Duchess Camilla threatened to ‘walk out’ on Prince Charles if he abdicates…?

wenn20528252

Can you even imagine what it will be like for Prince Charles if Queen Elizabeth lives to be as old as HER mother? That would mean it would be another 15-plus years before Charles ever got to the throne. Fifteen years from now… Charles will be 80 years old. The Windsor men usually don’t live as long as the Windsor women, so just think about that.

As Charles made clear in his recent Time Magazine cover article, he’s still very much preparing for when he takes the throne. In the meantime, I personally think Charles will go down in history as one of the best Princes of Wales in British history. His personal life – the divorce, how he treated Diana, his affair and subsequent marriage to Camilla – is a mess, of course. But as a public policy expect, as an environmental advocate, as a job-creator and supporter of the arts, technology and sciences, Charles has carved out a wonderful niche for himself as “advocate prince”. Charles had to carve out that niche for himself because he’s been waiting and waiting to take over since he was… what? Four or five years old? That’s when his mom became Queen. So would a man who has spent the last six decades preparing for the role suddenly decide that he should just throw in the (chintzy royal tea) towel? That’s what The Enquirer’s gossip guy claims:

MALICE IN THE PALACE!

Amid fears that the clock’s finally ticking on ailing, 87-year-old QUEEN ELIZABETH, son and heir PRINCE CHARLES triggered a Royal explosion when he dropped a bomb on wife CAMILLA, Duchess of Cornwall, informing her of a momentous decision: When the time comes, he’ll turn the throne over to eldest son PRINCE WILLIAM!

Reports My Royal Spy: “Charles, who turns 65 this month, has been waiting his entire life to take over the reins, but he’s finally come to realize that William and wife KATE’s worldwide popularity will bring new vitality to the monarchy.

“They’re the world’s most beloved couple and Charles feels it’s William’s time to be King. But when he told Camilla, she flipped out, screaming, ‘You’ve waited your entire life to be King. I won’t allow you to pass the crown to William.’”

Revealed a pal of Charles: “Camilla’s always lived for the day Charles would be King. So his decision’s ignited a major battle between them.

“Camilla’s so incensed, she’s actually threatened to walk out on him if he gives up the throne!”

[From The Enquirer]

I actually think the opposite may be true? I don’t think Camilla really gives a crap at this point. She doesn’t have very strong feelings about being Queen consort or whatever title Charles decides to give her. It doesn’t seem like Camilla ever had strong feelings about being a public figure, so who know? But I just doubt that Charles would ever abdicate. Ever.

Meanwhile, have you heard all the stuff about Charles’ tax situation? A while back – I think it was in the 1990s – Charles and the Queen decided that he should pay income tax, which apparently was a new idea for a member of the royal family (they don’t have to pay taxes). But it was complicated in Charles’ case because of the structure of the Duchy of Cornwall, the massive estate from which Charles receives the bulk of his wealth. Well, anyway, long story short, Parliament is now investigating whether the Duchy of Cornwall’s tax situation (or LACK of tax situation) is an “unfair tax preference” which hurts competitive businesses. You can read more about it here.

PS… Why is Charles’ face so red these days?

wenn20547858

wenn20801826

wenn20807391

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

131 Responses to “Duchess Camilla threatened to ‘walk out’ on Prince Charles if he abdicates…?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. eliza says:

    He is not going to abdicate in favor of William. This is a bunch of hooey.

  2. Frida_K says:

    Oh, horse cakes. She’s not going anywhere without her tampon. No way, no how.

  3. GiGi says:

    I really feel that Charles views the throne as a duty to be fulfilled, rather than a status to be gained. He’s hardly been twiddling his thumbs in the meantime and his royal calendar is quite full as it is. There is no chance he’ll abdicate so the whole Camilla leaving story is ridic.

    He’s just going about his life and he’ll be king when it’s time. I doubt seriously he’s wishing his mother’s life be cut short just so he can open Parliament.

    • VioletCrumble says:

      I agree, GiGi. The royal children have a profound sense of duty instilled in them from a very young age. Because of this, Charles will not abdicate and will see it through, no matter what happens.

      I also believe Camilla will stand by him, no matter what. They adore each other, and always have. I really like her. She kept her trap shut from the very beginning, never divulging even the smallest detail about her (or their) personal issues. She took the hatred and abuse directed at her for years and years on the chin, and always conducted herself with the utmost dignity and discretion. Diana, on the other hand, behaved like a needy, whining teenager. I don’t mean she didn’t have cause to feel as she did, but she was raised in “that” world, was a very significant Royal and member of The Firm, after all, so should have known better about how to behave.

      I think all the drama and trauma that ensued would have been avoided, had Camilla waited for Charles and not married Mr Parker-Bowles. Hindsight is a bugger of a thing, though…

      • Nina W says:

        Diana was not raised to be the center of the world’s attention, “Firm” or no and I think she acquitted herself rather well considering all she was put through. What Charles did to her was reprehensible and though I don’t hold it against Camilla, I hardly think she is a superior person to Diana merely because she was discrete.

      • Sal says:

        I don’t agree, I think Camilla behaved disgracefully for years and years, starting with boasting about her family having affairs with royals, and asking Charles ‘how about it?’ offering herself as a piece on the side. Then going to Charles and Diana’s wedding, she shouldn’t have shown up. And the CC cufflinks she gave Charles for a wedding present – Charles/Camilla. Who does that? Thats not discreet. Diana behaved impeccably, she conducted herself very very well and never spoke about the pain she went through until afterwards. If she was needy, we never saw it or knew about it. Diana showed class, dignity and grace under fire. She behaved impeccably and exemplary. Camilla showed how classless and trashy she was right through from the start.

      • My2Pence says:

        @Sal. And Kate Middleton allegedly having sex with William for months behind his first college girlfriend’s back? Rumored to be because the girlfriend wanted to wait for marriage, William had “needs” and one of his friends mentioned Kate as available and discrete. These cheating actions called out in public during a play in which the girlfriend was acting. Do you consider Kate Middleton’s behavior “classless and trashy” as well?

      • Sal says:

        My2Pence, thats the first time I have ever heard such a story, and I live in one of the Commonwealth (Queen) nations. Obviously there was nothing in it, since I just asked and no one else I know at this do I’m at has ever heard such a thing, so I doubt very much it ever happened. However there is hardcore concrete evidence about Camilla’s behaviour and its been reported on ad nauseam.

      • My2Pence says:

        @Sal. So no one in your small circle has ever read of this (I think it was either girlfriend Hunt or Musgrave, but cannot recall right now), therefore it didn’t happen?

        Multiple biographers of Prince William have noted that he is a known cheater, cheated on Kate multiple times, openly slept with at least one woman in his barracks while still seeing Middleton, couldn’t commit to Middleton because he couldn’t see limiting himself to only one woman, etc.

        Look back over the decade of their relationship, before the PR whitewashing campaign, open your eyes to the possibility that these two are merely human (therefore imperfect), and you’ll see a very different story.

      • Sal says:

        Sigh. Most of these celeb ‘biographers’ are complete frauds and simply compile tabloid stories into book form. Andrew Morton comes to mind. Again, you appear to be under the misapprehension that I think these 2 are perfect. Wrong. I have no interest in either of these 2. Royalty bores me. I simply clicked on the story for light relief. You seem desperate to convince myself and others that William is this evil cheater and Kate is a lazy person. One wonders why are you so incredibly desperate? Why does it matter to you so much? I only believe things that come out of their own mouths, or things that have been said on channels like BBC, and lets face it: like the Diana affairs and Charles affair, if there was any substance to the William “stories”, it would have been aired on a CREDIBLE outlet. It clearly, has not, since the only ones familiar with the stories are those that read tabloids. I’m sorry I don’t read the stuff you read, hence I am not familiar with sensationalist rubbish. As I said, if it happened, it would have been all over the media, and repeated during and after the wedding. I don’t believe that since I haven’t heard of rumours, that it didn’t happen. But likewise, I don’t believe just because it was reported in sensationalist outlets, it *automatically* is true, like you appear to think. There has never been any actual reference, NB CREDIBLE trusted media reference, to any of these William cheating stories. Once it hits credible mainstream media and/or he owns up to it, then I’ll believe it. But I do not believe any of these trashloid ‘biographers’ nor tabloid magazines. As they say, innocent until proven guilty and a trashy ‘biogrpaher’ is NOT proof of anything other than people gullibly believe everything they read. I think William and Kate are no saints nor devils. But why you seem so intent on making others believe in these tabloid stories that only you’ve seen, is beyond me. I couldn’t care less really. I just have a tendency to say “wheres the proof? Whats the source?” when people assert something that isn’t widely known, is true.

      • Sal says:

        And with that, I’m outta here. O_O This is all too weird and boring to me. My thanks to those who didn’t irrationally attack and abuse me, unlike My2Pence did. No need to abuse people My2Pence.

      • My2Pence says:

        Sal, I don’t perceive an attack to you in anything I typed. You however? “You seem desperate to convince myself and others that William is this evil cheater and Kate is a lazy person. One wonders why are you so incredibly desperate?”

        That seems like a personal, abusive attack on someone 1) you will never know and 2) who simply disagrees with your opinion.

        I merely think tax-payer funded individuals should work for the taxpayers. When they don’t, they get criticized. Nothing against anyone else or their opinions. I can sift, weed, find the fact vs. fiction, and reach my own conclusions. No need to get abusive and personal about it, Sal.

      • bluhare says:

        Wow, Sal. For someone who was bored you sure wrote a lot.

        However, re biographies. If they are that out there the authors and publishers will get sued. People were always threatening to sue Kitty Kelley but they never did, because she had sources. Not that she doesn’t like to embellish, I’ll give you that.

  4. A says:

    If Camilla really wanted so badly to be queen she would have taken her chances and waity-ed for him back in the day. I always viewed the subsequent affairs as a kind of proof that it was about actually liking Charles, not the titles.

  5. Kiki says:

    I think this is absolutely ridiculous. It’s so obvious that Charles, very much like his mother, has a true understanding of what it means to be a royal, that it means a life of service to the country/Commonwealth (and anyone can say what they want about his personal life, but Charles is really wonderful at his work, and has always been). You don’t abdicate for no reason. The Queen is not abdicating, and Charles is not passing the throne straight to William. Abdicating may be how things are done in the Netherlands or Belgium but it’s not how it works in Britain. The Queen had first hand experience of what abdication meant to her family, and what her parents and her grandmother had to go through, and I’m sure she passed it on to her children.

