The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1621  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:03 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
In what way? Charles as godfather is reputed to have set up trust funds for them, but I can't see how else they might benefit.
I thought "the trust fund " theme is over, after pro-organic godson clarified the situation. They will benefit in a way other humans capitalize on their connections, although the individuals in question may genuinely believe that these connections have nothing to do with their success.
__________________

  #1622  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:08 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
I seriously don't think Camilla started an affair with Charles just so her children could capitalize on their Royal connections.
__________________

__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #1623  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:11 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
I would say that Prince Charles and Princess Diana underestimated each other and suffered because of it later. Although Princess Diana might have lied about her interests, Prince Charles was old enough to fairly judge her character and choose another appropriate lady to secure the bloodline. Princess Diana was not a total witch, who nagged the life out of innocent and poor Prince Charles. Each party "slept on the bed they made".
Yes they did and they both mutually decided to end the marriage. Diana came out of it smelling like a rose with her 17 MILLION Pounds Sterling and a residence at Kensington Palace.

It was Diana's choice to live fast and loose afterwards and to make very stupid choices, Dodi Fayed comes to mind. It was Diana who chose to get into that car that fateful August night in Paris, no one forced her to live like a rock star. IF she had of remembered that she was the mother of a future King and still have two young sons to raise and behaved herself, she might well have still been alive today.

I see no reason why Prince Charles should be expected to live a miserable and lonely life because of an ex-wife's total stupidity.
  #1624  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:16 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
I seriously don't think Camilla started an affair with Charles just so her children could capitalize on their Royal connections.
I agree with your views, but the royal connections will never hurt ...
  #1625  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:23 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Yes they did and they both mutually decided to end the marriage. Diana came out of it smelling like a rose with her 17 MILLION Pounds Sterling and a residence at Kensington Palace.

It was Diana's choice to live fast and loose afterwards and to make very stupid choices, Dodi Fayed comes to mind. It was Diana who chose to get into that car that fateful August night in Paris, no one forced her to live like a rock star. IF she had of remembered that she was the mother of a future King and still have two young sons to raise and behaved herself, she might well have still been alive today.

I see no reason why Prince Charles should be expected to live a miserable and lonely life because of an ex-wife's total stupidity.
I agree with the said. Prince Charles has never lived "a miserable and lonely life", he just suffered consequences of his poor judgement.
You are too categorical and agressive in regard to Princess Diana. I believe that she has already paid the ultimate price.
  #1626  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:33 PM
milla Ca's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: N/A, Germany
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
I agree with your views, but the royal connections will never hurt ...
In the early 90s when the affair of Charles and Camillan was made public and filled the headlines of the tabloids every day, i think Camilla´s children Laura and Tom had a hard time.
So if now their ´royal connection´bring sometimes an advantages for their lifes we should be glad for them.
Laura and Tom are both very private and low-key, they support their mother and they are very loyal to their stepfather without the wish to sparkle in the ´royal limelight´.
__________________
´We will all have to account for our actions to our children and grand-children, and if we don´t get this right, how will they ever forgive us?´
Prince Charles in a speech, 6th December 2006
  #1627  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:34 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
I agree with the said. Prince Charles has never lived "a miserable and lonely life", he just suffered consequences of his poor judgement.
You are too categorical and agressive in regard to Princess Diana. I believe that she has already paid the ultimate price.
Yes she did, through her own choosing. Life is for the living and Prince Charles is still alive and hopefully with many years ahead of him and is entitled to live his with happiness.

Diana will be remembered for the enormous good she did and all that she accomplished in her public service and that is as it should be. I feel very sorry for Diana and the life she led, but as an adult she was responsible for the choices she made and many of them were very bad. Believe ir or not, I personally liked and admired Diana in many ways, how she conducted herself prior to and during her life as a Royal is simply not one of them.
  #1628  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:47 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by milla Ca View Post
In the early 90s when the affair of Charles and Camillan was made public and filled the headlines of the tabloids every day, i think Camilla´s children Laura and Tom had a hard time.
So if now their ´royal connection´bring sometimes an advantages for their lifes we should be glad for them.
Laura and Tom are both very private and low-key, they support their mother and they are very loyal to their stepfather without the wish to sparkle in the ´royal limelight´.
I am glad for them. Hopefully they will not disappoint their parents.
  #1629  
Old 10-04-2007, 07:51 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
I wonder why you would think an American writer could have any idea what aristo's or commoners in the UK feel about Camilla? Diana was disliked by some aristocrats, who felt she let the side down and loved by some commoners who were led to believe she was just like them.

