Should Camilla attend the memorial service for Diana?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO Sophie would not have been involved in any aspect of Diana's funeral due to the fact that she was only Prince Edward's girlfriend at the time. Their engagement was announced in January 1999 and married 19 June 1999. Yes, I do suspect that their engagement/wedding were put on hold after Diana's death.
 
It was one of the rumours flying around at the time of the funeral. Since Edward and Sophie weren't engaged at the time, it might just have been thought that her presence at the funeral would have been distracting.

Yes, I find that very understandable. I did question, though, the poster's allegation that her absence was because she resembled the ex-Princess of Wales. Hopefully, it wasn't her fair hair. complexion, or the color of her eyes that made it distracting.

She was, though, very prominently with Prince Edward and the rest of the royal family at the decommissioning of the Britannia three month later.
 
The only resemblance Sophie had to the Princess of Wales was her hairstyle and nothing else.
 
Your last statement shows me that you are a RC.

Why?

Because as Anglicans we beleive that the only way to Heaven is through the Grace of God - not works or anything else - that was one of the reasons for the Reformation - the teachings of the RC church that you could work and/or buy your way to heaven. Martin Luther and the other reformists really pointed out that the idea of works wasn't the way to Heaven but Grace of God only. The Bible clearly says that it is through Grace alone - try Ephesians Chapter 2 Verses 1 - 10.

As for Diana doing good works - sure - but she was also an adulterer.

I wonder if she actually sought forgiveness for her sin of adultery! We, of course will never know as that would be between her and God alone.

We know that Charles and Camilla have publicly asked for this forgiveness - they did so at their blessing of their marriage.

True repentance however is within the heart and for any of these people their is only one entity who truly knows if they are sorry - and that is God who will be the ultimate judge on their repentance and their right to join Him in Heaven based on His Grace regardless of other things done in their lifetime.

no i dont belong to rc church or any other organized christian faith. i belong to a evangelican (and biblical) church but that doest matter

the thing is

A fall in love with B
B loved C but didnt fight for C and married A
B cheated on A with C
A hurted herself because she was despaired with her life (despair caused by B and C)
after, A cheated on B with D, E,...
A and B divorced
A dies
B and C got married
C attends to A's memorial service........... :lol:

Sorry guys but is this a joke?
 
Diana knew of Sophie before her death.

Yes, it's true that Sophie and Diana knew each other socially, but I don't think they knew each other beyond the most polite social terms. That is to say, I think they were not particular friends. I wouldn't have been surprised at Sophie's presence at the funeral (for I think many people there, especially the celebrities, only knew Diana in polite social terms, if that, I mean why was Tom Cruise there?) :lol: but it's not any real wonder why she wasn't there, as she wasn't engaged to Prince Edward and there were so many other people that "had" to be there for various reasons.
 
Sorry guys but is this a joke?

No, it's how civilised, non-judgemental people handle a non-nuclear family situation.
 
no i dont belong to rc church or any other organized christian faith i belong to a evangelican (and biblical) church but that doest matter
A fall in love with B
B loved C but didnt fight for C and married A
B cheated on A with C
A hurted herself because she was despaired with her life (despair caused by B and C)
after, A cheated on B with D, E,...
A and B divorced
A dies
B and C got married
C attends to A's memorial service........... :lol:

Sorry guys but is this a joke?

I wonder how Susan Mannakee feels about this memorial to the woman that allegedly had an affair with her husband, or how the children of Barry and Susan felt about A's confession of an affair.:rolleyes:
Diana: 'Bodyguard killed for our affair' | the Daily Mail
Note the fact that according to the Settelen tapes, all this happened before B cheated with C.
Then ask yourself how the wives and girlfriends of D, E, F, G, H, J, K etc feel about this memorial service.

Let us hope they are christian enough to forgive Diana for the 'sins' she committed against them! :cool:

Let's also hope that William and Harry are also christian enough to forgive all the people that are trying to disrupt their attempt to remember all the good from their dead mothers life and unite their extended family.
 
Last edited:
no i dont belong to rc church or any other organized christian faith. i belong to a evangelican (and biblical) church but that doest matter

the thing is

A fall in love with B
B loved C but didnt fight for C and married A
B cheated on A with C
A hurted herself because she was despaired with her life (despair caused by B and C)
after, A cheated on B with D, E,...
A and B divorced
A dies
B and C got married
C attends to A's memorial service........... :lol:

Sorry guys but is this a joke?

another thing is:
.....
B and C got married
H and W ( the sons of A and B ) love their stepmother C
B, C together with H and W and L and T ( C´s children) are a happy patchwork family now
C attends to A´s memorial service ( because H and W invited her)

Sorry but is there any problem?:D
 
Then ask yourself how the wives and girlfriends of D, E, F, G, H, J, K etc feel about this memorial service.

Let us hope they are christian enough to forgive Diana for the 'sins' she committed against them! :cool:

Wait a minute, Diana didn't force the husband of D,E,F etc. to go with her. In an affair you are 2. It's their husband who also need to be forgiven. Excuse me but taking it only on Diana is not really fair.
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute, Diana didn't force the husband of D,E,F etc. to go with her. In an affair you are 2. It's their husband who also need to be forgiven. Excuse me but taking it only on Diana is not really fair.

Well I don't think we should call the wives of D, E, F to this discussion. After all they won't be attend the Memorial Service :D.

I think Camilla and Charles made strong mistakes in the past and to be honest I am not their greatest fan but it's not fair to be always remembering that Camilla and Charles made Diana suffer.
Aquarela, when they got married Diana was dead. I think you are forgeting that.
Charles allowed and supported that William and Harry celebrate Diana's life in the Concert they organized. Now tell me, if Charles had died and Diana was alived: do you think Diana would allow her children organize a concert in Charles's memory? In fact, we don't know, we can't answer that but I doubt it.
 
If Diana Hadn´t died, why not had allowed her children organize a concert for Charles.

The situation is that Princess Diana is dead. It´s common to invent a lot of things.
 
Wait a minute, Diana didn't force the husband of D,E,F etc. to go with her. In an affair you are 2. It's their husband who also need to be forgiven. Excuse me but taking it only on Diana is not really fair.
Isn't that what the Diana fans are doing, blaming it all on Camilla, whilst Charles and Diana are portrayed as innocent bystanders?
Did anyone even read the Mail article, listen to the Settelen tapes etc. According to the tapes, on which

Diana is said to confess to an affair with the married detective and claims he was targeted by security service agents as a result. The affair is alleged to have taken place in 1985 - four years into Diana's marriage and several months before Prince Charles re-established contact with Camilla.
If that is indeed true, then Camilla can hardly be blamed for any unhappiness in Diana's marriage.
ll I don't think we should call the wives of D, E, F to this discussion
Why not, some people are saying how hurt Diana was by Camilla, what about the hurt caused to these women, are they unimportant because it was Diana causing the hurt?

If you are going to condemn Camilla for sleeping with Diana's husband, then surely you have no option but to condemn Diana for sleeping with the husbands of these women. :ermm:
 
Isn't that what the Diana fans are doing, blaming it all on Camilla, whilst Charles and Diana are portrayed as innocent bystanders?
Did anyone even read the Mail article, listen to the Settelen tapes etc. According to the tapes, on which

Diana is said to confess to an affair with the married detective and claims he was targeted by security service agents as a result. The affair is alleged to have taken place in 1985 - four years into Diana's marriage and several months before Prince Charles re-established contact with Camilla.
If that is indeed true, then Camilla can hardly be blamed for any unhappiness in Diana's marriage.

I'm not saying the contrary or blaming Camilla. It's just that blaming only Diana for having affairs with married men is easy. Those men weren't force to go with her, so the wives should think of why did they had this affair and don't take it all on the Princess don't you think ?

Anyways, I never said that all her sadness was caused by Camilla. Diana was sad in her marriage from the beggining, Camilla or not. Charles wasn't the guy for her. Camilla was just the surface, beneath it there was many more problems.
 