    And for heavens’ sake, do we need even more proof that Camilla loves him, that they’re a happily married couple regardless of titles? Just look at how they look at each other.

  6. feebee says:

    However one feels about Camilla I think she cares only about Charles. She didn’t stick around being dragged through tabloid hell, come out the other side etc because she wanted to be Queen Consort. She’s hopelessly attached to this man through thick and thin and if he abdicated I think she’s be fine with it. She’d have him more to herself wouldn’t she?

    I’d like to think he could possibly consider abdicating but I don’t think he could handle just handing over something he’s waited so long for… even if he didn’t want it, it’s his birthright, his wait, his turn and William will never be ready until Charles shows him.

  7. brin says:

    Rubbish! (“Hooey” and “horse cakes” were already taken).

  8. Anaya says:

    Charles will never abdicate. Any tabloid that suggests such a thing is only saying it because it favors William and Kate as king and queen instead of Charles and Camilla. The press better be careful of what they ask for. William as king and Kate as queen could be a nightmare especially if were to happen while William and Kate are still somewhat a young couple. Neither William or Kate is ready for the top job plus William doesn’t really seem to want the job as king while Charles does, he hasn’t run away from the reality of what his future role will someday be and Charles is much more prepared for it.

  9. fancyamazon says:

    I’m pretty sure that Charles will abdicate, in fact I think that is why he was finally given the blessing to marry Camilla. I don’t get all the hate towards her, really. And I’m sure she hasn’t a care in the world about Charles taking the throne or not.

  10. PHD Gossip says:

    The enquirer is spot on when it comes to US political scandals (think john Edwards Gary hart, ted Kennedy etc), usually right about Hollywood stars and always wrong about the UK royals. They just don’t have the sourcing.
    Not. Buying. This.

  11. blue marie says:

    I don’t know a lot about Camilla but this doesn’t seem true? Someone more educated on the subject can tell me.

    The red face could be higher blood pressure? Or maybe Rosacea?

  12. Nicole says:

    Look at those two laugh together… they’re best friends!

  13. MonicaQ says:

    The British Royal Family already saw what abdicating can do to in the early 20th century. They ain’t going through that again.

    Funny though if this was 10 years ago, people would be ripping Charles apart considering how much people loved Diana. Huh. Guess time heals all (gossip) wounds.

  14. Evie says:

    The ruddiness in his complexion could be rosacea.

  15. mk says:

    Nah, their relationship is Twu Wuv. I am pretty sure it’s the good Macallan that gives Charles his ruddy glow. His meat fists have always said a wee nip and a lot of gardening to me, too.

  16. The Original Mia says:

    Charles is not going to abdicate in favor of the Lazy Duo. No way. He knows his duty. He wouldn’t turn over the legacy of the Windsor dynasty to a couple that can barely be arsed to work a tenth of the engagements his elderly parents do.

  17. MademoiselleRose says:

    Charles is very old school and I don’t believe he will abdicate. He will be the last of the old time monarchs where duty comes first. I also don’t think William is crazy to be King and will be happy to put it off so I’m not thinking he will want to leap frog his father. As much as I don’t like Camilla, I don’t believe she would leave Charles. I don’t believe she cares one way or the other and would support Charles in whatever he decided. The only reason I think he might consider abdicating would be if he felt he was too old to reign if, for example, it came to him in his eighties, but even then it’s not like he really has to do anything if he were decrepit, it’s not like he would run the country.

  18. ncboudicca says:

    Will and Kate are the “world’s most beloved couple”????!!!!

  19. L says:

    As a individual- Charles has paid a contribution to the treasury of 50% of his Duchy income from the time he became eligible for its full income at the age of 21 in 1969, and paid 25% of his income from when he married Diana in 1981 until the current arrangement of a ‘income tax’ commenced in 1993. Which he’s not obligated to do as a royal but has always opted to do because under it all I think he’s a responsible person.

    The issue is whether the Duchy (as a royal body) should be paying a corporation tax and what benefits they’ve received from currently being exempt from that tax.

    • Suze says:

      It’s a complicated tax situation for sure. I would think it would keep many hundreds of British tax accountants, lawyers and researchers busy for many years – so perhaps there’s a general employment benefit.

    • Eleonor says:

      I’ve seen on tv something about the work he has done with is activities, and there were interviews and stuff like that. For me it was the first time I had the chance to hear him talk, and he has really grown on me: his view about environment, architectures, arts and so on, he is much more interesting than he seems.
      The marriage with Diana was a mess from the start because of age difference and because he wasn’t really in love with her, but he is a far way better person than the people (outside the UK) can imagine.

  20. Murphy says:

    That is the most rediculous thing I have ever read on this website. Ever. in 6 years.

  21. Suze says:

    He’s never abdicating. Never ever ever ever. Now, it’s possible he could die before his mother (God forbid, but given the longevity in the female line, a remote possibility. Of course his father has lived a long time, too.) but he will never ever ever abdicate.

    I agree that he probably has rosacea and that accounts for the redness in the face. Camilla is looking well these days, though, like she’s working out or something. I also don’t think she cares much for becoming queen.

  22. DenG says:

    The Queen looks younger and healthier to me than Camilla does.

  23. Anoneemouse says:

    Can you imagine this hag as a Queen?

  24. nicegirl says:

    I know it is weird, but I still love Diana, I am loyal to a fault, I guess, and I do not want Camilla to be Queen (or consort), ever. I feel like Diana would be rolling over in her grave. Although we all know I am a vulgar American, so who gives a rip what I think about the Royal Family?