Camilla is liked by the aristocrats, IMO, and disliked, at the moment by some commoners. Although we can see from her reception throughout the UK, the UK public is warming to her by the day and a large percentage of Highlanders love her, IMO.
The Dominick Dunne quote was from after he met her a few weeks before her death. As far as 'public opinion' in GB, there was a BBC poll at the time of Charles and Camilla's engagement (just type the names, wedding and constitution) that was overwhelmingly of the opinion that if C and C married, he should step down from the succession, which is what I based my post on. In regards to public opinion about Camilla, very recently she chose (had her hand forced?) to cancel going to the memorial because of the groundswell against it, no? I seem to remember Beatrixfan posting something about egg throwing? The spindoctoring from Clarence House is not as good as when Bolland was doing it. Whomever advised THR that it would be a good idea for Camilla to go did not do them any favors. I think it set back her public profile and reminded people of the whole c/d/c mess.
  #1630  
Old 10-04-2007, 08:15 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 801
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
As far as 'public opinion' in GB, there was a BBC poll at the time of Charles and Camilla's engagement (just type the names, wedding and constitution) that was overwhelmingly of the opinion that if C and C married, he should step down from the succession, which is what I based my post on. In regards to public opinion about Camilla, very recently she chose (had her hand forced?) to cancel going to the memorial because of the groundswell against it, no? I seem to remember Beatrixfan posting something about egg throwing?
I've already mentioned that the change in opinion to Camilla when looking at polls taken before their wedding to now. The same polling company asked the same question before C & C's wedding 9% were prepared to see Camilla as Queen. The poll taken before the memorial 28% were prepared to see Camilla as Queen, in two and a half years that means support for Camill has increased three fold. Quoting polls taken at the time of the wedding to give as evidence of the lack of support for Camilla aren't valid as subsequent polls show the support is increasing.

The egg throwing claim came from tabloids quoting members of The Diana Circle, these are also the same people who threatened to picket and hurl abuse at C & C on their first tour of the US. One woman turned up at a few events and that was it. Again they claimed on the second trip that they would stage protests, nothing happened and no-one turned up. The Diana Circle members were the ones who ran the campaign by bombarding Clarence House with complaining letters against Camilla attending the Diana memorial service. Again I'll point out that the Diana Circle is based in the US and most of their membership is not from the UK. Thanks to the concerted efforts of the Dianaites and a media trying to whip up a frenzy, the focus of the memorial was taken away from Diana and onto Camilla. Therefore she released the statement that her attendance would distract from what the memorial was about, that was the life of Diana.
August is a slow news month, the media had plenty of time to create whatever slant they wanted on Camilla attending Diana's memorial. They unsuccessfully tried the whole 'why isn't the flag flying at half mast at Buckingham Palace" at the anniversary of her death, well that didn't work as people didn't care and pointed out that the flag doesn't fly at half mast on the anniversary of the deaths of King George VI, Winston Churchill or Queen Elizabeth. So the media let that one die a natural death, the only negative spin they could manage was Camilla's attendence and they were fueled by the extremists as that's what the Diana maniacs are.
  #1631  
Old 10-04-2007, 09:00 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
I could not imagine Tony Blair as a person, who severely discredited the British Royal Family. Why didn't he fully capitalize on emotions of the crowds after Princess' death and start the process of abolishment?
He'd only been Prime Minister for a short time when that happened, and he wasn't in much of a position to challenge the monarchy as a brand-new PM. The undermining came later. He did capitalise on the emotions of the crowds to do the "People's Princess" stuff along with the implication that the rest of the royal family, including the Queen, weren't connecting with the people. That was damaging enough to be going on with.
  #1632  
Old 10-04-2007, 10:21 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
He'd only been Prime Minister for a short time when that happened, and he wasn't in much of a position to challenge the monarchy as a brand-new PM. The undermining came later. He did capitalise on the emotions of the crowds to do the "People's Princess" stuff along with the implication that the rest of the royal family, including the Queen, weren't connecting with the people. That was damaging enough to be going on with.
I am not surprised to learn about the Machiavellian streak in Mr. Blair’s character as it is essential for the long-term political survival. Still his attempts to undermine the royalty might be viewed as fruitless. Prime Ministers come and go, whereas the British Royal Family, even with controversial Prince Charles, remains inviolable.
  #1633  
Old 10-05-2007, 04:11 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Once again I ask.."For what possible reason did they have to have a civil marriage service (specifically forbidden in the Marriage Act), if they had the approval and consent of the Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury (who must perform the coronation)?" and "what is the difference between the situation with Charles and Camilla v. David and Wallis?"
The only reason that Queen Elizabeth is on the throne today is that it was ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE that the King/Defender of the Faith be married to a divorcee. Queen Wallis anyone? Would those of you in the Camilla camp have been so accepting of Queen/Princess Consort Wallis?
We had that upthread and in several others: acording to experts a civil marriage is valid for the future king. Edward VIII. had to go because he was politically involved with the British fascist and other right-winged movement and the government already feared Nazi- Germany and used this chance to get rid of a king who might have left the UK out in the cold when it came to Hitler. How right they were: at one point the Duke of Windsor accepted an offer by the Nazis to make him king and Wallis queen once they had conquered the UK!

I doubt any politician of today fears that Charles would go against the interests of his country in that way. And look at Spain where democracy was saved by the king who did not work together with the military who attempted a coup d' etat and told them to give up instead. So in 1936 there was a vivid interest to get rid of "David" while there is none to get rid of "Cheeky Charlie".
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #1634  
Old 10-05-2007, 05:48 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
You are too categorical and agressive in regard to Princess Diana. I believe that she has already paid the ultimate price.
No, she hasn't. She is dead, yes. But we all have to die one day. But she never had to really pay for what she did to others. I believe she was able to be compassionate and cared for many things. But once she was no longer caring for someone or a project or once she felt mistreated, she could be very vicious and negative. Then she felt justified to do all she wanted and lied and deceived to reach her own ends. I just remind of telephone terror attacks, the Panorama-interview, the way she treated Fergie in the end...

To pay the ultimative price for having character traits like that would not have been dying while you were young, beautiful and admired!

I
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #1635  
Old 10-05-2007, 05:54 AM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 7,160
As to the initial question,ofcourse he will.But darling mama's health is such,she might live to be a hundred like her mother before.No-one knows, maybe she even outlives her son.
  #1636  
Old 10-05-2007, 05:57 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
The Dominick Dunne quote was from after he met her a few weeks before her death. As far as 'public opinion' in GB, there was a BBC poll at the time of Charles and Camilla's engagement (just type the names, wedding and constitution) that was overwhelmingly of the opinion that if C and C married, he should step down from the succession, which is what I based my post on. In regards to public opinion about Camilla, very recently she chose (had her hand forced?) to cancel going to the memorial because of the groundswell against it, no? I seem to remember Beatrixfan posting something about egg throwing? The spindoctoring from Clarence House is not as good as when Bolland was doing it. Whomever advised THR that it would be a good idea for Camilla to go did not do them any favors. I think it set back her public profile and reminded people of the whole c/d/c mess.
I doubt anything the Prince and his princess do nowadays reminds people of this mess, it's part of the media and Diana's fans who cannot let loose and bring up the same old stories again and again.

I f I had the choice between being a friend of Diana or Camilla I would choose Camilla. And I bet if Diana's fans were honest, they would, too! After all we have never heard from an "ex-"confidante of Camilla how badly she was treated but we heard nummerous accounts of how thin the line between friendship and abuse was with Diana.

And now the person who most intimately lived together with Diana and had to cope with her should be denied his peace, his happiness and his inheritance only because he at one point called it quits? Come on!
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #1637  
Old 10-05-2007, 11:01 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
No, she hasn't. She is dead, yes. But we all have to die one day. But she never had to really pay for what she did to others. I believe she was able to be compassionate and cared for many things. But once she was no longer caring for someone or a project or once she felt mistreated, she could be very vicious and negative. Then she felt justified to do all she wanted and lied and deceived to reach her own ends. I just remind of telephone terror attacks, the Panorama-interview, the way she treated Fergie in the end...

To pay the ultimative price for having character traits like that would not have been dying while you were young, beautiful and admired!

