The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/)
-   -   Should Camilla attend the memorial service for Diana? (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/should-camilla-attend-the-memorial-service-for-diana-13349.html)

Jo of Palatine 08-27-2007 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin (Post 658173)
????? Thank goodness for small favors, I guess!!

I beg your pardon?

Jo of Palatine 08-27-2007 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin (Post 658166)
Thank goodness for Her Majesty...LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!!

Yeah - and once she does something you don't like, what will you do then? Cry out that she should vacate her throne immediately?

Al_bina 08-27-2007 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 658168)
If the Queen really did stop Camilla from going then she's lost all respect she once had from me and I'll be glad to see her replaced with an elected Head of State. However, I don't believe this is true at all and I'll reserve my venom for Her Majesty until it's confirmed.

Please, calm down. :flowers:It takes more than just this memorial service to remove the monarchy. It is deemed unwise to hold Her Majesty responsible for all awkward decisions made or approved by Prince Charles and his advisors of any nature.
Upon communicating with certain members of this Forum, I have come to the following conclusion. It is better to refrain from commenting on the British Royal Family as the latter is surrounded with too many controversies.

Moonmaiden23 08-27-2007 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 658148)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha https://www.theroyalforums.com/ugala/...s/viewpost.gif
In one interview The Princess of Wales said: "There were three of us in this marriage"


Interesting, isn't it, how there were actually four or more people in the marriage when you look at it factually. Charles, Diana, Camilla, and James Hewitt, etc.... it appears to me that Diana was overlooking her own affairs. To say "there were three" is really not true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquarela https://www.theroyalforums.com/ugala/...s/viewpost.gif
mmm... didnt you heard the "excuse" the Queen gave for not being present in Camillas birthday ? :rolleyes:

No, I have not heard of any excuse for that. In fact, I've not seen or heard anything that would make me think that the Queen "has it in" for her daughter-in-law. If that were the case, then Camilla would not be wearing items such as the Deli Durbar tiara, the Boucheron Honeycomb Tiara, assorted brooches, earrings, necklaces, and other items of historic importance to the Royal Family. In all actuality, the Queen has been more generous with Camilla than she was with Diana--that's not necessarily fair, but it is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin https://www.theroyalforums.com/ugala/...s/viewpost.gif
Camilla has ended up with everything, Diana's husband, her homes, her jewelry her LIFE. She should be satisfied with that and out of respect for the Spencer family and to Diana's memory stay the hell away from that service, IMO.

Last time I checked the Spencers had not had Camilla and Charles around for tea yet. Also, Camilla has no real obligation to the Spencer family--only to the children of Diana. Also, Camilla does not have any of Diana's jewellery. NONE. She has pieces Charles has purchased for her, and many beautiful pieces which the Queen has loaned to her .She also has her own jewellery which she brought into the marriage. Also, if Diana had really wanted to keep her husband then she would have gone about things in a much different manner. Camilla does not own Diana's homes, and certaintly does not have Diana's life. Camilla is not one for all the glitz and glamour that became Diana's life. Camilla is a quieter person--the life she has is one that consists of truly supporting her husband and family. To that end, her decision to attend the memorial service was the right one, but it was changed. I think she should go. She's a strong person.

Now, HERE WE GO AGAIN. Diana vs. Camilla, Camilla vs. Diana. There is no longer a competition. It ended back in 1996. Two different women with different strenghths and weaknesses. If William and Harry are able to honor and respect both of them, then I think we certaintly can as well--they were/are both remarkable women


The Duchess of Cornwall was sneaking into Highgrove House and sleeping with Charles while Diana and Charles were still married. She was referring to the garden as "MY roses at Highgrove".

Highgrove House was Charles and Diana's marital home-one of them- up until they were separated. Listen, I am not an admirer of the Duchess of Cornwall but that does not mean that I believe the late Princess was Bambi in the headlights either. She manipulated the press. She had affairs of her own. She was difficult to live with.

But the fact remains, she was a young woman very much in love with her husband when she married him. Camilla should have butted out and NOT inserted herself into Charles's life during his marriage. I have read many accounts of Camilla taking Diana aside before the wedding and trying to glean info from her regarding her plans to hunt after the wedding, etc in order to see if she would still have HRH to herself during those times.

In Tina Brown's recent book "The Diana Chronicles" (which is by no means flattering to the late Princess) she reveals that the Parker-Bowles had a somewhat "open" marriage with the two of them playing marital beds with many other partners during the marriage. Camilla was worldly enough to believe that she could pick out this young, malleable girl, set up her marriage to HRH and continue to have her fun with him without any opposition. Only NOT. The whole thing blew up in her face. The mouse, as they say...ROARED and blew all of them away.