Last edited:
Those men weren't force to go with her, so the wives should think of why did they had this affair and don't take it all on the Princess don't you think ?

It's funny though how people who use this line of reasoning don't apply the same logic to Charles and Camilla. It does seem there'll always be some excuse found to justify Diana's actions.
 
no i dont belong to rc church or any other organized christian faith. i belong to a evangelican (and biblical) church but that doest matter

the thing is

A fall in love with B
B loved C but didnt fight for C and married A
B cheated on A with C
A hurted herself because she was despaired with her life (despair caused by B and C)
after, A cheated on B with D, E,...
A and B divorced
A dies
B and C got married
C attends to A's memorial service........... :lol:

Sorry guys but is this a joke?

so is it safe to say that you, in no way shape or form would forgive camilla for her marital infidelity with charles? then in no way shape or form should you be willing to forgive diana for her marital infidelities whether she was the first to be unfaithful (which according to some people was the first one to be unfaithful). this wasn't our marriage and none of the people involved have asked us for our forgiveness.
 
(which according to some people was the first one to be unfaithful).

People of any real credible knowledge or sourcing?

Personally, I'd be very surprised if it were Diana who was unfaithful first.
 
Last edited:
It's funny though how people who use this line of reasoning don't apply the same logic to Charles and Camilla. It does seem there'll always be some excuse found to justify Diana's actions.

Well if Charles went for Camilla it was because he wasn't happy with Diana. I'm not so stupid to think otherwise. It's not excuses, it's being fair. And I know people are not fair like we try to be discussing this point, if they were they would respect Camilla and stop pulling her down.
 
But does it matter who did what first and why? It happened, it's over and there's point living everyday yearning for a yesterday that will never come. With all the hurt and pain in this silly old world of ours, what can we gain from defending people we never knew and never will know? I've been perhaps too tough on Diana and when I look at it from afar, there really is no reason to be just as there's no reason for people to be tough on Camilla. You know, Brooke Astor died this week and she lived to 105. When she died, she left her mark on New York and was hailed as making every day count. I'd rather like to follow her example and so instead of us all building a fort to throw ammo for a side we have no cause to defend so passionately, why don't we call the past the past, drop the blame game and try to make life a little better for someone else? You know, I don't agree with everything Diana did but I believe the main cause for her unofficial Sainthood was her charity work yes? Well, instead of her supporters and followers taking up arms against Charles and Camilla with such enthusiasm, why don't they channel that enthusiasm into one of Diana's charities? Because you know, as we sit here popping at each other, there's children dying in the third world who'd actually consider our arguments really quite trivial. I believe that instead of engaging in full blown warfare on behalf of people we have no right to judge, we should instead turn our attention to something much more important and then when we shuffle off this mortal coil, we can say, "We changed something" rather than "We spent our lives bitching over three people we never met, we never spoke too and who never really cared what we thought about them anyway!". Sermon over.
 
It's funny though how people who use this line of reasoning don't apply the same logic to Charles and Camilla. It does seem there'll always be some excuse found to justify Diana's actions.

I'm really beginning to agree with this BeatrixFan.

It seems that if someone hurt Diana, then they are a bad person and should not go to Diana's memorial out of respect; however if Diana hurt someone else, that person should look within themselves to see where they themselves caused their own pain that they falsely accuse Diana of causing them and they should stop blaming Diana.

I'm beginning to believe that Diana was not made of flesh and blood but of Teflon!

This way lies madness; there's no rhyme or reason in this way of thinking!
 
Exactly. And what I don't get is why? If being so defensive and being so illogical and steadfast in those beliefs brought an end to poverty, famine and war then I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with them. But does any of it really matter?
 
You know I take more of a distant, strictly historical point of view. I am not a passionate fan/devotee of any one particular claque. My personal opinion is that by the end there were no innocent bystanders. However, I do object to the revisionist history (whitewashing) which some 'party members' subscribe to. It just makes the opposition rabid! In either direction! Yes Prince Charles was being pushed hard by everyone to marry a 'Suitable Girl' ie someone from the right background and wihout prior lovers. No he was not in love with her. Yes he was in love with Someone Else, but was not 'allowed' to marry /dawdled while making the choice about SE. Yes, when that sunk in, Suitable Girl had affairs. Can we all accept the above as the truth?

