip or made accusations. Separations are invariably messy and if the media and buying public had allowed them to 'sort it out', in private, who knows what might have happened. There were suggestions that Princess Alexander and Prince Joachim had other partners, but discretion and dignity allowed for a less public separation and divorce.

Do I blame Diana, Charles or Camilla for the debacle, yes in part, but the biggest contributors were the media and the celebrity obsessed public.

 

[LadyCat]

Look, it was going to be an uphill battle when they decided they wanted to marry, constitutionally as well as the man in the street issue. There was a BBC poll at the time of the engagement that about 2/3 of the respondants took the position that if Charles wanted to marry Camilla he should step down from the succession.

Charles and Camilla's engagement announcement was not even a blip on my radar, unfortunately. My life was pretty crazy at the time it happened so it went pretty much unnoticed by me.

I really didn't intend to come across as blaming Diana and her still loyal following for the situation. Usually I refrain from responding to various posts or voicing my opinions in the heat of the moment because it ends up sounding much like a rant, as in this case.

I place little faith in these so-called public opinion polls, as they usually are not in keeping with actually public opinion for various reasons. Let's face it, the person most likely to respond to an open poll is the person strongly against the subject. Those who are ambivalent or "for" it generally feel no need to voice it, the detractors are not so silent.

There are quite a few irrational minds when it comes to Camilla. Some dislike her because of Diana, some for other reasons. But is it not all water under the bridge after so many years? Charles and Camilla are obviously happy, despite claims by various news outlets to the contrary. Camilla carries out her duties with grace, dignity, class and warmth. She has proved to be quite an asset to the Royal Family despite the bad press from years ago. In short, she has been excellent Duchess of Cornwall, and will make an excellent Queen.

Cat

 

[Empress]

I don't think that (at least for me) that it has anything to do with the current situation of Charles and Camilla. I think that everyone has a right to be happy. For me it is simply that they all (all 3 of them) behaved badly, especially since they were in a public sphere and knew that everything they did would be detailed minutely in the papers, and both Diana and Charles encouraged that by airing their dirty laundry in public with interviews. Wrong on all accounts. Camilla should have stayed away from a married man just as Charles should have had the gumption to either stay true to his vows or bow out gracefully, whilst Diana should have stayed true to her marriage vows, or at the very least they should have been discreet.

The lack of respect for the state of marriage is my problem with all three of them. And the fact that they clearly did not consider the children involved when they started trashing one another publicly just makes me angry. Why should I feel sympathy for any of them or think that Charles deserves to be King any more than Diana or Camilla deserved/s to be Queen when none of the three managed to behave with a modicum of respect in the past. Granted Camilla did not air her dirty laundry in public, and for that I commend her, but she did conduct an affair with a married man. I think that a monarch should be an example of how people should lead their lives. And if they choose to do things that are morally reprehensible then they should at least be discreet. I think that it would be difficult for anyone to follow in QEII's footsteps, but they should at least attempt to do so if they want to be a respected monarch.

Now, having said that, I think that Camilla has done well since becoming Charles' wife. But for me, her previous actions can't be wiped out any more than the other two.

However, if I must choose which one I think behaved with the most class (and I use that term sparingly) then I would have to choose Camilla, because she at least attempted to keep the whole mess quiet, at least from her end.

 

[jcbcode99]

I agree that all parties in this debacle share the blame--who holds the most blame? That is a question for considerable debate (as this thread has amply demonstrated) but as much as I admire and respect Prince Charles perhaps he is at the most fault for being so charming, having two women love him must have not always been a walk in the park, and he should have married Camilla when he had the chance. I do think he loved Diana and wanted to make it work but she had her own set of issues, he had his, and both were probably rather selfish. The least selfish person in this whole situation was probably Camilla, who never really wanted anything more than Charles' love and was probably quite happy going on her way in the country wearing her muddy boots. I believe she has been unchanging or unwavering in her love and committment to him--and quiet to the tabloids, televison, and books. Her discretion is what makes me applaud her; it is that type of trait which will make her an excellent Queen, because she is the wife of the monarch it is the title she deserves, and in my opinion, has earned.

 

[Empress]

And there is the crux of the matter. Frankly I don't think (and I hope) that she does not give a fig about whatever her title is. If she truly married for love and would be happy with her muddy botts, then she does not care is my opinion. And if she does care, well, then I would think less of her. A person should choose to be with someone for who they are and not what they are to become. Or what they can gain from the marriage.