Now she is dead. Camilla and Charles have married and intend to live happily ever after. I think that Diana-wherever she is-probably would not begrudge them their happiness. No one wanted to see HRH live out his life as a lonely old man. Other than the Camilla business I like and respect him a lot. But the fact remains is that this woman caused Diana a LOT of pain during her life.
Her surviving family has undoubtedly not forgotten that. I see no reason for
this service NOT to simply remain an event for the people who loved and cared for the Princess of Wales...that is all.

BeatrixFan 08-27-2007 06:46 PM

Quote:

Please, calm down

Calm down? I am calm. If the Royal Family wants to rip itself apart by bending to nutters then it's nothing to get excited about, it's happening. Simple as. I just hope it can happen quickly so that we can get a new Head of State in as soon as possible.

Elspeth 08-27-2007 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polly (Post 658142)
From London's Mirror newspaper:


But the Queen's ex-Press Secretary Dickie Arbiter said the last minute announcement was a PR blunder - and insisted Camilla should never have agreed to attend.

He added: "It could have quite simply been done right at the very beginning when the idea was first mooted - with a short statement saying she would love to support her husband, would love to support William and Harry, but felt it was inappropriate to attend.


"It would have been done and dusted without all this shilly-shallying all the way up to the memorial service, which is literally five days away."


Senior royal aides were insistent the Queen's role had been "advisory". One courtier said: "It was not a question of Her Majesty stopping Camilla from attending, but asking the question if it was wise. Clarence House had not thought the issue through so Buckingham Palace picked up the ball."

Isn't this is what the Queen says when she expects something to be stopped but doesn't want to say it directly? I thought I'd read that "is that wise?" was her way of telling politicians and other people that she doesn't want something to be done.

Al_bina 08-27-2007 06:50 PM

I am glad that you are keeping your composure, but your posts sound really angry to me. I might be mistaken. :flowers:

Madame Royale 08-27-2007 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by susan alicia (Post 657870)
I think it was planned from the start that it would go this way and I think it is very well done, she is very welcom but she bows out gracefully.

Very well done? :ermm: Hmmm, I shouldn't think so.

Madame Royale 08-27-2007 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 658185)
Isn't this is what the Queen says when she expects something to be stopped but doesn't want to say it directly? I thought I'd read that "is that wise?" was her way of telling politicians and other people that she doesn't want something to be done.

The subtle approach Her Majesty seems to favour is very tactful I think. It doesn't cause offence but instead makes the person or peoples in question stop and think ;)

Polly 08-27-2007 06:58 PM

I don't think that The Queen deserves any venom, BF. I'm sure that whatever she did she did for the best, according to her views and priorities.

I think that any 'venom' should be reserved for Clarence House and its selfish refusal to consider, much less begin to understand, the ramifications for Camilla.

Another opinion....

Ingrid Seward, editor of Majesty magazine, said: "This could only have come from the Queen, it could only have come from the highest."
"Camilla probably thought it was her duty to go, but now she's been let off the hook."
Seward said the decision to invite Camilla, which angered Diana's friends and was unpopular with the public, had been "madness". She added: "All eyes would have been on her. It would have been awful for her." (Daily Mirror).


The irony is, of course, that it's the ill-considered actions of Clarence House which has literally fanned the flames of the Diana/Camilla debate all over again. They should have known better, and I believe that some did.

Aquarela 08-27-2007 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 658113)
No, perhaps you could post a link to the statement or press release.:rolleyes:

The queen did not attend Camilla's birthday party at Highgrove - the Gloucestershire home the duchess shares with husband Prince Charles - on Saturday night (21.07.07), as it would have meant the 'low-key' event would have had to have been much more formal.

Camilla's birthday diamonds - Royal Watch

Jo of Palatine 08-27-2007 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin (Post 658182)
The Duchess of Cornwall was sneaking into Highgrove House and sleeping with Charles while Diana and Charles were still married. She was referring to the garden as "MY roses at Highgrove".

Were you there and heard her saying that? Maybe she said it and meant that she gave the rose to Charles to plant in his garden? Dedicated Gardeners use this kind of language... IMHO this discusssion isn't about facts but about interpretations. You don't like Camilla, I do. So in the current sitz˙ation there is not much to be done..

Aquarela 08-27-2007 07:02 PM

i like the fact charles married diana otherwise we wouldnt have william and harry :wub:

Madame Royale 08-27-2007 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polly (Post 658190)
The irony is, of course, that it's the ill-considered actions of Clarence House which has literally fanned the flames of the Diana/Camilla debate all over again. They should have known better, and I believe that some did.

Ultimately, ain't that the truth :flowers:

BeatrixFan 08-27-2007 07:06 PM

Quote:

I am glad that you are keeping your composure, but your posts sound really angry to me. I might be mistaken.


Well I am angry yes. I'm angry that I'm being denied my Princess of Wales, I'm angry that my Royal Family are turning into a cheap second-hand cast of "EastEnders", I'm angry that my future King is being admonished as if he were a child by a group of people who have no idea what they're talking about, I'm angry that the last bastion of Britishness is crumbling away and I'm angry that some people seem to think that there's nothing wrong. Perhaps I'm doing on earth, what Queen Mary is doing underground - spinning. When Hong Kong went, people were angry. When the Queen was treated like an amateur in 1997, people were angry. Now it's 2007 and we're angry again - because everything the United Kingdom stood for and was built upon has been tossed aside because of one woman. Oh yes the Empire had gone, oh yes British identity was considered something to be ashamed of but we still had our Royal Family, we still had our Queen, we still had her example and above all else, we had the stability of the monarchy who refused to bend to the lunatic fringe that had cost us everything we held so dear. Now we don't have that anymore and the last institution of old Britain is rotting from within - and I sound angry? My dear, anger is not the word. I actually sobbed last night, I cried because for the first time I actually betrayed my Queen - I actually lost my faith in my own Queen and that tears me apart. And for what?! What has caused it?! Has she become an outspoken Nazi, has she murdered 50,000 babies or called the Archbishop of Canterbury a tosspot? No - she's simply sat by and let her son and daughter-in-law be thrown to the lions. For the first time, I actually seriously wanted to see the back of the House of Windsor and no, not because of one memorial service, because of everything this signifies. The Duchess of Cornwall will always be second best, put to the back and treated like some sort of leper and if our Royal Family have lost their dignity, if they really have just faltered and bend to public demands for cruelty against one of their own then I'm ashamed that I ever had a portrait of Elizabeth II on my wall and I'm ashamed that I once asked God to save a Queen, an institution and a family that has seriously let me down. But however I feel, it doesn't matter does it? I'm in the minority, I'm one of the few who actually cares about the monarchy as the monarchy, as what the monarchy was and not what it's been turned into - some grand pop idol competition. It's vulgar, it's sickening and it's unBritish, that's what it is and if you really want to know how I honestly feel about this - I feel stupid for ever supporting the House of Windsor.

Moonmaiden23 08-27-2007 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 658179)
Yeah - and once she does something you don't like, what will you do then? Cry out that she should vacate her throne immediately?


She hasn't really done anything in my memory that I don't like-except give permission for her son to marry his concubine of 25 years and even that I sort of understand.

I have great respect and admiration for HM The Queen. And believe it or not it is HER that I sympathised with during the tragedy that was the marriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

I was horrified at the way the media and the British public practically bullied the woman to "grieve" at the funeral of Diana...I thought it unseemly and disgraceful.

For her to step up at this moment and end this nonsense, she has my respect even more.

Moonmaiden23 08-27-2007 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 658175)
I beg your pardon?


I simply mean that I am relieved that Camilla has not taken up residence in the late Princess's apartments.

{personal comment deleted - Elspeth}

BeatrixFan 08-27-2007 07:15 PM

Quote:

For her to step up at this moment and end this nonsense, she has my respect even more.
She hasn't ended this nonsense, she's once again given into bullying. She's simply put Camilla in a horrible position. She certainly doesn't have my respect for doing that.

Moonmaiden23 08-27-2007 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 658185)
Isn't this is what the Queen says when she expects something to be stopped but doesn't want to say it directly? I thought I'd read that "is that wise?" was her way of telling politicians and other people that she doesn't want something to be done.


Elspeth, I think that is exactly how it's done!

love_cc 08-27-2007 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin (Post 658200)
I simply mean that I am relieved that Camilla has not taken up residence in the late Princess's apartments.

{personal comment deleted - Elspeth}

Charles, Camilla,William and Harry have Clarence House instead. Before that, Charles had St. James Palace and York House for home and office.Probably Kensington Palace's apartments will be used for Prince Charles's charities in the future .


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises