Charles and Camilla - The Early Years (1970s)

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

And somehow I believe both Lady Amanda Knatchbull and Lady Jane Wellesley were more perceptive than Diana ever was and realised that the love Charles had to offer his wife in addition to all his worldly goods was not enough for them.

Yes, I agree, many men and women live with the fact that their wife/husband had loved and lost. Most are able to build their own memories together without too many problems. Those from a loving, settled home do seem more able to overcome the 'jealousy factor' that has destroyed so many relationships.

[Boris]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Unfortunately Tina Brown was not even part of the 'set' and has only been able to base her story on what she has read elsewhere and interpreted it to suit her 'story'. I don't think anyone has heard from the two main parties, especially not Brown.

In the history of biography, it has never been deemed necessary for a writer to be part of the 'set' surrounding his subject to qualify as a good biographer. Needless to say, all biographers draw from 'what they have read' (or heard) 'elsewhere'. It's called research, so I don't quite get your point.
I prefer Bradford's to Brown's book, but both are respectable works shedding a light on the C & C relationship without being biased.
It is wrong by the way to assume that Charles and Camilla might have been 'just friends' in the early 70s, and again from 1979 to 1981. According to every biographer, they were lovers, which is also stated quite clearly in Dimbleby's biography of Charles.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Boris

I According to every biographer, they were lovers, which is also stated quite clearly in Dimbleby's biography of Charles.

Hmmm... the "quite clearly" makes me wonder here, as I seem to recall that Dimbleby wrote that there were rumours surrounding their close and loving friendship talking of a clandestine affair. But he didn't write that there in fact was such an affair. But have to look up the book to make sure my memory is right in this point.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

And somehow I believe both Lady Amanda Knatchbull and Lady Jane Wellesley were more perceptive than Diana ever was and realised that the love Charles had to offer his wife in addition to all his worldly goods was not enough for them.

I agree with you 100% on that point. Diana was immature enough to think she could change Charles and "make" him be passionately, devotedly in love with her. If only she was beautiful enough, threw enough temper tantrums, maybe she could "make" it happen. And of course the "making" produced the opposite effect, for it drove him farther away, as it tends to do with most other cases as well.

[love_cc]

Originally Posted by Boris

In the history of biography, it has never been deemed necessary for a writer to be part of the 'set' surrounding his subject to qualify as a good biographer. Needless to say, all biographers draw from 'what they have read' (or heard) 'elsewhere'. It's called research, so I don't quite get your point.

I agree with Skydragon. Tina Brown's analysis about Charles-Andrew-Camilla's relatioships are quite weak and she does not present much proof to support her views. Neither was Sarah Bradford I would say. They just quoted from other Camilla's biographiers, but other biographiers are not capable to persuade key witnesses and players to discuess all events especially during earlier stage of Charles and Camilla relationships.For instance, Annable Elloit, Virginia Carrington, Simon PB and Queen Mother's newphew,their accounts are much more trustful because of their closeness towards main players. Then again, some witness es did not present strong authory to make their words truly insightful and closest to the fact.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Boris

In the history of biography, it has never been deemed necessary for a writer to be part of the 'set' surrounding his subject to qualify as a good biographer. Needless to say, all biographers draw from 'what they have read' (or heard) 'elsewhere'. It's called research, so I don't quite get your point.

Research is when you at least interview/talk to the subjects and review all available materials. To base a book on rumour and other peoples offerings does not qualify, IMO as well researched. But I have had this conversation regarding Brown before in the appropriate thread.

I prefer Bradford's to Brown's book, but both are respectable works shedding a light on the C & C relationship without being biased.
It is wrong by the way to assume that Charles and Camilla might have been 'just friends' in the early 70s, and again from 1979 to 1981. According to every biographer, they were lovers, which is also stated quite clearly in Dimbleby's biography of Charles.

Would you like to give us the quote where Dimbleby actually states this, because like Jo, I have no recollection of this. As I have always said, boringly so I am told, rumour does not equal fact.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

Diana was immature enough to think she could change Charles and "make" him be passionately, devotedly in love with her. If only she was beautiful enough, threw enough temper tantrums, maybe she could "make" it happen. And of course the "making" produced the opposite effect, for it drove him farther away, as it tends to do with most other cases as well.

Nicely put!

[Warren]

It's best if this discussion concentrates on the Charles and Camilla relationship in the 70s as the opening poster intended, rather than the later Diana period.

thanks,
Warren

[Boris]

How come that the 'British Royals' forum is the only one here in which certain people permanently require the exact sources and quotes on which the wording of other people's posts are based?
Why not just trust in general that someone taking the time to post here does have opinions based on knowledge acquired by reading up on the subject and doing his homework, unless the opinion voiced is decidedly outlandish to begin with?
This constant challenging is obviously one-sided and has become so very tiresome already when you only attempt to read certain threads, let alone when you choose to reply to them.
Regarding Dimbleby, restricting myself to the first of three phases of the Camilla & Charles relationship as reasonably requested by Warren:
Jonathan Dimbleby:
The Prince of Wales
1994 Warner Books soft cover edition
Pages 220-222, page 232, page 335
I take it for granted that no-one here should be supposed to deliver a transcript of whole book pages.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Boris

How come that the 'British Royals' forum is the only one here in which certain people permanently require the exact sources and quotes on which the wording of other people's posts are based?

I cannot see why it is a problem if the book states what you have said it does? Too many times, IMO, posters state as fact something that actually says it is based on rumour or on unnamed sources.

[ysbel]

I started following the British Royals around the marriage of Princess Anne in 1973 and I agree with agatha, Camilla was hardly mentioned in the 70s.

Lady Jane Wellesley was the most talked about girlfriend I remember and then of course there was the Knatchbull girl.

But I think that in the early 70s both Charles and his sister Anne were dealing with expectations that they would make a royal match. Before her engagement was announced, Princess Anne expressed distaste at being matched up with a suitable royal foreign prince and it does seem that she was introduced to Carl Gustaf while he was still Crown Prince of Sweden in hopes of a royal match. Charles claimed that while he knew it was better to marry a princess because they knew what the job entailed, he'd rather marry an English girl. Of course, Camilla, Lady Jane, Amanda Knatchbull, and Diana all fit that description of an English girl so Charles didn't give any clue as to what type of English girl he preferred.

The open dating with Lady Jane lasted I believe two years so it was the lengthiest pre-marriage dating Charles did that I heard of. I don't know what went wrong there. I heard different things about the breakup. The standard line was that she was too independent to fit in with the royal family but one did hear that she got a sense of what the job would entail and turned it down while still having a lot of affection for Charles himself. In fact I think she has never married and she and Charles have remained good friends throughout all this time.

I did hear Andrew Parker-Bowles was a man with whom women fell passionately in love with. I think Princess Anne fell in love passionately with him too before she met Mark Phillips and Anne is known for having a lot of common sense. So Camilla or any other woman falling over him doesn't surprise me.

[Menarue]

I have no source except for my memory but I remember it being talked about that Charles was sent out to Geelong Grammar (sometimes described as the Eton of Australia) because the "powers that were" at that time wanted him away from a certain young lady. He was very young at that time and I never heard who the young lady was. As I said it was gossip at that time.
I don´t believe for one moment about the great Camilla/Charles love story but I have a feeling about Prince Charles that if he wants something and there is opposition he will really dig his heels in, whether it is something he really wants or not. He gives me the impression of someone who wants his own way and would cut off his nose to spite his face to get it.

[Claire]

I have actually discussed this exact topic several years back when Charles got engaged to Camilla. A friend believes that many of the true love stories were circulated in order to condone the adulterous affair.
I simple believe that Charles doesn't really understand his emotions - he might have love Camilla as a friend, and then realised he would prefer her as a lover later. Love doesn't have to be lightening strike, or passionate fling. It really can simply develop on. But is it not as romantic - so yes the PR spin.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I started following the British Royals around the marriage of Princess Anne in 1973 and I agree with agatha, Camilla was hardly mentioned in the 70s.

What we have to remember perhaps, is that the press were not so intrusive, that is why Charles and Camilla were able to continue their romance/friendship so easily.

I did hear Andrew Parker-Bowles was a man with whom women fell passionately in love with.

He was certainly a 'ladies man' and cut a fine figure in his uniform, IMO.

[Roslyn]

My William Morrow & Company Inc. version of the Dimbleby book does not have the same page numbering as Boris' copy, but it does have a good index so I think I've found the bits in question.

As for the early years, Dimbleby does not say that they were lovers, but I inferred they were, largely because of the references to Camilla and Charles staying at Broadlands, which I've always taken to be Charles' "wild-oats-sowing" playground. Also, the way their relationship is described suggests intimacy to me, e.g. "She was affectionate, she was unassuming, and - with the intensity of first love - he lost her heart to her almost at once". Later, "In the late autumn of 1972, he saw her frequently and the more he was with her the more confident he became. In London or at Broadlands, he was at ease in her company and felt that she could be a friend and companion to love and to cherish. To his delight, it seemed to him that these feelings were reciprocated." Also, "he was powerfully attracted to his new girlfriend". Now they could, of course, have just been walking and riding and playing scrabble by the fire, but I didn't picture those energetic, athletic young people with an intense love for each other spending their time alone that way. But then maybe I just have a dirty mind (or a good memory)!

Their relationship in the late '70s/early '80s is stated to be one of increasing strength and intensity "to the point where their deep friendship could properly be described as 'love'." However he goes on, "Whatever the precise character of this intimacy, some of those closest to them began to suppose that they were having a clandestine affair, which they feared would become known and cause a public scandal". Dimbleby does not expressly confirm there was an affair, though he does imply it, I think, in that chapter. Since I assumed they were lovers before Camilla's marriage to Andrew PB, I have always assumed they became lovers again.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by Jane1

The Tina Brown book asserts that Camilla was completely besotted with Andrew PB and that getting him to the altar was her goal. Originally she flirted with Charles to make Andrew jealous.

I am currently reading Sarah Bradford's "Diana" and this is also her assertion...that APB was the great love of Camilla's life even though he cheated on her. Actually they cheated on one another...it was an "open" marriage.

There is a passage that mentions the Cirencester Polo Ball in the summer of 1980...the Parker Bowleses and the Prince of Wales were present. Camilla and Charles were on the dance floor French kissing in full view. Andrew couldn't have cared less, because he had "other fish to fry" and I quote.

Lovely.

ETA: Sarah Bradford is no hack writer....she has written highly acclaimed bio's on HM Queen Elizabeth II and Jacqueline Kennedy. She is not out to savage either Camilla, Charles or Diana. Her bio is one of the most impartial I have ever read. And yes, she does quote sources in her work.

[marian]

FOR ME, PRINCE CHARLES WAS MORE IN LOVE TO HER THAT HER TO HIM. I BELIEVE THAT CAMILA LIKES THE THRONE, THE JEWELS BUT FOR HER, I THINK, THERE ARE THINGS THAT TO HER LIKES, AS HOBBIES THAT HIM DOESNT LIKE, AS THE CIGARRETTE (I AM SORRY IF THIS ISNT THE WORD RIGHT). IN THIS PAGE WE CAN SEE THAT THEY HAD PROBLEMS.
Charles and Camilla mark anniversary in steam carriage - but have they hit the buffers? | Mail Online

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

As for the early years, Dimbleby does not say that they were lovers, but I inferred they were, largely because of the references to Camilla and Charles staying at Broadlands, which I've always taken to be Charles' "wild-oats-sowing" playground. Also, the way their relationship is described suggests intimacy to me, e.g. "She was affectionate, she was unassuming, and - with the intensity of first love - he lost her heart to her almost at once". Later, "In the late autumn of 1972, he saw her frequently and the more he was with her the more confident he became. In London or at Broadlands, he was at ease in her company and felt that she could be a friend and companion to love and to cherish. To his delight, it seemed to him that these feelings were reciprocated." Also, "he was powerfully attracted to his new girlfriend". Now they could, of course, have just been walking and riding and playing scrabble by the fire, but I didn't picture those energetic, athletic young people with an intense love for each other spending their time alone that way. But then maybe I just have a dirty mind (or a good memory)!

I had a quick flick through and I don't know where the assertion that they were not in love/lovers came from, not me I think. I did point out that Brown's book is based on, among others Bradford's and as neither one of them were there or have spoken to Charles or Camilla.....

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

There is a passage that mentions the Cirencester Polo Ball in the summer of 1980...the Parker Bowleses and the Prince of Wales were present. Camilla and Charles were on the dance floor French kissing in full view. Andrew couldn't have cared less, because he had "other fish to fry" and I quote

I recall the gossip that they were getting carried away when they were dancing, with the pair of them being energetic, certainly never the suggestion that they were kissing in front of everyone, let alone French kissing.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by Boris

How come that the 'British Royals' forum is the only one here in which certain people permanently require the exact sources and quotes on which the wording of other people's posts are based?
Why not just trust in general that someone taking the time to post here does have opinions based on knowledge acquired by reading up on the subject and doing his homework, unless the opinion voiced is decidedly outlandish to begin with?
This constant challenging is obviously one-sided and has become so very tiresome already when you only attempt to read certain threads, let alone when you choose to reply to them.
Regarding Dimbleby, restricting myself to the first of three phases of the Camilla & Charles relationship as reasonably requested by Warren:
Jonathan Dimbleby:
The Prince of Wales
1994 Warner Books soft cover edition
Pages 220-222, page 232, page 335
I take it for granted that no-one here should be supposed to deliver a transcript of whole book pages.

Great point Boris, and I have begun to wonder the same exact thing. Thank goodness I am not hallucinating or imagining this.

For anyone who does insists on quotes, pages, etc I won't be around tomorrow but will be happy to provide this info when I come back on Thursday.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by marian

IN THIS PAGE WE CAN SEE THAT THEY HAD PROBLEMS.
Charles and Camilla mark anniversary in steam carriage - but have they hit the buffers? | Mail Online

What again! The D***y Mail doesn't give up!