 

[Al_bina]

With all due respect, jcbcode99, but your depiction of Duchess of Cornwall is a way too ideal and somewhat Utopian. She is supposed to be human with all negative and positive traits. Am I correct? She made her choices after pondering over them, I dare to assume. Yes, she was and is discreet, but selfless is questionable. No one is selfless, when it comes to love.
Generally speaking, people expect too much from the British Royal family that is keen on showing their human side. Saving the face is not so important nowadays anyway. People, who dislike Duchess of Cornwall for any reason, should keep in mind that everything tends to be temporary in this world. It is as simple as that.
By the way, I am in fully agreement with Empress' opinions on the matter.

 

[jcbcode99]

It may be too idealized and utopian (a word I love, by the way, that is not used much anymore) but I honestly see her that way. Now, I agree that everything is more complicated than I stated--but it was a quick summation of my take on it. But, honestly, Camilla never talks to tabloids, her friends don't talk, there is none of this behavior that we have seen elsewhere; she is happiest in the country and those Camilla-gate tapes prove that she loves Charles for Charles.
That being said (and apologies to Warren for moving away from topic brieflyl), Empress raises a point that has not been discussed as much as I thought it would have been: Camilla doesn't really care about her title. I have to say that I would probably agree with that statement--she doesn't strike me as the sort to ride a tricycle around Buckingham Palace singing "I'm going to be Queen"--she's very low-key. But, even if she doesn't care about her title does that mean she should receive a lesser title? I don't think it does--I base my rationale for Camilla being Queen on the fact that as the wife of a King she should hold the same rank. If that does not happen, I do like the idea of HRH The Princess Consort, Duchess/Countess of something she can pass down (even if Tom doesn't necesssarily deserve it I'm sure the grandchildren would appreciate the gesture). I happen to think that is a good compromise not dissimilar to what occurred with Prince Phillip.

 

[Madame Royale]

Strictly regarding Camilla and Charles

title she deserves

I admitt, I find this interesting and it make's one think, for the first time throughout the whole process, about what is entitled by tradition, and what is deserved via action's.

There is needless to say, a comparable difference and it is here that I find it becomes a question of substantial bearing on the matter.

I live not in a world of ignorance, and I fully understand, as I always have, that the Princess Consort alternative was mentioned, and proposed, only because of the circumstances in which Camilla, a married woman, sought (or rather, was the one sought out perhaps) the extra marital companionship of another, the Prince of Wales, who himself being a married man, consented to an affair. An adultress, a mistress, a homewrecker and a cheat, who against the sanctity of her vows, endeavoured to partake in a sexual liaison with a married man and in the process, would not forgo the pursuit even when it became public knowledge. Unfortunately, and I mean unfortunately, for a great many Camilla, no matter the style or titles she now hold's and will proceed to bear as a lawful and devoted wife, will, as a consequence of all those years back, be 'the other woman', and that is something which, I believe, a vast array of peoples in Britain continue to begrudge her for.

Adultress, wife, Duchess, Queen? Perhaps Clarence House has made the best decision, no matter the traditional entitlements of a reigning consort. The situation, no matter what anyone says, is unique and should be accorded the diligence it so deserves.

The thought of Camilla being crowned Queen does leave a bad taste in the mouths of more than perhaps it should, and what a society of hypocrites we live in. Though of our leaders and figureheads we expect (though realise they are human themselves), that they represent what is good and wholsome in society. Charles and Camilla however represented the opposite and the public can remain relatively unforgiving of people who they believe have let them down, one way or another. And though it may sound weird to some, the royal family really is the centre of British culture and nationalism and their actions have a kind of ripple effect through society. No matter the class.

So, while she may be entitled to become Queen, it perhaps has more to with what scoiety percieves as being deserved and what it is they believe inspires that confidence.

Now, the above does not expresses my personal thoughts on the affair, because it has always remained my strong belief that what's their business is their business and my wanting of Camilla to be created Princess Consort is not influenced, in any way, by her past actions, or the past actions of her husband. It just so happened I really liked it, and through it all was able to identify a very real and supportive opinion of it for an array benevolent reasons which I continue to stand by...

 

[Skydragon]

....SHORTENED QUOTE.... An adultress, a mistress, a homewrecker and a cheat, who against the sanctity of her vows, endeavoured to partake in a sexual liaison with a married man and in the process, would not forgo the pursuit even when it became public knowledge.........
So, while she may be entitled to become Queen, it perhaps has more to with what scoiety percieves as being deserved and what it is they believe inspires that confidence.