If we can accept it and not get mired down in the she did this he said that...
In order to make it not about Camilla the I suggest:

If Camilla attends the memorial, it should be a in a low key, not front row and big jewels kind of way. IMO a bit of subtlety and discretion is what the moment calls for.

If you really want to distract them, let William and Kate 'drop the bomb'!:flowers:
 
Now tell me, if Charles had died and Diana was alived: do you think Diana would allow her children organize a concert in Charles's memory? In fact, we don't know, we can't answer that but I doubt it.

I have to disagree here. I believe with all my heart Diana would have "allowed" her sons to honor their father. It wouldn't be a question of her "allowing" them. They would just do it. Just like, with Charles, why did he need to "allow" them to do the concert? They wanted to, they did it. What is this business of "allowing"?
 
But does it matter who did what first and why? It happened, it's over and there's point living everyday yearning for a yesterday that will never come. With all the hurt and pain in this silly old world of ours, what can we gain from defending people we never knew and never will know? I've been perhaps too tough on Diana and when I look at it from afar, there really is no reason to be just as there's no reason for people to be tough on Camilla. You know, Brooke Astor died this week and she lived to 105. When she died, she left her mark on New York and was hailed as making every day count. I'd rather like to follow her example and so instead of us all building a fort to throw ammo for a side we have no cause to defend so passionately, why don't we call the past the past, drop the blame game and try to make life a little better for someone else? You know, I don't agree with everything Diana did but I believe the main cause for her unofficial Sainthood was her charity work yes? Well, instead of her supporters and followers taking up arms against Charles and Camilla with such enthusiasm, why don't they channel that enthusiasm into one of Diana's charities? Because you know, as we sit here popping at each other, there's children dying in the third world who'd actually consider our arguments really quite trivial. I believe that instead of engaging in full blown warfare on behalf of people we have no right to judge, we should instead turn our attention to something much more important and then when we shuffle off this mortal coil, we can say, "We changed something" rather than "We spent our lives bitching over three people we never met, we never spoke too and who never really cared what we thought about them anyway!". Sermon over.

I totally agree.
What I find really, really disgusting is those Pro -Diana who planed everything to screw up this memorial. Instead of throwing eggs, they should distribute leaflets for Diana's charities or something like that. I know many people who liked Diana would want to do this. And it bothers me that we are so many to think this way but it seems that all the negative part comes up and doesn't leave place to the wonderful things that could be made.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree.
What I find really, really disgusting is those Pro -Diana who planed everything to screw up this memorial. Instead of throwing eggs, they should distribute leaflets for Diana's charities or something like that. I know many people who liked Diana would want to do this. And it bothers me that we are so many to think this way but it seems that all the negative part comes up and doesn't leave place to the wonderful things that could be made.


I'm not pro-Diana -- nor am I anti-Diana. Whether the people involved are Royalty -- or not -- it would be in the lowest possible taste and highest level of insensitivity, for a former mistress to attend the memorial of a wife who blamed the breakdown of her marriage on her.
 
In your opinion. However, the question begging to be asked is, why do you care about this so much when it has zero impact on your life. It has zero impact on any of our lives.
 
BeatrixFan, you have such a way with words! I love your posts--
yes, why indeed do any of us really care? That is a good question, and based on the responses to this topic alone--it is obvious that a great many of us do care. I'll go first:
I wouldn't say I care--not like I care about my son getting the right second grade teacher, or if I get an A in my courses for my graduate degree--but I do care. Does anything in my world hinge on Camilla's attendance at the memorial? Not at all. But, having been a true devotee of the British Royal Family for most of my years, and taking tea with my grandparents and hearing "God Save the Queen" all of my life, I do feel a certain kinship with that far-off island. I have always believed in doing the right thing, and always being gracious and behaving like a lady. As a child, I was enamoured with Prince Charles and Princess Diana--I was up early to watch that wedding when I was 7 years old. What a memory! It always makes me smile--to see England turned out like it was for such a day, to see a real fairytale. It was exciting--even now, seeing photos of it reminds me of the emotions of that day.
And then, the fairly tale, like most of them tend to do, fell apart. Allegations of "he said, she said, they said....." filled the newspapers, radios, televisions, and bookstores. To me, the illusion was shattered--the royal family was on its way to becoming headline after headline on the National Enquirer.
But, part of me always wondered about the girl Charles had loved for all those years, the one that was a better match for him--Camilla. Even though the demise of the fairytale was tragic and tainted in many ways, I am pleased to see one love story end well. The controversy surrounding Camilla was harsh and yes, maybe even deserved on some level--but she always stood by her man and was as discreet as she could be. I watched their wedding, and while it may not have had the pomp and circumstance of Charles' wedding to Diana, I have to say as an adult I appreciated the road they had travelled to get to this point and I was very touched seeing the longtime loves being able to legally create a new life for themselves. It is long overdue, and they have really brought an unexpected sparkle to England again. And, in many ways, I think they have gone a long way to bringing back dignity to how Royals are expected to behave and support each other.
The explanation for my interest having been said (and it was long, I apologize), I will once again say that Camilla's step-children have made a point of inviting her to their late mother's memorial; this is a clear statement that Camilla has been accepted into the family and is loved for who she is. If William and Harry want her to be a presence there, then that is the way it is. Camilla has always shown herself to be the "stand by your man type" no matter what, and the boys clearly see the love that she feels for their father, and by extension for them as well. This is a memorial service, and Camilla is capable of honoring Diana as a mother to her step-children, and of honoring Diana for her charity work.
I have to say that this is by far the most interesting discussion on The Royal Forums, but it is getting a bit fanatical, in my opinion. Maybe that is what makes it interesting?
 
Last edited:
I think the Duchess of Cornwall should attend the service. For many different reasons. The first reason is that she knew exactly what life would be like as being "the other woman" and how she would be loathed by some. This service is just another one of the crosses she (and Charles) should bear for their actions. We all know that people must face consequences for their actions, and i think Camilla's hesitance to attend this service is one of those consequences and she must accept it and attend.

The second reason she should attend is to show some family unity and to show the public that maybe they should consider letting bygones be bygones. That this is the reality of the situation, she is Charles' wife now. I think that her attendance will show that Diana's kids have forgiven and accepted her (Camilla) and so should everyone else. I think that if she doesn't attend, it will just show that there is a division in the family and i dont think they want to show that.
 
In your opinion. However, the question begging to be asked is, why do you care about this so much when it has zero impact on your life. It has zero impact on any of our lives.

That's not entirely true, BF. The perception and reception of Camilla, for instance, may well have a profound impact on my life insofar as the Duchess' actions provide ammunition to those who are adamant that Australia will become a republic, as soon as possible. To this end, the press has been full of Diana for weeks now. It is my opinion that the Duchess suffers greatly, by inference.

I also think that the fact that we're here at all shows that we do care about the royal family and the issues which surround them. If Australia becomes a republic it will indeed have more than a zero impact on my life.
 
That's not entirely true, BF. The perception and reception of Camilla, for instance, may well have a profound impact on my life insofar as the Duchess' actions provide ammunition to those who are adamant that Australia will become a republic, as soon as possible. To this end, the press has been full of Diana for weeks now. It is my opinion that the Duchess suffers greatly, by inference.

I also think that the fact that we're here at all shows that we do care about the royal family and the issues which surround them. If Australia becomes a republic it will indeed have more than a zero impact on my life.


May I ask what press has been 'full of Diana for weeks now' as I have not seen much coverage at all - the Women's Weekly has a DVD this month and New Idea are running a series of booklets in her memory but I would hardly call that 'full of Diana for weeks now'.

I don't think Camilla's attendence will have the slightest impact on Australians voting for a Republic but rather the fact that the majority of Australians do think that we should have our own Head of State and not a foreigner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom