Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part 1

[sara1981]

I WAS WONDERING WAS CAMILLA AT THE OPENING OF PARLERMENT,BECAUSE I DO REMEMBER DIANA IN THE COACH WITH THE QUEEN WHEN SHE WAS FIRST MARRIED TO CHARLES????

no!

she not attend at parliament with HM Queen because she very busy with schedules to do!

when Princess Diana been attend there at Parliament in 1981 since she got married to Prince Charles they later she attend there in 1992 because she very popular Princess but she will become Queen of England that why she attend there!

many people dont wanted Camilla at parliament because she not going become Queen of England because of favourite Princess Diana very much and im sure many people wanted William to become King after his dad and Granny the HM Queen but i would agree with that!

Sara Boyce

 

[Elspeth]

I'm sure that Camilla will be just as likely to attend the opening of Parliament one of these years as Diana was, or Princess Anne. It's probably simply a matter of the ceremony following rather soon after the wedding and a feeling that Camilla should be eased into her role rather than being involved in something official with such a high profile so soon after her wedding. Diana used that event at least once to upstage the Queen, and I'm sure that if Camilla had been there this year it'd have happened again, what with being the first time she'd have been done up in a tiara and everything. Much better to let the first grand-togs-and-tiara occasion be something less official.

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

I really don't think that Camilla is hated that much by the royal family that she would not be able to go.

 

[wymanda]

I thought that the members of the family attending had been curtailed some years ago and now it was only Her Majesty & the Duke of Edinburgh who went. I have a feeling it came about when Mr Blair began the reformation of the House of Lords. Prior to that Prince Charles was entitled to a seat in the house as were the Dukes of Kent & Gloucester. In the reorganisation these seats were, I think, given up.

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Oh. Ok. I didn't know this.

 

[james]

Yes Wymanda you are spot on. The Opening of Parliament has been restricted to the Queen and Prince Philip for the past few years now. The only exception has been the odd inclusion of Prince Charles and Princess Anne. The days when the Kents and Gloucesters also attended seem to have stopped altogether. I don't know why this has happened. It may have been, as you say, something to do with the Prime Minister's intervention but I really don't know. The last time the Kents and Gloucesters were there was, I think, in in 1990's but I can't rightly recall.

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

You talk about the Prime Minister's intervention. But doesn't Blair find any ally in the royal family?

 

[james]

Well yes he is quite chummy with them but has made no secret of his desire to scale the whole operation down.

 

[Tzu An]

Charles himself never said he was in love with Diana--remember the interview, when asked if he was in love, he said "whatever love is?" He was always in love with Camilla, never with Diana.

I believe he didn't believe in feeling in love, versus developing a strong relationship based on common interests and experiences. I believe that is what he meant. Furthermore he wasn't given enough time to explain what he meant. As for Diana's mental health, there were a lot of issues that showed up early in her childhood. I think I should start a thread about her mental issues. I believe that during the early part of their marriage Charles was proud of her popularity, but he and the royals grew concerned when Diana started getting competitive. It was that competitiveness that caused a fracturing.

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

I don't think he was ever proud of her.

 

[michelleq]

I do think that Charles was proud of her in the beginning. But when she started believing in her "Royal Power"(my phrase), she put a wedge between them. I also believe that Charles definitely knew was "In Love" means, because he was and still is in love with Camilla.

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Yes, I must agree that Charles knew everything about love.

 

[EmpressRouge]

Anyone read this Slate article/commentary in defense of Prince Charles and his wedding to Camilla. For all the Camilla-bashers, it's different perspective on their marriage:
Pity the Poor Prince
Charles is atoning for the sins of rich, middle-aged men everywhere.

Poor Prince Charles can't catch a break. He had to postpone his wedding day to accomodate a funeral 900 miles away; devotees of his deceased ex-wife are threatening to picket the nuptials; and wedding memorabilia is selling poorly—apparently, his future subjects don't want to dry their dishes on a towel bearing the likeness of his bride-to-be, Camilla Parker Bowles. His family and fellow royals won't even do him the honor of inventing decent excuses to skip the ceremony—his father refused to cancel a trip to Germany (Germany!); Sweden's crown princess is otherwise engaged opening an IKEA store in Japan—and his mother dashed his dreams of serving an organic feast at the reception.
Charles is an easy and usually deserving target. He's the squarest man in the world, a rich, underemployed old fogy who has dressed and acted like the 56-year-old he is for the last 40 years. But after a lifetime of feckless world travel, dilettantism, and endless chukkas of polo, he's finally coming good. Despite enduring years of unforgivably cruel jokes at the expense of the woman he loves, Charles is about to do something a Frenchman would never consider: He's going to marry his mistress.

If the groom in Saturday's ceremony were Charlie Windsor instead of "His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland," he would be a hero—a mensch of modern maturity. But somehow the British press doesn't see it that way. Instead of praising the prince for his devotion, the media have simply intensified the torture, gleefully reporting the many missteps on the way to the wedding.

Apart from doctrinal condsiderations—and since the British sovereign is the head of the Church of England, the royals are expected to be more frum than the person in the next pew—what's wrong with two divorcees correcting the mistakes of their youth and finally getting wed? Just take a look at them: Charles and Camilla are living proof that love is blind. Yes, they committed adultery, but according to veteran royal-watcher Ingrid Seward, the prince didn't resume his connection with Camilla until 1986, when his marriage had suffered an "irretrievable breakdown" and after Diana had cuckolded him at least twice—with Sgt. Barry Mannakee, one of her protection officers, and Maj. James Hewitt, a man she described as "her riding instructor."

Camilla is the anti-Di. Whereas Diana was forever getting her chakras balanced and her colon irrigated, Camilla is self-confident and well-adjusted. Diana was obsessed with the trappings of celebrity, while Camilla, like the royals, prefers to hide her wealth behind a thick veneer of ordinariness. Her main interests are said to be horses, dogs, and farm prices—standard Buckingham Palace talking points, in other words.

Diana was the family student of self-help literature, but it's Charles who has jettisoned his self-defeating behavoirs. In his 20s, when he set out on the long road to the royal rose ceremony, he foolishly listened to the advice of his great-uncle and mentor Lord Mountbatten, who judged Camilla an unsuitable princess because she was older than Charles—by 16 months—and because she was "experienced." Diana may have been a godsend for the House of Windsor's gene pool and for the tabloid press, but she was a terrible match for Charles. Pledging his troth to a Sloane Ranger 12 years his junior with experience of absolutely nothing beyond a little light child-minding worked out annus-horribilisly for the prince of Wales. If Samuel Johnson was right, and second marriages represent the triumph of hope over experience, Charles and Camilla are an exception; in their case it is the long-deferred victory of experience over hope.

In an age when preposterously coiffed tycoons engage in serial matrimony with ever younger and more beautiful partners, Charles is doing his bit to atone for the sins of rich, middle-aged men everywhere. He's making an honest woman of his age-appropriate partner, a woman with whom he is well-matched in looks, habits, and hobbies, whom he has known and loved for more than 30 years. Charles' mistake was to get his weddings out of order: He married his first wife second and his trophy wife first.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2116364

 

[RoseMary]

gee, Image is everything. Camilla is given a hard time for a good reason. She, like Diana has to prove herself but unlike Diana we were introduced to Camilla as, lets face it an "homewrecker".

I think Camilla is doing an okay job so far but it will take a while. Diana might have had her issues and problems but we first saw and embraced her as an innocent 20 year old, who was in love. It was only after her marriage started to crumble that the public saw all of her problems.

Its sad but true, Camilla has to work harder at her image.

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

He's making an honest woman of his age-appropriate partner, a woman with whom he is well-matched in looks, habits, and hobbies, whom he has known and loved for more than 30 years.

OMG! So funny yet true!

 

[branchg]

Camilla is doing just fine and will prove herself to be a popular royal and well-accepted as consort of Prince Charles. She is a lovely woman and times have changed. As long as Prince William and Harry are seen to have embraced her, there is no reason why she should not become Queen Consort when Charles becomes King.

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

But the problem is that the people are still in love with Diana. The people can overthrow the monarchy if they really wanted.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, so far it appears they don't really want to.

I think people are far less in love with Diana than they were; her wedding was a quarter of a century ago, her death was nearly 10 years ago, there have been a lot of books written about her, including by friends, that have shown her in a less than purely flattering light, and a lot of people are just tired of the whole business. They seem to be far more interested in Prince William than Charles, Diana, and Camilla these days.

 

[sara1981]

Well, so far it appears they don't really want to.

I think people are far less in love with Diana than they were; her wedding was a quarter of a century ago, her death was nearly 10 years ago, there have been a lot of books written about her, including by friends, that have shown her in a less than purely flattering light, and a lot of people are just tired of the whole business. They seem to be far more interested in Prince William than Charles, Diana, and Camilla these days.

i would agree with you!

Prince Charles and late Diana,Princess of Wales's wedding in 1981 was 24 years ago but almost 25 years of their wedding remind! and her wedding dress display at Althorp they wont sell it!

Princess Diana was buried in 1997 its would be 8 years but now 7 years but im wishes Diana was here! but i never met her before but im miss her very much but she very beautiful Princess and glamorous woman.

i read someone says Althorp will close but im not sure why! but her brother counts people as guests but not enough but need more! but I never went to Althorp but i wanted go see that.

Sara Boyce

 

[Bellefleur]

Ever wonder what CAMILLA thinks?!

I sometimes wonder what Camilla thinks when she's with Prince William...

Here are some possible thoughts that go through her head:

-Diana's charm, looks, and charisma live on in Prince William's captivating presence (something that the public loves, but the public does not even care that much for her own kids)

-Even though Cam is married to Chas she is NOT THE MOTHER OF THE HEIR TO THE THRONE (ouch, she must really hate the fact that her own son will never have a key role!)

-Her own kids will never ever be treated as importantly as Princes William and Prince Harry (more ouches!)

-And, last but not least, "WHY THE HECK DID I NOT MARRY CHAS EARLIER??!?! AARRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!" (And to this I say: mwa ha ha ha ha!!)

 

[ksenia]

I am not a big fan of The Duchess of Cornwall- Given her history with the Prince of Wales- but, I find this post really quite mean spirited.

 

[Australian]

I dont think those things go through her head, i think she has more important things on her mind, i think she would think that she is lucky enough to be where she is instead of what could have been. I think she is just thinking about what she does have now.

I dont think shes THAT vindictive Bellefleur

 

[cute_girl]

Ever wonder what CAMILLA thinks?!

not really,and I dont care.

 

[Elspeth]

Given that none of us have a clue what Camilla thinks, other than what's written by tabloid journalists trying to make money by exploiting people's feelings about Diana, I don't think this thread is really going anywhere useful, so I'm closing it.

 

[tiaraprin]

I wouldn't go that far. . . . .

Well, so far it appears they don't really want to.

I think people are far less in love with Diana than they were; her wedding was a quarter of a century ago, her death was nearly 10 years ago, there have been a lot of books written about her, including by friends, that have shown her in a less than purely flattering light, and a lot of people are just tired of the whole business. They seem to be far more interested in Prince William than Charles, Diana, and Camilla these days.

I wouldn't go that far Elspeth. We are still here and we aren't going away no matter how much you wish we would.

I follow Princes William and Harry. Charles and Camilla are invisible to me.

Also remember, not everything put into print is ABSOLUTE FACT. The Diana haters are still poised to pounce on every word a person writes to make money from the Diana legacy. She has been gone nearly 8 years and still commands much attention.

 

[tiaraprin]

Camilla does not deserve to be Queen

What does it say for morality when the mistress of the King gets to become Queen?? Wallis Simpson didn't get the "full bag of tricks" and neither should Camilla. She should be happy with the title she has (and doesn't deserve

 

[Elspeth]

I wouldn't go that far Elspeth. We are still here and we aren't going away no matter how much you wish we would.

I follow Princes William and Harry. Charles and Camilla are invisible to me.

Also remember, not everything put into print is ABSOLUTE FACT. The Diana haters are still poised to pounce on every word a person writes to make money from the Diana legacy. She has been gone nearly 8 years and still commands much attention.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that I wish the Diana lovers would go away. What I'm saying is that the Diana lovers are a much smaller factor than they were several years ago and will become an increasingly smaller factor as time goes by. For many young people, Diana is part of history, not part of life. That's just the way it is.

As far as what's written not being absolute fact, of course it isn't. But when it comes to the facets of her personality where her friends and partisans say much the same as her detractors about her, I think it isn't unreasonable to believe that there's some truth to it.

 

[Elspeth]

What does it say for morality when the mistress of the King gets to become Queen?? Wallis Simpson didn't get the "full bag of tricks" and neither should Camilla. She should be happy with the title she has (and doesn't deserve).

Sure she deserves it; she's married to the Duke of Cornwall, so she gets the title. That's all a woman has to do in order to deserve it. She isn't his mistress now, she's his wife, and that's the basis on which she shares his title. So far, Buckingham Palace seems to be sticking by the story that she'll be Princess Consort rather than Queen; it remains to be seen what will actually happen. I assume that depends on the timing involved.

Wallis Simpson didn't get to be Queen because Edward VIII abdicated. So far, Charles has stayed in the line of succession and appears to be going to remain so. That the Duchess of Windsor also didn't get to be HRH when she married is a shameful piece of work, of highly dubious legality, perpetrated out of self-righteous spite by people who wanted to punish the pair of them.

Moraganatic marriage doesn't exist in British law. When a woman marries a royal, she also becomes royal and she takes his title. I hope the vindictive actions of the Establishment against the Windsors aren't repeated this time around; they didn't reflect well on anybody in particular.

 

[branchg]

Camilla IS HRH the Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess Carrick and Baroness Renfrew as the wife of Prince Charles. With the permission of the Queen, she has chosen to be known as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, instead of her primary rank as Princess of Wales.

All of this nonsense about Diana is ridiculous. The Princess died eight years ago and it's time to move on. Why should Charles and Camilla be denied happiness together just because he is the heir to the throne? Parallels to Wallis, Duchess of Windsor are totally ridiculous. Wallis was a twice-divorced woman in 1936 who was not only the mistress to the King, but another man as well. I hardly think that Camilla could be compared to a Wallis Warfield Simpson. Her character is far more worthy and Diana had many affairs with different men throughout her marriage to Prince Charles.

I suspect if Diana were alive today she certainly would have embraced the notion of Charles marrying Camilla and making her his consort. More likely than not, Diana herself would have remarried by now and as the mother of Prince William, her role in public life was secure.

I see no reason why Camilla should not be Queen Consort when Charles ascends the throne. If not, then the Government can pass legislation to allow her to be HRH the Princess Consort, which I personally think will never happen.

 

[sara1981]

Camilla IS HRH the Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess Carrick and Baroness Renfrew as the wife of Prince Charles. With the permission of the Queen, she has chosen to be known as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, instead of her primary rank as Princess of Wales.

All of this nonsense about Diana is ridiculous. The Princess died eight years ago and it's time to move on. Why should Charles and Camilla be denied happiness together just because he is the heir to the throne? Parallels to Wallis, Duchess of Windsor are totally ridiculous. Wallis was a twice-divorced woman in 1936 who was not only the mistress to the King, but another man as well. I hardly think that Camilla could be compared to a Wallis Warfield Simpson. Her character is far more worthy and Diana had many affairs with different men throughout her marriage to Prince Charles.

I suspect if Diana were alive today she certainly would have embraced the notion of Charles marrying Camilla and making her his consort. More likely than not, Diana herself would have remarried by now and as the mother of Prince William, her role in public life was secure.

I see no reason why Camilla should not be Queen Consort when Charles ascends the throne. If not, then the Government can pass legislation to allow her to be HRH the Princess Consort, which I personally think will never happen.

i would not agree with your posts!

but i knew that Camilla cant become POW because follow low profiles of their favourites Princess very much! but Camilla will known as Duchess of Cornwall that it!

Sara Boyce