I strongly disagree with your label of home wrecker, Charles' marriage to his former wife was going downhill within a week of the ceremony, IMO. Society seems to be a lot more forgiving nowadays, too many are caught up in the 66.6% of marriages that end in divorce and the probable 66.6% of 'survivors' being miserable within their marriages

Now, the above does not expresses my personal thoughts on the affair, because it has always remained my strong belief that what's their business is their business and my wanting of Camilla to be created Princess Consort is not influenced, in any way, by her past actions, or the past actions of her husband. It just so happened I really liked it, and through it all was able to identify a very real and supportive opinion of it for an array benevolent reasons which I continue to stand by...

You say what you have written does not express your 'personal thoughts', then who are you suggesting that you are speaking for? Then why are you so strongly against Camilla becoming Queen to Charles' King. You state you have nothing against her and yet you would be happy to see her denied her rightful title. That you like the title Princess Consort, why, because it is a lesser title?

 

[MARG]

. . . . You state you have nothing against her and yet you would be happy to see her denied her rightful title. That you like the title Princess Consort, why, because it is a lesser title?

In these few words you seem to have identified the big contradiction in terms.

Nothing against her/May actually quite like her BUT Don't want her to have her rightful title = Queen.

This is so utterly bizzarre. It beggars belief that people can actually rationalise this position.

 

[LadyCat]

If Camilla can be labeled "an adultress, a mistress, a homewrecker and a cheat, who against the sanctity of her vows, endeavoured to partake in a sexual liaison with a married man and in the process, would not forgo the pursuit even when it became public knowledge[Madame_Royale]" can't the same be said about Charles? After all it takes two to tango and they were both married to other people at the time.

For whatever reasons they chose not to extricate themselves from their respective bad marriages before they took up with one another. I'm not saying it's right, in fact it goes against everything I personally believe, but it happens every day, in every walk of life, in every country in the world.

Bertie cheated shamelessly and publicly on Alexandra and still became King. The situations are different as none of his many mistresses became his wife and later Queen, but my point is that it has been happening both inside and outside the Royal Family for generations. And if Camilla is not deserving of becoming Queen then it follows that those who feel this way would consider Charles unworthy of being King.

It is entirely possible that Queen Elizabeth will live another 10 to 20 years. Surely in that length of time people can forgive, if not forget, and judge Camilla by her actions of today and not her past actions. That is all water under the bridge and the people most affected, Charles and Camilla's respective children, seen to be quite happy that their parents are happy.

Charles has done a lot of good as Prince of Wales, I especially like his Poundbury project, his commitment to the environment and organic food production. I love that he abhors cookie-cutter housing developments as I feel much the same. He has been a King in Waiting for a very long time and there is no end in sight.

Separately or together, I have grown to like these two over the past few years, which as always falls in the "for what it's worth" department as I am an American, therefore Charles will not be my King, nor Camilla my Queen.

Cat

 

[scooter]

I strongly disagree with your label of home wrecker, Charles' marriage to his former wife was going downhill within a week of the ceremony, IMO.

Regardless of the rationalization of the state of the Wales Marriage one week into it, Camilla chose to betray her wedding vows to Andrew Parker-Bowles, however many weeks into it (before and after the Wales marriage) to commit adultery with Charles, which effectively 'wrecked' the PB marriage, thus the homewrecker/adulteress description. Look, now they are happy; but must we pretend that the past does not exist? Perhaps people will be more accepting as time goes by. But denying the past and pretending it did not happen costs credibility when discussing the present or the future. JMO.

 

[MARG]

. . . . But denying the past and pretending it did not happen costs credibility when discussing the present or the future. JMO.

I think this thread is very good as it exposes the contradictions most of us live with. Basically, I (we) can do whatever we want, but Prince Charles may not!

I don't know about any of you, but I am not the same person I was 15 years ago, nor 10, nor even 5. I am a person who (hopefully) has lived, loved, learned and grown in knowledge. I have learned the shades of grey that inhabit the spaces between black and white. Because I have changed, I expect that everyone else has too, and that includes Charles and Camilla.

There must surely be a cut-off point at which we and they can leave the past behind and emerge as a better person, the sum of all our parts. I am persuaded that Charles and Camilla have more than paid their dues, and it is surely way past time that we allow them to be the sum of all their parts too.