    • bluhare says:

      We do!!!

      But I don’t think Diana would is rolling in her grave about Camilla being Queen. From all accounts, she and Charles were on their way to a good relationship when she died.

    • Liza Jane says:

      With age should come wisdom, and though at the time everyone adored Diana, years since have shown her to be very flawed, very spiteful and a terrible trial to the Royal family and her friends! She had many good qualities but was very damaged and she acted out at the drop of a hat, she loved her boys and her good works but everything to Diana was a photo op. she did not have the dignity or sense to realise the terrible damage she inflicted on her surroundings, or the sense of loyalty she needed to fight her fight in privacy and within the walls of the palace! She shamelessly exploited the publics love of her and flaunted her ‘pain’
      It has been many years now since the scales fell from my eyes and I realized she was all gloss and beauty on the outside but a sad mess inside! Yes it was sad she never felt loved as she wanted but how much of that love did she push away by acting with reckless abandon( citing the stair throwing act whilst pregnant, the infamous stalking phone calls to married men, etc)? and not making any attempt to act the supportive and loving wife!
      Charles also had a huge cross to bear and time has proved that he lived in hell too!

      • molly says:

        Lot of old rot – she loved Charles and every day his conscience must play with his mind, him and camilla should have been sent to the gallows for how they treated diana. she had faults like you or I but she was publically humiliated by him and the old hag,

        I hope he doesn’t become King, he doesn’t deserve to be.

      • Nina W says:

        It’s very easy to character assassinate someone when they’re dead and can’t defend themselves and plenty of people have piled on Diana over the years but I for one will always view her as an innocent who was thrust into a god awful situation I wouldn’t wish on anyone. Good ol’ Prince Charley hardly seems like Prince Charming. She’s dead, quite tragically, perhaps you can cut her some slack now.

      • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

        @ lizajane You are right and obviously have read more deeply into the true facts of the Charles Camilla Diana situation. Your critics Molly and Nina prefer to cling to their princess fantasies about Diana rather than face the truth. It just shows the value of being first out of the starting gate with your pr spin and serving up the right helpings of the pablum the public prefers. The effectiveness of Diana’s pr strategy continues to amaze me. You critics–you would not have loved your fantasy princess if you had been on the receiving end of her jealousy and spite (ask Tilly) or if your husband had been the object of Diana’s vortex like emotional needs .

      • Jaded says:

        @Liza Jane – well stated. Diana went after that marriage presenting herself as one thing, and zeroed in on Charles with laser beam intensity. But once the ceremony was over she reverted back to her original self, leaving Charles somewhat mystified as to what had become of the sweet, placid young lady who purported to love hunting, horse-back riding and weekends in the country. She instantly reverted to her city-loving, shopaholic, lunching with the ladies persona. On the positive side, she threw herself into her charity work with a passion despite having little or no help from “the firm” and the “grey men”, but her ups and downs and tantrums were legendary. She was a very charismatic woman, but could be an utter shrew when she wanted to. At the end of the day, neither she nor Charles were temperamentally well suited to each other.

        No one in the situation was all good or all bad, they were all flawed characters to one degree or another, but one thing is for sure, Charles and Camilla had and still have a very deep love, respect and friendship that endured through a terrible time.

  25. JLM says:

    Question from an American: if Charles predeceases the Queen, does that displace William and put Anne or Prince Andrew as next in line, and then their kids after them?

    • bluhare says:

      No. William and Kate would then become Prince and Princess of Wales I think. But even if they weren’t Prince/ss of Wales, he’d still be next in line after the Queen.

      • Madriani's Girl says:

        Would Kate become Queen? And if so, why can she get that title but Camilla can’t if Charles becomes King? I never understood that part. I know Diana would have become Queen, too. Is it because Camilla was married before?

      • bluhare says:

        My understanding is Kate will be Queen Consort. The only reason Camilla would not be the same is public sentiment. Charles wants her to be Queen and I don’t really see why not either (but they don’t ask my opinion!).

      • My2Pence says:

        @ bluehare. This drives me crazy. “King Consort” wouldn’t be used, so neither should “Queen Consort” IMO. In a gender equal/neutral world, King = Queen, not King > Queen, Queen < King.

        There was one UK politician who raised the issue of gender equality last year and was roundly criticized. All he suggested was that, if they were discussing letting the firstborn male-or-female inherit, they should make other changes for gender equality as well. The wife of the king would be "Princess Consort". Husband of the queen would be "Prince Consort". Anything else indicates that women are somehow less than men.

      • bluhare says:

        my2pence: I actually agree with you but I think as it stands right now, Kate would be a Queen Consort, rather than a Queen Regnant. Philip isn’t King because then he’d outrank the Queen. The royals still play by old rules although I do think they’re trying to change a bit.

    • Nina W says:

      “Primogeniture is the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn child to inherit the family estate” in application the eldest child inherits. The eldest child of the Queen is Charles, the eldest child of Charles is William, the eldest child of William is George. Those are the top three heirs to the British throne regardless of who dies first they would all be King before any other family member.

  26. Nicolette says:

    I’d buy into this. The Rottweiller has waited a long time for her boy to be king. I’d imagine her knickers being quite twisted if there were a possibilty of it not happening.

    • My2Pence says:

      Seriously? It has been 17 years since the divorce, 16 years since Diana’s death. Maybe you might consider getting over it. You were not one of the three people involved, you were not personally injured by the situation, you were not privy to what really happened – none of us were. Three strangers you are unlikely to ever meet had a complicated relationship over many years, but they eventually figured it out.

      Accounts state that Charles and Diana had a functional, good relationship at the time of her death, so it is unlikely that Diana would have still been attacking Camilla at this point. By all accounts Henry and William have accepted her into the family. And unlike Middleton, Camilla never hungered after the royal role and status, hence marrying Parker Bowles. Accounts of her on her royal duties show people find Camilla engaging, fun, and interested in her work. NOT how people describe Middleton on her RARE work outings.

    • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

      Leave her alone. You know nothing.

  27. St says:

    Some british people are so funny. They seriously believe that Charles would abdicate throne. Why? Why on earth would Charles abdicate for William to be king? What would be the official reason? “My son is cuter and younger then me so he totally should take throne”? This is monarchy. This is not some Facebook or Twitter or tabloids games. This is real.

    It’s not like Charles is mentally ill or is dictator that kills innocent people all the time for fun. The only reason why british people want Charles to give up throne is because they think William is cute young and nice man. Well this is not kindergarten, people. This is monarchy. I can totally imagine that situation in year some 1800 when old king would die and his 60 years old son would to become king but people would be like: “Oh hey, but your son is so cute. Give throne to him, would you?”. And new king would be like: “Oh hey, of course. I’m not a bad person at all and wont terrorize anyone. But yeah, I should totally do that. After all my son is cuter then me. So he totally should be new king”….

    You know back in a days people didn’t live long. And it was totally normal when king would die at 50 years old and his prince son would be 25-30 at the time when he will become king. That’s why there were so many young king. But these days people live easily till 80 years. So of course their prince sons would be 50 by the time they would become kings. But we kind of used that 30 years old prince should become king so british people want William to be king. So childish,

  28. Madriani's Girl says:

    I think that if Charles was actually considering abdicating, there is no way in the world anyone would know about it until such time as he actually did it. And I agree that Camilla doesn’t care. Even if he did become King, her life wouldn’t change all that much from what it is now, I don’t think. The thing I do wonder is if he became King, could he continue all of the good works Kaiser mentioned above at the level he does them now or would “royal duties” supersede that? If it would then maybe he really would consider abdicating but as I said, if he is considering it for whatever reason, no one would know until it became an actuality and not just a rumor.

  29. GiGi says:

    Um, where the H is LAK? She’s been scarce lately… hope all is well, LAK!

    • LAK says:

      Gigi, how kind. All is well. snowed under with work. plus my phone doesn’t upload comments section of the new site [CB have tried to correct problem] so i can’t post comments on the run as i used to do and have to wait until i am sitting at a computer by which time work, work, work!!!!

      Hope you are well too.

      • GiGi says:

        Ah! Good to hear you’re well! I’m also having a real trial with the comment situation but only on my tablet (I work from home and remotely, so I frequently have my computer on work things and my ipad open, too). It’s so frustrating because I love to comment, but, my comments just don’t load unless I let the page resolve for 10 minutes. It’s a pain! Take care :)

  30. Addison says:

    In the picture where Camilla and the Queen both have bouquets, why does it look like Camilla has more wrinkles than the the Queen? I have never noticed this before. Does anyone else see this? This is after all a post about longevity. Maybe Camilla will not live longer than the Queen and Charles can do whatever he wants without worrying about Camilla’s wrath. (If this story is true, which it probably isn’t).

  31. Jayna says:

    what a crock, He will never abdicate,

  32. taxi says:

    Charles will not abdicate. Doing so would undermine the value of everything he was bred to do & has worked at for 50 years. I doubt he believes William is ready for a serious job. That young man needs lots of training for the role of king. had Chuck & Di not split so early in the marriage, the sons would have been better trained for the royal jobs ahead. Harry presents a social conscience that William appears to lack, but Harry is far too much the fun-get naked & party guy to be taken seriously as a future monarch. Las Vegas, Nazi costumes, etc. He also has had a bit of foot-in-mouth trouble, I think?

    Charles has spent many years in the sun & wind and enjoyed some fine drinks. I don’t see rosacea as much as the dilated capillaries typical of men his age & social status. Probably didn’t use sunscreen or hats. His puffy hands are more worrying – maybe poor circulation? Too much dietary salt? Reynaud’s Syndrome? Camilla will stay with him until the end, no matter what. She’s not a quitter either.

    • My2Pence says:

      @ Taxi. Yes, Henry was an idiot for trusting strangers with cell phones, I’ll give you that. I have no problem with a serviceman blowing off steam before heading somewhere where people have sworn to hunt him down and torture him publicly to make a point. For all he knew, he wasn’t ever going to see home again. Over 3000 complaints against the rag that published those photos were filed on his behalf by members of the British public, so it appears some people take him seriously.

      As for the Nazi costume, the owner of the rental shop is on record saying William picked it out and goaded his younger brother into wearing it. Yes, Henry has 51 percent of the blame for wearing it, but his big brother gets 49 percent of the blame for 1) goading him into it and 2) getting off scot free because the PR hacks at the Palace had to keep the golden child’s reputation shiny.

      • Sarah says:

        Honestly, Harry is MADE the bad brother by the press and Will is always the GOOD guy, though he and his brother are probably one the same level of crazy. Sometimes it’s easier to put the blame on Harry just because he won’t “rule” the country one day. That’s a given and pretty much common knowledge in the UK. There are so many crazy stories from William that are on the same level as the ones Harry got famous for, just nobody will report about it, because the Queen would not approve. That’s the Diana bonus Will has. Very unfortunated for Harry who gets double the sh*t storm for his madness.
        As awesome as it seems at times to be a Royal, I would not trade my boring normal life for any money in the world…

      • taxi says:

        @ My 2Pence. Interesting. Thanks. I do think that William, as the sympathetic child-confidante of the mother he adored, may have assimilated some of her great animosity toward Charles and
        the RF. He knows how she was treated by her in-laws & Diana certainly wasn’t busy instilling the principles of service in the name of the monarchy as her son’s life goal.
        Charles was conditioned practically from infancy to accept and work toward his destined role.

  33. Sarah says:

    The red face comes most likely from some vacationing in the sun (most likely without any kinda sun protection) combined with some high blood pressure issues. Not the first time he looks like that.

  34. Kath says:

    Why is there so much love for Charles at Celebitchy??

    The man is an idiot, with ridiculously elevated views of his intelligence (when it was only his status as a royal that got him into Cambridge) and his own ‘greatness’, while running down those he believes ‘do not know their station in life’.

    He is a pampered, cossetted twit who has literally dozens of servants at his disposal to dress him, feed him and put toothpaste on his brush… like a mollycoddled child.

    He surrounds himself with forelock-tugging flunkies who belittled his wife (without lifting a finger to stop it) and seethed with petty jealousy that Diana was proving more popular than himself with the public, all while carrying on an affair and proclaiming that he wasn’t going to be the only Prince of Wales without a mistress.

    He is an unelected ninny who CONSTANTLY interferes in political matters and lobbies successive governments – a direct violation of his role as a ‘non-political’ figure. Just recently, the British courts decided that Charles’ correspondence to government departments couldn’t be released as it would be so detrimental to the public perception of the royals as ‘non partisan’. So, yes, his views had to be censored to protect his own position!

    Charles has also meddled endlessly on topics of public interest, getting developers to shut down architecture projects that weren’t to his personal taste, and lobbying the National Health Service to subsidise homeopathy from the public purse FFS.

    Why do you all love him so much? The mind boggles.

    • Suze says:

      Because the palace has some fine PR that they have used to rehab Charles’ public image.

      (Although I actually don’t care that he had a mistress. All the British royals run around amok sexually, Diana included. I can’t get outraged over that. But the public trust issues are troubling.)

    • bluhare says:

      I like Charles even though he’s a pompous old fart. He’s made good use of his time and I don’t think anyone can say one bad word about his Princes Trust. He’s helped a lot of people, including Idris Elba!

  35. cyndi says:

    His left hand appears to bé discolored and swollen as well. Wonder if he has high blood pressure? Would like to see his feet (that *does* sound weird!) to see if they’re swollen as well. Hope he’s not starting to go into heart failuré.

  36. Nikki says:

    I think if the queen were to drop over tomorrow (god forbid) Charles would have zero issues stepping up to and staying at the plate. If he were 80 and possibly looking at being crowned king, I like to think he would abdicate, if only so he doesn’t have to deal with all the BS in his 8th decade in life. Like, he’d made it that far without being king, why subject himself to the stress of the job?

  37. Sal says:

    I don’t understand why some think William and Kate are ‘lazy’. They are newlyweds and no doubt don’t want to make the mistake of working too much and growing apart by not spending time together. In addition, they are young and just had a baby. People would be slamming them if they worked too much at this point in time. Of course the Queen and Charles work a lot more – they have nothing else in their life and no family to raise. I’d expect them to work a lot more than Charles and Kate.

    • Kristin says:

      I totally agree! It really pissed me off about how much people were bashing Kate for being “lazy” and it was only 4 months after her freaking wedding! Remember Diana? She was a wife and a mother and no one ever called her lazy, and she didn’t start all that charity work for a LONG time after she got married. Give her time to find her stride people. Christ!

      • bluhare says:

        Kate was bashed as lazy long before her wedding.

      • LAK says:

        It’s on record that Diana carried out 200 engagements in her first year vs Kate’s 37. And that includes tours for both of them. Let’s not forget that Diana was also pregnant in her first year.

        It’s revisionist history to suggest that Diana didn’t work until her famous AIDS patient handshake of the mid 80s or even one or two years after her wedding.

        And she started out the way she meant to carry on which is why many people have respect for her despite her personal problems. The archives are open to the public. You can check how much Diana worked.

        Diana’s work started on her honeymoon. And she is on record saying that work rescued her from a bad personal situation and so the more miserable that was, the more she worked. To say she was overworked is to revise history. That’s not to say that a person can’t be overworked, but in Diana’s case, from the horse’s mouth herself on many, many occasions, work saved her life.

        I am an admitted Diana critic, but i respect her work ethic and i can not believe how much her work record has been and continues to be denigrated in order to justify Kate’s risible one.

        @Sal: The Queen has a job. Her charity work is extra on top of her actual job. The monarch is a real job with real responsibilities that have to be attended to. You may as well say all heads of state have nothing better to do than cut ribbons since their parliaments and ministers do the majority of their work for them. Yes, i know they are elected for the most part whilst our monarch is not, but that doesn’t mean she is ornamental. Now the rest of the family are ornamental. Any public duties they undertake are to help out the head of state, for which they are compensated by the tax payer.

        That is why when they work like Charles, they are to be commended. Charles has every right to vacation and party and have a life long gap ya William style because he may never get the top job, so why should he bother if we are to use your argument?

    • My2Pence says:

      @ Sal and @ Kristin. “Of course the Queen and Charles work a lot more – they have nothing else in their life and no family to raise. I’d expect them to work a lot more than Charles and Kate. ”

      Aside from her over 600 public engagements per year, Her Majesty has that whole “being the representative of the nation” role. Reading state papers every day but Christmas and Easter, meeting with politicians as their advisor, etc. In addition to all of his public engagements, Charles has Highgrove, the Duchy, and the Princes Trust – which he has had since the boys were young. Granted, now he has lots of people to help, but those are things that he does in his “spare” time outside of his over 600+ public engagements per year as well. Since they seem to have a good relationship, it seems Charles is a good father – even with *golly* being a Working Parent like many people.

      Diana always stated that she loved her royal work, it is what saved her when her marriage fell apart. It was not the work that harmed her or made her feel stressed. In her first year, while pregnant with William, Diana did over 200 public engagements to Kate’s 60. Diana was 20 when she married, Kate was 30. Diana had met Charles 16 times before they married. Kate lived with William for a decade before they married. One was thrust into the limelight and rose to the occasion, the other has been as lazy as can be with no excuse.

      A 31-year-old woman who cannot handle showing up for a couple of hours a day to make her bosses (the taxpayers, because yes, the Duchy tracks back to being taken from the taxpayers) happy? And some people give her a pass. “Oh they’re young, they’re not next in line, they have a baby.” Gee, many of us have full-time jobs, raise families, and still do charity work. And we earn our money, rather than taking it from the taxpayers. No, they are NOT independently wealthy. Every penny – from the Duchy to William’s inheritance – comes from the taxpayers. In exchange for that 1 percenter existence, they owe the taxpayers a 40 hour work week.

      I am constantly amazed that “fans” of Kate Middleton think this grown woman so incapable of doing a simple job and make so many excuses for this lazy behavior. The majority of the working royals are over retirement age, and doing FAR more engagements that the Lazy Duo. Way past time for William and Kate to step up and work for their living. If they do not, the taxpayers will throw them out – and take all of the houses, money, and property back.

      • Sal says:

        I stand by what I said. Yes, we all know how much Diana did, and we all saw the toll it took on their marriage. As I said, I wouldn’t be surprised if William and Kate deliberately do less so as to keep their marriage intact. They learned from others in the royal family. The Queen isn’t exactly in a close, loving relationship. She has no children to raise. And her children/grandkids are all grown up and have lives of their own. Its not like she sees them all that often. And if you think she personally tends to her properties herself with her bare hands, you are delusional. This woman has servants to cater to her every whim and do everything for her. There is nothing she really has to do. Its not like, as I said, she would have much else. So naturally she keeps busy. And for all that is holy, can we please stop accusing people who merely tentatively or otherwise defend Kate from what seems like rabid and unreasonable and reaching, attacks, of being ‘fans’ or ‘trolls’? Despite living in a country in which the Queen is our Queen and our head of state, I am NO fan of royalty, in fact, the sooner we become a Republic the happier I will be. Nor do I find Kate or William remotely interesting. I don’t like nor dislike them. Just because someone comes out and says, “now hold on, wait a minute!” to the insane, petty, vicious and ill-informed attacks, as a human to another, doesn’t make me a ‘fan’ or a ‘troll’. smh Calm down people.

      • kell says:

        My twopence – thanks for an intelligent, insightful reply. I didn’t find any part of it – or your other remarks – to be “hateful” or “ill-informed”.

      • Suze says:

        I’m quite calm. And I am quite amused at these posts.

        None of us really has the remotest idea what is going on in their personal lives. The only thing we have to judge them on is how often they appear in public and do their jobs, which is why Kate/Will get hammered for not being out and about.

        I don’t think that WillKate are lazy, actually. I think they do exactly what is planned for them by the palace and they always will. It’s their job.

      • bluhare says:

        Sal: Just want to correct one thing in your post, Sal. Diana never said that her work impacted her marriage; quite the reverse actualy.

    • Suze says:

      Laughing hysterically at the “they have nothing else in their life” and “Diana didn’t start charity work for a good long time after she got married.”

      Can we get some basic facts straight? Diana began working immediately upon becoming Princess of Wales. M2Pence is absolutely correct at the number of engagements she undertook. If you’re not just trolling around and are actually interested in what she did in her first five years, about a minute a half on Google will help you out.

      And the queen, right, she has NOTHING in her life outside of royal engagements. Four kids, eight grandkids, three great grandkids, a husband of 65 years, fourteen homes, the Duchy of Lancaster and an entire nation – world, really – who admires her really don’t count. Prince Charles, again, nothing in his life other than work! We won’t count his wife, two kids, grandchild, organic farm, Duchy of Cornwall, esteemed watercolors and that piddly little Princes Trust.

      In addition, you expect an 87 year old and a 64 year old to work harder than a couple of 31 year olds? If this were a normal family everyone would call you out on that comment because it is ABSURD. In the normal course of things, young people raise families and work hard because that’s what they have to do.

      I personally don’t think Kate is lazy. You can defend her all you want and I won’t get irritated at all but my god don’t go throwing inaccurate comments around and expect that it will make Kate look better. Bah, I bet Duchess Kate herself would roll her eyes at some of this stuff.

      (Both William and Harry have picked up a couple of engagements this week. Harry appeared with Philip at the opening of the Remembrance Day celebrations, and it was very sweet. And Williams made a trip to Marsden Hospital to observe surgical procedures. Maybe all the young royals schedules will be picking up as the Queen and Prince Philip start to slow down.)

    • Addison says:

      Yeah, I agree. This is calculated from the palace. When Diana was in the family she was the most popular. I remember seeing footage of her arrival with Charles to some event and everyone calling her but not him. It was really rather funny but I think in the end it was resented.

      The Queen worked a lot as a young woman but she was never bothered with other things like cooking and raising children. That is a fact. Her children were cared for nannies and sent away to school quite young.

      It’s tiring to hear the same thing all the time. Kate doesn’t work enough. Good for her. She will soon enough when the Queen dies and her and William step up to the number 2 spot. I don’t understand why people around here don’t see that rationale. Sigh… This is tiring. I think I’ll go back to bed…

      • Sal says:

        Yep, the Kate haters are really hardcore, I’m surprised I didn’t get my hand and head bitten off at once. lol In that state of mind (of a person who has made up their mind to hate Kate), rational thought or common sense doesn’t come into it.

      • Suze says:

        Such a silly conflict really. None of us really knows what type of relationship the queen is in, or what type of relationship Will and Kate have. We are all guessing.

        And we are keeping the royal family relevant by doing so. If I were them, I would be very happy to see these internet squabbles.

        It’s only bad when they stop talking about you.

      • My2Pence says:

        Thanks for the slam. I’m quite rational and I have more than my share of common sense. These two have had 12 years as a couple in the public eye to show the world what they’re made of. You’ve drawn your conclusions, I’ve drawn mine. We’re both welcome to our opinions, but please try to keep the irrational bashing of other posters to a minimum.

        The troubling part to many is that most of the working royals are past retirement age, beginning to have serious medical issues, and William and Kate aren’t stepping up. As to Sal’s comment about HM not being in a loving relationship? Excuse me, but she and Prince Philip still sleep in the same bed after all these years – as reported during the Jubilee (it was some random list of facts published in the Times or Guardian I think). They’ve weathered lots of storms together and it is clear – to many – that HM and Prince Philip love each other very much.

        As for Her Majesty not bothered with cooking and raising kids? For their time in Wales – with no children to attend to – William and Kate had four full-time staff including cook and housekeeper. Don’t delude yourselves that they are actually doing that work themselves. Now they have at least two nannies on staff, in addition to the 27 staff handling their office in London.

        Again, please note that criticism does not equal hate. I don’t hate these two, I just think they’re lazy and doing a lousy job. Edward and Sophie manage to do lots of engagements and are raising two well-behaved, seemingly happy kids. Working outside of the home doesn’t make you a bad parent. William and Kate could easily triple their workload and still spend more time with their son than most people in the UK have with their kids.

      • bluhare says:

        Sal, if you’re still reading (I noted your “bored and out of here” post), I think you are mistaking strong opinions for personal insults. That usually happens when you DO care and think you personally are being attacked, rather than your opinion.

  38. Maritza says:

    The redness looks like rosacea .

  39. St says:

    Yo British people – most probably that William will become king only when he will be 45-50 years old. But by that time he will be bald completely, will lose that boyish charm, and will look like any other 45-50 years old man. But when Wills time will come – British people will be all like: “But William should abdicate throne. Prince George should be new king. Look how cute and pretty and nice he is”….

  40. LadySlippers says:

    Kaiser,

    You are correct when you stated Camilla doesn’t care about what her Royal title is. She retreats to her private home often to get away from the fuss of being Royal. Calling her Queen is something Charles is passionate about — not Camilla. Camilla is just a laid back, ‘roll with it’ kinda women, not much ruffles her feathers.

    Others,

    Ken Wharfe (Diana’s former RPO) faults the RPO’s for not keeping their charge’s from doing something damaging to the Monarchy. The Nazi uniform and Vegas was mentioned by him as perfect examples. He mentions plenty of times when they did step in and prevented other missteps. Why not then?

    As for the debates about William — there are a lot of respected biographers who’ve written negative things about him. His roving eye is only one of them (stubbornness and temper are others). And most of us are a good mix of bad and good. Why wouldn’t William be the same?

    Please remember the Palace actively promtes the heirs and fails to do the same for younger children which is why both Charles AND William often get white-washed while Anne, Andrew, Edward, Henry (Harry), and their respective spouses (if they have one) seem to be the ‘bad ones’. You need to keep that in mind when reading stuff about the BRF.

  41. Flower says:

    What a rubbish story, The Enquire knows zilch about her they are just stirring the pot again. Camilla would be over the moon with happiness if Charles decided to abdicate she hates all the royal hoopla and would be happy spending all her time in the countryside , visiting with her grandchildren or at their Scottish home, with a much lighter work load and zero press scrutiny.

  42. Torisan says:

    Any remote chance that Camilla could ever been queen????