The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #281  
Old 08-14-2005, 02:29 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 801
Ross Benson died unexpectedly of a heart attack. He was a journalist for the “Daily Express” and they featured a one page obituary on him, the information I previously posted on him came from that obituary. ( I get the International version of the Daily Express) As he was a well-known journalist other British newspapers all featured detailed obituaries on his life and career, including the information of how he used a tenuous link to Prince Charles early in his career.

If Ross Benson is reported in the US as being a friend of Prince Charles then that is due more to sloppy journalism and lazy reporting and ‘let’s not let facts get in the way of a good story’ than anything else. Undoubtedly when he first began writing a society column the newspaper he worked for promoted the fact he and Prince Charles had been at school together, the inference being they were friends and Ross Benson could deliver the scoop on royal news. But Ross Benson himself never claimed a friendship and later wrote about Charles’ time at Gourdonston and what a terrible time the other students gave Charles, Ross Benson admitted he too had given him a rough time. He also went on the record to explain how he used his link with Charles to forward his career.

For the most part Charles’ school years were miserable and I doubt if he were friends with anyone he went to Gourdonston with. Charles himself has stated that the only time he was happy at school was when he came to Australia to attend Timbertop, he was due to stay a term and enjoyed the experience so much he stayed nearly a year. Earlier this year Charles attended a reunion in Melbourne with his former Timbertop roommate, who was genuine school friend and has continued to be a friend of Charles. (And has never spoken to the media)

During his years as a royal correspondent Ross Benson had more contact with Diana than he did with Charles. Again this is on the record, Diana would invite royal correspondents to lunch to discuss coverage of her, he was one of the correspondents she included, she also invited the editors of the major British tabloids to Kensington Palace. These meetings have all been written about, just check newspaper archives.



As much as it amuses me to read the royal soap opera that people love to perpetuate I’d have to say “People it’s time to move on”!!!!!
__________________

  #282  
Old 08-14-2005, 05:00 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Wymanda,

The courtiers have a great deal of power. They run the royal family, not the royal family runs them.
The courtiers don't have as much power as they used to. I think the Queen has taken it back from them. The Queen was very influenced by them earlier though-especially Winston Churchill in the beginning who advised her to drop Mountbatten from the family name and cut Philip's public role. This caused a lot of problems for the family.

Right now its a bit late to be talking about who's in Diana's camp vs Charles camp. While the marriage was breaking up, yes, there were camps but people move on. Right now it seems that a lot of Diana-bashing is going on but that I think is because when she was alive people took her word as the absolute truth. People are realizing that its never a good idea to believe everything a husband or wife tells you when they're going through a nasty breakup like this. Its just common sense not to.
__________________

  #283  
Old 08-14-2005, 11:18 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
The courtiers don't have as much power as they used to. I think the Queen has taken it back from them. The Queen was very influenced by them earlier though-especially Winston Churchill in the beginning who advised her to drop Mountbatten from the family name and cut Philip's public role. This caused a lot of problems for the family.
I'm not so sure this is really true. The Sovereign is a symbol of the power of the state, vested in the majority party in the House of Commons through the Prime Minister, who exercises the royal perogative. In order for this to continue, there has to be control over the Sovereign and their activities. This is why the Queen cannot even speak on a matter publicly that the Government hasn't approved or written for her.

I doubt very much the power of the Royal Household has diminished in any way. If anything, under the presidential style of Tony Blair, their ability to utilize the Crown probably has increased.
  #284  
Old 08-14-2005, 11:35 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
I think we're talking about two different things branchg. I was referring to the courtiers in Buckingham Palace so maybe Winston Churchill was a bad example because of course he was not.

As far as the monarch's role with the government ministers, of course, the government is having more control over areas the Queen previously had. But with internal family affairs the Queen appears to be taking more control. Sometimes the two areas overlap like with Charles' and Camilla's marriage. But no matter what you think of the marriage, it provided a constitutional problem for the government that they would have rather not had to face. If Charles had not gotten full support from the Queen, the marriage wouldn't have happened.
  #285  
Old 08-14-2005, 01:19 PM
emily62_1's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Roma, Italy
Posts: 285
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by blondebeauty123
We all know the story of Prince Charles and Lady Diana, but I was just wondering what you guys thought about this subject. Diana did love Charles but Charles had his love stored for someone other than Diana. I have always wondered what do you think what would happened if Charles hadn't rekindled his relashionship with Camilla with his marriage with Diana? They both loved each other in the beginning but that did not last very long. I have always wondered this also why did Charles marry Diana if he really loved Camilla all a long? He hurt Diana so by having love else where.
I am sure Charles never loved Diana, it's worldwide known that Camilla was the 1 who advised charles to marry diana, they both thought she was not an obstacle to their relationship, true Queen Mum and Lady Fermoy, di's grandmum, thought of a wed btw Charles and Di, but Camilla gave her lover her ok, so while I think di was in love with Charles, he was not, all he wanted from her was a heir, when Harry, the spare heir, was born, the realtionship btw the couple soon ended, and Cam became again, she had never left indeed, officially his lover.
  #286  
Old 08-14-2005, 01:24 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by emily62_1
I am sure Charles never loved Diana, it's worldwide known that Camilla was the 1 who advised charles to marry diana, they both thought she was not an obstacle to their relationship, true Queen Mum and Lady Fermoy, di's grandmum, thought of a wed btw Charles and Di, but Camilla gave her lover her ok, so while I think di was in love with Charles, he was not, all he wanted from her was a heir, when Harry, the spare heir, was born, the realtionship btw the couple soon ended, and Cam became again, she had never left indeed, officially his lover.
I simply do not believe this. Diana herself stated that Charles did love her and they were both responsible for the failure of their marriage. Camilla was a symptom of the problem, just like James Hewitt was.
  #287  
Old 08-19-2005, 07:49 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
I agree with Branchq. I do not believe in speaking ill of the dead. Therefore I will only say that I believe Prince Charles was more sinned against than sinning. Of course adultery is always wrong. It would appear that both spouses in this marriage committed that sin.

They ought never to have married in the first place, as Charles always loved Camilla. But we are all sinners, so I don't think too much mud should be thrown at either Diana or Charles.
  #288  
Old 08-19-2005, 10:13 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,548
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
I agree with Branchq. I do not believe in speaking ill of the dead. Therefore I will only say that I believe Prince Charles was more sinned against than sinning. Of course adultery is always wrong. It would appear that both spouses in this marriage committed that sin.

They ought never to have married in the first place, as Charles always loved Camilla. But we are all sinners, so I don't think too much mud should be thrown at either Diana or Charles.
Well Said!
On that note I think the Administration should close this thread. IMO its just going around in circles and is just an excuse to "Have a go" at Camilla.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #289  
Old 08-19-2005, 10:32 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
I'd prefer not to close the thread as long as people are still interested in the discussion and keeping their cool. However, if it attracts many more cases of people repeating unsubstantiated gossip as though it were set-in-rock fact, that'll change matters in a hurry.
  #290  
Old 11-03-2005, 12:00 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlightrhapsody
you don't start a relationship without ending the one you're in. And by ending a marriage, I mean divorce or death. Can you imagine being a child and being humiliated in front of the press because of your parents' indiscretions?
Do your comments also apply to Diana who caused her children such anguish when she co wrote a book with Morton? Nor did she wait for death or divorce before taking the first of her lovers.
As more and more has come out about Diana it is clear that she had more than 3 or 4 lovers while she was married. Prince Charles clearly said that he only started the affair when his marriage was over, now believed to be in 1986 (although James Hewitt infered his affair with Diana started after her honeymoon in 1981).
Neither of them were in love with each other. Diana wanted the titles, Charles wanted an heir.
  #291  
Old 11-03-2005, 12:03 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,993
Okay..so now James Hewitt is the expert on all that is Diana. That is extremely bogus that the affair started in 1981. And how do you know for a fact that Diana wanted to marry Charles strictly for the title? I would be interested in knowing your sources.
  #292  
Old 11-03-2005, 12:16 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk1189
Okay..so now James Hewitt is the expert on all that is Diana. That is extremely bogus that the affair started in 1981. And how do you know for a fact that Diana wanted to marry Charles strictly for the title? I would be interested in knowing your sources.
Well James Hewitt was there and both admitted to the affair, so I think he knows a fair bit more than most. When he was on tv he said that is when the affair started (under hypnosis). I believe him because afterwards he said he was sticking to the date that was 'common knowledge' ie 1986.
He is already reviled so why would he say something to make it worse for him.
Would it make it easier for you if I say that in my opinion they did not love each other. Diana wanted the titles, Charles an heir!
  #293  
Old 11-03-2005, 01:35 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
I think it's been shown that hypnosis isn't a way of getting completely reliable information. This whole business about repressed memories is a very dicey affair, scientifically speaking.

Warren's salt cellar should be liberally applied here.
  #294  
Old 11-03-2005, 01:37 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,993
Elspeth..I am trying to use it but it getting caught in my throat!
  #295  
Old 11-03-2005, 01:45 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I think it's been shown that hypnosis isn't a way of getting completely reliable information. This whole business about repressed memories is a very dicey affair, scientifically speaking.

Warren's salt cellar should be liberally applied here.
LOL! Too funny, but yes, it could get a little rough.
  #296  
Old 11-03-2005, 02:22 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
LOL! Too funny, but yes, it could get a little rough.
I am not being nasty when I ask what Lol means?
  #297  
Old 11-03-2005, 02:26 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I think it's been shown that hypnosis isn't a way of getting completely reliable information.
Possibly, but we will have to agree to having different views on that. I was trying to show, more than anything, that as Hewitt and Diana admitted to an affair, Hewitt would know more about Diana than any of us.:)
  #298  
Old 11-03-2005, 02:38 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,993
LOL means laugh out loud.Skydragon..you are right I would agree that James Hewitt knew Diana better than anyone on this board (going with the assumption that no one here knew her personally). I do, however, find it a stretch that you are going on record as saying that they started their affair in 1981 when in fact there is no evidence (other than his hypnosis) that this did occur in 81. In reference to the lack of love that Charles and Diana had for each other, again I ask..where are you getting your information. Yes, it is clear to anyone (even the most died hard Diana fans) that Charles and Camilla love each other. As I did Camilla and Andrew Parker Bowles when they were first married. I don't believe that Charles and Diana were in fact right for each other (as history as shown us) but I do believe in the beginning there was love or at least a form of it.You also mention that Diana wanted the title..again..where is the proof? And that Charles married her for an heir...I don't particulary care for Charles but that seems very cold blooded and from what I have heard of him (again, I don't personally know him) not in his character at all. He loved Diana, surely not the same enduring love that he had and shares with Camilla.
  #299  
Old 11-03-2005, 02:57 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk1189
again I ask..where are you getting your information. Yes, it is clear to anyone (even the most died hard Diana fans) that Charles and Camilla love each other. As I did Camilla and Andrew Parker Bowles when they were first married. I don't believe that Charles and Diana were in fact right for each other (as history as shown us) but I do believe in the beginning there was love or at least a form of it.You also mention that Diana wanted the title..again..where is the proof? And that Charles married her for an heir...I don't particulary care for Charles but that seems very cold blooded and from what I have heard of him (again, I don't personally know him) not in his character at all. He loved Diana, surely not the same enduring love that he had and shares with Camilla.
As I said zonk1189, it is in my opinion. :)
I think Diana was coerced into marrying Charles, it was something her father had always dreamed of according to any site on Johnie Spencer. However at the time of her engagement, she said all little girls want to be a princess. I believe that after the infamous interview, when Charles said 'what ever love is', she wanted to back out. Even as they walked away from the cameras, they did not, in my opinion, look as if they were in love with each other.
If Charles, as she said, rang Camilla every night while they were on honeymoon, it would certainly give the impression that he did not love her. I think he 'cared' for her and she for him, I just doubt love was involved.
  #300  
Old 11-03-2005, 03:03 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,993
Skydragon..you are correct it..it is your opinion and you are entitled to it. My point or rather my suggestion is this....we (including myself) shouldn't take everything that is out in cyber space or every rumor that we hear as the gospel.A website that Johnnie Spencer said he always wanted his daughter to be a princess...thats the first I have heard of that. Also, I never heard that Camilla called him every night on his honeymoon..I heard about the picture and the cuff links.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, diana princess of wales, duchess of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales, princess diana, relationships


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part 2 Warren The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 935 12-07-2005 06:49 PM
The Great Baby Guessing Challenge Part 4 Alexandria General Royal Discussion Archive 17 05-16-2005 08:02 PM
The Great Baby Guessing Challenge Part 3 Alexandria General Royal Discussion Archive 24 04-10-2005 06:33 PM
The Great Baby Guessing Challenge Part 2 Alexandria General Royal Discussion Archive 7 03-06-2005 11:20 AM
King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia, Current Events Part 1: November 2002-June 2004 Josefine Current Events Archive 300 06-12-2004 08:13 AM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia baby names birth britain britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan kensington palace king edward vii lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten names nara period pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida taiwan tradition united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:55 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×