They are a wonderful couple today, and their children have accepted who and what their parents are and are in close and happy relationships with them. If they can move on, it's about time we did!

 

[cde]

I strongly disagree with your label of home wrecker, Charles' marriage to his former wife was going downhill within a week of the ceremony, IMO. ]
Regardless of the rationalization of the state of the Wales Marriage one week into it, Camilla chose to betray her wedding vows to Andrew Parker-Bowles, however many weeks into it (before and after the Wales marriage) to commit adultery with Charles, which effectively 'wrecked' the PB marriage, thus the homewrecker/adulteress description. Look, now they are happy; but must we pretend that the past does not exist? Perhaps people will be more accepting as time goes by. But denying the past and pretending it did not happen costs credibility when discussing the present or the future. JMO.

Scooter, if you are going to discuss PB marriage and who was the marriage wrecker, at least be accurate Andrew Parker Bowles cheating on Camilla continuously throughout their marriage pretty much from the honeymoon was the real wrecker of their marriage. When Camilla started her affair up again he didn't care, he encouraged it. IMO Andrew's place in this is pretty ignored, but he was, I strongly believe, the domino effect of this whole thing. Camilla's cheating really only became a problem for Andrew when Diana outed Camilla and it made the papers eventually leading to their divorce.

 

[Skydragon]

Regardless of the rationalization of the state of the Wales Marriage one week into it, Camilla chose to betray her wedding vows to Andrew Parker-Bowles, however many weeks into it (before and after the Wales marriage) to commit adultery with Charles, which effectively 'wrecked' the PB marriage, thus the homewrecker/adulteress description. Look, now they are happy; but must we pretend that the past does not exist? Perhaps people will be more accepting as time goes by. But denying the past and pretending it did not happen costs credibility when discussing the present or the future. JMO.

As cde has pointed out, and as most people know, or so I thought, APB was the homewrecker in the PB household. I have read through my post and the mislabeling I objected to was homewrecker, but I do realise some don't like to miss any opportunity. If you really want to be accurate, Diana wrecked the Parker Bowles marriage when she outed the affair between Charles and Camilla, (whilst omiting her own affairs)!

 

[sirhon11234]

Well Charles publicly confirmed in his interview that he and Camilla had an affair. After that they did get a divorce since everyone knew the marriage was over between them.
IMO Charles and Diana were one of the reasons of the breakdown of the PB marriage.

 

[Al_bina]

In my personal opinion, Duchess of Cornwall and the late Princess Diana were the home-wreckers, who made conscious choices to "soil" (I have not found a better word) their marriages by having affairs/liaisons. There is no more or less guilty in this situation.

 

[Madame Royale]

I strongly disagree with your label of home wrecker, Charles' marriage to his former wife was going downhill within a week of the ceremony, IMO. Society seems to be a lot more forgiving nowadays, too many are caught up in the 66.6% of marriages that end in divorce and the probable 66.6% of 'survivors' being miserable within their marriages

You say what you have written does not express your 'personal thoughts', then who are you suggesting that you are speaking for? Then why are you so strongly against Camilla becoming Queen to Charles' King. You state you have nothing against her and yet you would be happy to see her denied her rightful title. That you like the title Princess Consort, why, because it is a lesser title?

Even when one makes clear their feelings since joining the forum some two years ago, some still find the need to press a point that a) neither exists or b) suits an agenda to support their own rantionale.

You can strongly disagree with the labeling of Camilla as having been a 'homewrecker' all you like, and I'm glade you do because I strongly disagree with it aswell and totally concur on the points you raised. Which, was the whole point of my post. The post I wrote expressed a sentiment that I've witnessed, but not one I share. Nor have I ever shared.

You seem to highlight extracts which would then, possibly, give you a foundation to ill judge my intent, but it doesn't because you fail to also mention that I noted we live in a society of hypochrites. Which I may like to add, would be a perfect example of those who willingly partake in extra marital affairs yet have shared in the comdemnation of Camilla for exactly the same thing. And not just those who seek company elsewhere, but people in general.

Clearly not sharing your opinion would then mean one cannot think highly of Camilla. Rediculous.

Why am I against her being Queen? It's not that I'm against Camilla being Queen, as some would attempt to imply, rather would like to see her be created a Princess of the UK because, quite simply, I think it better suits her. May it be an unconventional endorsement then so be it. Though on my behalf there is no spiteful intent, at all, and so at some point I'd suggest, and appreciate it, if you didn't imply there is because it makes you seem terribly incoherent too what's already been said, and on more than one occasion. I have justified my reasons (whether or not if some care to take it for what it is) and made clear my feelings towards the Duchess.

I like the title Princess Consort because I like it. Believe it or not, that's it. It has absolutely nothing to do with her bearing a lesser title, though granted that is what it would be. But it is for no ill feeling that I'd support her being created a Princess in her own right. Not that you'd be aware, and not that I'd expect you to be, but I'm not that kind of person. I have acknowledged that my reasons are my own, and would, I'm sure, differ to those of Clarence House and why it was even proposed.

can't the same be said about Charles? After all it takes two to tango and they were both married to other people at the time.

Yes, it can be and I'm not sure why it is that some read only what they wish to read.

"only because of the circumstances in which Camilla, a married woman, sought (or rather, was the one sought out perhaps)"...

How does the above dismiss Charles's participation, if not possible instigation? Quite simply, it does nothing of the sort and well brings him into the equation that was their relationship at the time.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Divorces have happened within the 'upper crust' (upper class & Aristocracy) long before Charles' time, even before Henry. I find it hard to believe that anyone from Charles' social circle or class, expects anyone to set them an example.

Aristocrats and upper classes are still human.

Aristocrats and upper classes?? Certainly. But among those who are set to be anointed RULERS... sorry. They are human indeed but they have a standard to set for those they lead. And if the cannot live up to that standard, well then...why have them rule at all if they are just any common man on the street??

Speaking of commen men and women, I know several of them who handled their divorces and separtions with much more dignity than Charles, Camilla and Diana.

I was embarrassed for all three of them.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Unfortunately it wasn't Charles or Camilla that fed the gossip or made accusations. Separations are invariably messy and if the media and buying public had allowed them to 'sort it out', in private, who knows what might have happened. There were suggestions that Princess Alexander and Prince Joachim had other partners, but discretion and dignity allowed for a less public separation and divorce.

Do I blame Diana, Charles or Camilla for the debacle, yes in part, but the biggest contributors were the media and the celebrity obsessed public.

Charles and Camilla did not stay above the fray during that mess. They did not phone up the press like Diana did but they had their henchmen like Nicholas Soames speaking to the media all the time...hinting that Diana was mentally ill and paranoid. One of the British papers even printed a laundry list of details on Diana's personal expenses that reputedly humiliated her so much she was reduced to tears.

And I will never understand why Charles told Jonathan Dimbleby that he had never loved the mother of his own children...for God's sake even if it that was true did he need to say it out loud for his kids to hear? And for Diana to do that stupid Martin Bashir interview as a sort of revenge was just unforgiveable.

I agree with the poster who said they both behaved abominably.

 

[Elspeth]

You say what you have written does not express your'personal thoughts', then who are you suggesting that you are speaking for? Then why are you so strongly against Camilla becoming Queen to Charles' King. You state you have nothing against her and yet you would be happy to see her denied her rightful title. That you like the title Princess Consort, why, because it is a lesser title?

I think Madame_Royale is making it fairly clear that she's talking about the subset of British people who believe that Camilla shouldn't be Queen because of her presence in Charles's life during his marriage. If she herself believes that a unique situation is suited to a unique title, without laying blame for the cause of the CCD debacle, that's a different reason from the rather vindictive one which says that Camilla should be punished for breaking up Charles and Diana's marriage, an opinion held by the above-mentioned subset.

In other words, if I'm reading Madame Royale's posts right, she's talking about different reasons, some of which she agrees with and some of which she doesn't.

 

[Skydragon]

Even when one makes clear their feelings since joining the forum some two years ago, some still find the need to press a point that a) neither exists or b) suits an agenda to support their own rantionale.

You can strongly disagree with the labeling of Camilla as having been a 'homewrecker' all you like, and I'm glade you do because I strongly disagree with it aswell and totally concur on the points you raised. Which, was the whole point of my post. The post I wrote expressed a sentiment that I've witnessed, but not one I share. Nor have I ever shared.

You seem to highlight extracts which would then, possibly, give you a foundation to ill judge my intent, but it doesn't because you fail to also mention that I noted we live in a society of hypochrites. Which I may like to add, would be a perfect example of those who willingly partake in extra marital affairs yet have shared in the comdemnation of Camilla for exactly the same thing. And not just those who seek company elsewhere, but people in general.

Clearly not sharing your opinion would then mean one cannot think highly of Camilla. Rediculous.

Why am I against her being Queen? It's not that I'm against Camilla being Queen, as some would attempt to imply, rather would like to see her be created a Princess of the UK because, quite simply, I think it better suits her. May it be an unconventional endorsement then so be it. Though on my behalf there is no spiteful intent, at all, and so at some point I'd suggest, and appreciate it, if you didn't imply there is because it makes you seem terribly incoherent too what's already been said, and on more than one occasion. I have justified my reasons (whether or not if some care to take it for what it is) and made clear my feelings towards the Duchess.

I like the title Princess Consort because I like it. Believe it or not, that's it. It has absolutely nothing to do with her bearing a lesser title, though granted that is what it would be. But it is for no ill feeling that I'd support her being created a Princess in her own right. Not that you'd be aware, and not that I'd expect you to be, but I'm not that kind of person. I have acknowledged that my reasons are my own, and would, I'm sure, differ to those of Clarence House and why it was even proposed.

Yes, it can be and I'm not sure why it is that some read only what they wish to read.

"only because of the circumstances in which Camilla, a married woman, sought (or rather, was the one sought out perhaps)"...

How does the above dismiss Charles's participation, if not posisble instigation? Quite simply, it does nothing of the sort and well brings him into the equation that was their relationship at the time.

Ahh the old agenda! It would appear I was not the only one puzzled by your post. I shortened your earlier post because the portions I removed did not contain the sections I was questioning. You seem to be inferring that you know what others are saying and indeed think and I asked you to clarify. I have left this one untouched as I would not want you to suggest anything salient was deliberately left out.

I am puzzled as to why you would not wish to see Camilla with her rightful title, which you say is because you prefer Princess Consort and for no other reason. Therefore I have to ask the burning question, would you have been happy for Diana to be called Princess Consort?

 

[Skydragon]

Charles and Camilla did not stay above the fray during that mess. They did not phone up the press like Diana did but they had their henchmen like Nicholas Soames speaking to the media all the time...hinting that Diana was mentally ill and paranoid. One of the British papers even printed a laundry list of details on Diana's personal expenses that reputedly humiliated her so much she was reduced to tears..

Soames made his comments after the Panorama interview, I don't recall any evidence to earlier chats to the media from him. I don't recall the laundry list either, do you have a link or timeline to this story?

 

[BellaFay]

And I will never understand why Charles told Jonathan Dimbleby that he had never loved the mother of his own children...

Prince Charles never told Dimbleby that he had never loved Diana either in his tv interview or in the book. As for the list of Diana's personal expenditure - that was produced by her solicitors to back up her alimony claim.

 

[Madame Royale]

I think Madame_Royale is making it fairly clear that she's talking about the subset of British people who believe that Camilla shouldn't be Queen because of her presence in Charles's life during his marriage. If she herself believes that a unique situation is suited to a unique title, without laying blame for the cause of the CCD debacle, that's a different reason from the rather vindictive one which says that Camilla should be punished for breaking up Charles and Diana's marriage, an opinion held by the above-mentioned subset.

In other words, if I'm reading Madame Royale's posts right, she's talking about different reasons, some of which she agrees with and some of which she doesn't.

Thank you, Elspeth. You undertsood me precisely.

 

[Skydragon]

I think Madame_Royale is making it fairly clear that she's talking about the subset of British people who believe that Camilla shouldn't be Queen because of her presence in Charles's life during his marriage. If she herself believes that a unique situation is suited to a unique title, without laying blame for the cause of the CCD debacle, that's a different reason from the rather vindictive one which says that Camilla should be punished for breaking up Charles and Diana's marriage, an opinion held by the above-mentioned subset.

In other words, if I'm reading Madame Royale's posts right, she's talking about different reasons, some of which she agrees with and some of which she doesn't.

I am afraid to me the post was far from clear. If as you say it is a belief that it is because of the unique situation, to many that is the same as punishing Camilla by use of a lesser title. That is why I ask, would the same people who say they have nothing against Camilla, etc have been happy to see Diana demoted to Princess Consort bearing in mind her admitted adultery?

As we have all been made aware, it is impossible to 'speak' for others without being asked for clarification. I am sorry Madame Royal saw ill intent where none was meant. You have asked me in the past to explain how or why I came to a conclusion, purely because my phrasing had not made my point clear. This I understood and I hope answered accordingly.