I
It has been kind of you to provide very emotional comments. You are entitled to your opinion about Princess Diana. I avoid being too categorical about people. Human beings are neither moral and virtuous paragons nor absolute villains. In this respect, Princess Diana was a mixture of positive and negative traits as well as Prince Charles and his spouse.
  #1638  
Old 10-05-2007, 11:05 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
I doubt anything the Prince and his princess do nowadays reminds people of this mess, it's part of the media and Diana's fans who cannot let loose and bring up the same old stories again and again.

I f I had the choice between being a friend of Diana or Camilla I would choose Camilla. And I bet if Diana's fans were honest, they would, too! After all we have never heard from an "ex-"confidante of Camilla how badly she was treated but we heard nummerous accounts of how thin the line between friendship and abuse was with Diana.

And now the person who most intimately lived together with Diana and had to cope with her should be denied his peace, his happiness and his inheritance only because he at one point called it quits? Come on!
Who denies Prince Charles "his peace,his happiness and his inheritance" (Joe of Palatine, 2007)? Fairly speaking, I do not understand this outcry that Prince Charles is denied something. Love triangles are akin to civil wars, where each side has got its own truth. Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall have been reaping consequences of their poor judgment and mistakes as well as Princess Diana did. The untimely death of Princess Diana has alleviated tensions and defused the controversy over the whole situations to a certain extent.
  #1639  
Old 10-05-2007, 11:26 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
The Dominick Dunne quote was from after he met her a few weeks before her death. As far as 'public opinion' in GB, there was a BBC poll at the time of Charles and Camilla's engagement (just type the names, wedding and constitution) that was overwhelmingly of the opinion that if C and C married, he should step down from the succession, which is what I based my post on. In regards to public opinion about Camilla, very recently she chose (had her hand forced?) to cancel going to the memorial because of the groundswell against it, no? I seem to remember Beatrixfan posting something about egg throwing? .
I think most of your points have already been answered, but I still cannot find anything to suggest that Dunne has spoken to or has much knowledge about what aristocrats or commoners think.
Very many people do not vote in polls and unless there is a strict mechanism at play, a person with strong views can vote time and again. As an ex friend explained it to me, just clear your cookies and open dozens of hotmail accounts. Personally I could never be bothered. You also have to take into account the old argument of how could 1000 or so, give a clear picture of what 60,776,238 people think!

Far from starting a groundswell against Camilla, even the worst tabloids came down in support of the actions she had taken and went so far as to praise her for it. I doubt she was worried by the threats from a few demented Diana circle members, she knows the protection she has and she knows they couldn't get within egg throwing distance. She withdrew from the service so that the media would focus on Diana, as William and Harry wanted and for that she should be admired.
  #1640  
Old 10-05-2007, 11:34 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
Who denies Prince Charles "his peace,his happiness and his inheritance" (Joe of Palatine, 2007)? Fairly speaking, I do not understand this outcry that Prince Charles is denied something. Love triangles are akin to civil wars, where each side has got its own truth. Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall have been reaping consequences of their poor judgment and mistakes as well as Princess Diana did. The untimely death of Princess Diana has alleviated tensions and defused the controversy over the whole situations to a certain extent.
"love triangle"? More like an octagon. Diana had more lovers while married to Prince Charles, according to numerous reports, than Carter has little liver pills.

Diana was mentally ill as well as bulimia. Diana threw her stepmother down a flight of stairs. Diana lied and slandered an unmarried woman in public by telling her how sorry she was about losing a baby and then settled a lawsuit over the matter.

I really don't think you can compare the actions and behaviors of Prince Charles and Diana at all.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
prince charles, prince of wales


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
Reign of Felipe VI: How Will Things Be Different? muriel King Felipe VI, Queen Letizia and Family 90 01-03-2017 06:30 PM
“The Lady Queen: the Notorious Reign of Joanna I, Queen of Naples, Jerusalem, and Sic An Ard Ri Royal Library 0 07-06-2014 07:27 PM
Is Victoria Ready to Reign? NotAPretender Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 20 06-19-2011 07:05 AM
Elizabeth II: Oldest British Monarch (Dec 20 2007); 2nd Longest Reign (May 12 2011) WindsorIII Queen Elizabeth II 33 05-30-2011 07:40 AM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen victoria royalty of taiwan st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:07 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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