Is Queen Elizabeth taking Camilla ‘under her wing’ so she can be Queen Consort?

110117PCN_Queen09

Here are some photos of Queen Elizabeth and the Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla Parker-Bowles) out together yesterday. They were visiting Barnardos new headquarters in Barkingside, England. Camilla is president of Barnados, a charity program that works with homeless children. Meaning that this appearance was Camilla’s to make, and the Queen tagged along to show her support not only for the charity’s mission, but for Camilla. Which is certainly a turn of events, isn’t it? The Queen and Camilla spend time together, for sure, but usually they have buffers – Prince Charles, Duchess Kate or other members of the royal family. But this outing was just for the two of them. Is the Queen basically telling the world that Camilla has her blessing as Queen Consort? “Sources” say it’s on.

Officially, the Duchess of Cornwall is to become Princess Consort when the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne, but she is being guided in how to become “Queen Camilla”.

Mandrake understands that the strengthening relationship between the Queen and her daughter-in-law is provoking much speculation at the Palace.

“The fact is that she will be queen when Prince Charles is king,” a courtier tells me. “It doesn’t matter what her title is.”

The Queen is increasingly taking Camilla under her wing. On Tuesday, they will undertake a joint visit to Ilford, in Essex, for the opening of the new headquarters of Barnardo’s. The Queen is patron of the children’s charity, while the Duchess is president. Diana, Princess of Wales was president of Barnardo’s for 12 years.

It comes just six weeks after they made a joint trip to the Ebony Horse Club, a community riding school in Brixton, south London, of which Camilla is president.

When Charles married Camilla Parker Bowles in 2005, Clarence House said she would become Princess Consort. However, the Prince is said to want his wife to be Queen Consort when the time comes.

Earlier this year, the Duchess appeared to open up the possibility of a future “Queen Camilla” in a comment during a visit to a primary school. During an exchange with one pupil, she was reportedly asked: “Are you going to be the queen?” The Duchess laughingly replied “you never know”.

The remark came more than two years after Charles seemed to test the water about the prospect of her becoming queen consort, during a television interview. Asked in November 2010 by a presenter on the American channel NBC whether she would be given the title, he said: “That’s, well, we’ll see won’t we? That could be.”

It fuelled a frenzy of speculation, during which David Cameron publicly declared that he was a “big Camilla fan” and that the idea would be “discussed and debated”.

[From The Telegraph]

You know I’m an Anglophile, but even I have to roll my eyes sometimes about the British insistence on all of this meaningless protocol. It’s insane to me that the Prime Minister needs to have meetings (and perhaps even do polling!) on what Camilla should be called when Charles ascends to the throne. I guess it does matter, it’s just a question of HOW MUCH it matters. Like, I think everyone accepts that Camilla could conceivably be called the Princess of Wales because she IS – that is one of her titles once she married Charles. But out of respect for Diana’s memory, Camilla goes by the Duchess of Cornwall and that’s a nice compromise and people have accepted it. When Charles ascends, Camilla will be Queen (Consort). That’s how it goes. It’s just a matter of what we’re actually going to call her. Perhaps another compromise is in order? Not Princess Consort OR Queen Consort, but her own special title (like the Duke of Edinburgh).

Incidentally, I do think all of this is Charles’ doing. This was the endgame all along. Charles is a plotter and he’s spent the last two decades trying to maneuver Camilla into this position, where the Queen is publicly “accepting” her and the public is okay with the idea of Queen Camilla.

wenn20924038

wenn20924044

wenn20924032

Photos courtesy of WENN, Pacific Coast News.

 

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

158 Responses to “Is Queen Elizabeth taking Camilla ‘under her wing’ so she can be Queen Consort?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. bowers says:

    Pretty sure Camilla already knows what to do.

  2. LadyMTL says:

    I don’t follow the royals very closely but I never got the impression that the Queen dislikes Camilla, at least not these days. Maybe before Camilla and Charles got married, yes, but now? *Shrug*

    That said, I actually really like the Queen’s coat! Does that mean I’m an 80something woman deep inside? :P

  3. Liv says:

    It’s a phenomenon how Charles made us get used to her. First when he got together with her he said they wouldn’t marry. Then, when everyone accepted her, he said they would marry, but she would never be queen. Then again, when they got married, he said she could of course become queen one day. Someone’s playing us.

  4. BeckyR says:

    Despite everything, Camilla seems to handle herself well and seems to make Charles happy.

  5. eliza says:

    I am glad people still remember that Charles is next in line to the throne. William and Kate being constantly pushed forth is a bit boring at this point.

  6. Belle Epoch says:

    I thought Camilla was recently packed off to India to sober up and learn to behave? The rumors were that she was incandescent with rage because Charles had agreed to skip his turn as King in favor of William, who is so much more popular. I wonder if the Queen was going along because she doesn’t trust Camilla to be on her own?

  7. epiphany says:

    Camilla and the Queen have known and liked each other for decades – longer than Camilla has known Charles, in fact. The thing that grated on Her Majesty was when their affair became a public scandal, and embarrassed the royal family. The scandal embarrassed her, mind you, not the affair. Apart from that, these two woman have tons in common, and get on just fine.
    I know Camilla takes a lot of flak, but her love story with Charles, infidelity aside, is actually pretty amazing; he remained besotted with her through countless girlfriends, and a wife, who, on paper anyway, was supposed to be perfect.

    • HappyMom says:

      Exactly. I was a huge Diana fan-but really, Camilla by all reports, is a charming, kind, funny person and Charles seems so much happier these days.

    • LadySlippers says:

      The love story between Charles an Camilla is just that, a story. It was used to bolster opinion about Charles and Camilla and was called Operation PB or Operation Parker Bowles.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Yep. What is so amazing is that people now with a backward glance think “how could we have been so gullible?” and then turn around and swallow the “real” love story between Charles and Camilla. The palace must be better at their game then a gave them credit for or, the alternative, people really want a “happy ending” so badly that they will accept the next one in line.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Oh dear, my lovely Tulip, the palace wasn’t in charge of Operation PB. Charles hired a reputable PR firm for that. Because the Palace lost out over and over when faced with the one woman PR army — Diana. So he knew he had to be better than Diana (PR-wise and I’m not sure that’s even possible) in order to salvage his image. WAIT! I mean *Camilla’s* image. Sorry, clearly a slip of the tongue. Clearly.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        I had forgotten the bit about the PR firm LadySlippers. My apologies to the palace and, congratulations the the PR firm of “Deceptive, Littletoworkwith, and, Erasetheex”, the latter being a senior partner without which the other two partners would be sh*t outta luck….I believe, although I couldn’t have gotten the name wrong :)
        BTW, loving you today :)

      • LAK says:

        Tulip Garden – The Dolittles are in need of some magic. Partner Littletoworkwith would be perfect here!

      • Valois says:

        Call me naive, but what’s the real story behind the PR then? I’m curious :)
        Apart from him having other mistresses.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        LAK,
        I understand your concern but, honestly, I don’t think that the Cambridges are anywhere near the level of derision that Charles, Camilla, and, for that matter, Diana once found themselves a well-deserved target of. If we hear tell of Littletoworkwith being employed again then we had best be looking for the end of the monarchy!

      • LAK says:

        Valois – Charles had to get the public to accept Camilla which had the bonus effect of rehabilitating his own image after the war of the Wales and the damage of Diana. The end game is to have Camilla be Queen consort with little or no dissent from the public. It’s been a very soft, velvet gloved approach that has taken a decade to reach it’s current point.

        The fact that we all regard Camilla with a degree of affection considering the starting point of this campaign [outright hate from most of the public] is testament to the PR *success.

        *Mind you, Camilla has done what was needed to make the plan work.

  8. Jessica says:

    I’m kind of meh on the whole Camilla’s title thing. She will legally be Queen Consort when Charles assends, and calling her anything else because the public still loves Diana is just ridiculous.

  9. The Original Mia says:

    I am a Diana stan, but Camilla is Charles’ wife. When he ascends, she should be called “Queen”. They have honored Diana’s memory, but when it’s all said and done, Camilla is the wife of the sovereign (to be).

  10. Virgilia Coriolanus says:

    I wasn’t really into Charles and Camilla–mainly because I heard the sanitized version of what happened i.e Charles was a douchewad, Camilla was a scheming hussy, and Diana was a saint–I never heard about her having affairs of her own, calling the dude’s wife, etc.

    But I LOVE that Charles is showering Camilla in jewels–I Love her wedding ring. Angelina’s engagement ring reminds me of it–it grew on me.

    • Tulip Garden says:

      As far as the old “love triangle”, I do think that Charles and Diana were fundamentally unsuited. I believe, very much, that Diana was a kind of a “she’ll do” situation. I do think that Prince Charles attempted, in his own way, to make the marriage work as did Diana. The age difference and unwillingless/inability of the two to appreciate each other was simply too much to overcome along with the pressure of their respective positions within the media spotlight. That being said, I believe Charles would have been perfectly happy to continue an amicable marriage in name only had Diana been willing to be a party to that. Diana’s temperament and idealism made that situation intolerable for her. As to Camilla, I don’t think that she ever coveted the official position and was very content with being the understanding mistress. In fact, I believe that she would have rather continued in that vein even after Diana’s death but the Queen, I believe, found that situation unacceptable.
      All that said, I do believe Camilla will and should be Queen. It seems silly to play “semantics” with this….and insulting to me. That said, I do believe this was Charles’ endgame. I don’t say that negatively. I just believe he does and has always seen the long game and he plans accordingly.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Oh Tulip Garden, I agree with what you’ve just written.

        Our bias must have something to do to our delicate flowery nature, don’t you think?

        ;-)

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Why, yes, LadySlippers, people just don’t realize that our delicate, flowery natures also includes a bullsh*t meter second to none! Now excuse me while I go soak up a delicate spray of water…whilst, of course, protecting my reservoir of common sense!….oh, sending you a spritz as well and a ray of sunshine! :)

      • Montréalaise says:

        I’m glad I’m not the only one who doesn’t think that Charles’ and Diana’s marriage would have worked if only it weren’t for Camilla. Apart from the age difference, they had absolutely nothing in common – his interests bored her stiff and vice versa. They were also emotionally incompatible: they were both damaged by difficult childhoods where they felt abandoned by their parents and were looking for a stable, secure. self-confident partner to fill that void – they certainly weren’t going to find it in one another. I believe that Charles has found that in Camilla – it’s so sad that Diana never found the man who could give her that.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Montrealaise,
        I do agree with you. I absolutely think that Charles has found in Camilla someone who does make him feel stable, secure, and self-confident. I don’t begrudge him that although I do think the pair were reprehensible in their treatment of Diana, particulary Charles because he owed her better. As to this partnership as far as Camillas is concerned, I do believe that Charles, as always, is more interested in being understood and valued for his thoughts then he is interested in understanding and valuing another person for theirs. I think Camilla gets shortshrift in the balance of their personal relationship but, then again, I think that she is used to it and is okay with it. I just don’t buy the “they waited all this time to be together while staring longingly in each others directions publically”. For one thing, they were doing a lot more than longing privately and for another, Charles had to come up with a reason to make his and Camilla’s behavior palatable and appropriate. In my opinion, “they always loved each other” doesn’t go a long way in making them this great love story nor do I understand why it should nor do I believe that it is true especially upon the part of Camilla.

      • LAK says:

        Tulip Garden: One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how the other mistresses have been written out of the picture completely and people really do believe that Camilla was his one true love. Perhaps she was, but he certainly wasn’t sitting alone while he pined away, was he?

        Also, in a strange way, i think that William absolutely married a woman who emulates Camilla. Principally in nursemaiding, living separately, being as dull and boring as possible publicly so that she doesn’t outshine hubby.

        Heck, their early marriage images are pretty similar. People used to say that Camilla was the laziest woman in England when she first married Charles and look at her now…..

      • Grace Under Pressure says:

        This is a great chain of thought. I’d like to add my two cents…

        Charles scheming this longterm strategy really creeps me out. I can’t help but feel that in the long run, he benefitted hugely from Diana’s untimely death. I’m not wearing my tin-hat, so I still feel doubtful that he would agree to a plot to murder his ex-wife, the mother of his children, but I’m feeling eerily towards him. I think there is more to meets the eye (which is a dithering old grandma’s boy). If Diana were alive today, things would be very different. For starters, Camilla would not be patron of this charity. Diana’s huge persona would be in the way of any positive publicity that either Charles or Camilla could recieve, because she’s just more likeable than either of them. With her gone, Charles has room to play the long game. To wait out the British public and let the 24 hour news cycle move on to other topics. He can be calculating, he can have his moment in the sun. He can hire PR firms to whitewash him & his lady into something more respectable than they are.

        Charles had other mistresses. Camilla was not the one and only. And he flaunted his affairs to Diana, long before she ever had affairs of her own. Diana was not perfect, but she was very young and very naive and Charles absolutely took advantage of that naivity made her very unhappy during her short life.

      • Snarkweek says:

        Tulip Garden you when the Internet for the day! LACK you are exactly right. In fact, wasn’t there another eristic Pratt that Charles was truly in love with? He said he was t she was the only one who truly understood him. I forget her name. I believe she died of cancer.

    • Tulip Garden says:

      LAK,
      Yes, of course, Camilla was the only woman that Prince Charles cheated on Diana with *snickersnort! Seriously, once the Prince had decided that he and Diana were a no go, I do believe he held auditions for the post of mistress.
      As far as Camilla being is “one true love”, I think that she is only in hindsight. I mean he did not want to marry Camilla, he married Diana found her wanting, and, in the end, he ended up in Camilla’s bed. Do I think that he has been in love with her since their first love affair? Absolutely not. Do I think that Charles dallied with other women before settling with her as mistress? Absolutely, and perhaps, after settling with her as his mistress. I think if he felt no need to be faithful to his wife that a mistress shouldn’t expect to fair better so no sympathy for Camilla there and I doubt she cared. Her answer to APB’s affairs was to carry on with Charles and I don’t think that she would be bothered if he was carrying on elsewhere as well. As long as her primary position wasn’t usurped I think Camilla was fine with it. In this I think she felt that way toward APB too. She was APB’s wife and the Prince of Wales primary mistress and as such, her world was well. Camilla is eminently practical I think which is why she realized that her marriage had to come to an end and she was, more or less, required to marry Charles. Had she had it her way, I don’t believe she would ever had left her marriage or wed Charles.
      As to Kate, I see what you are saying but disagree on a few points. One I think that William is perfectly capable of holding the “star” spotlight regardless of who he wed. Simply put, there is a lot of residual love for William because of his mother and, also, I think that despite what I often read here, people generally like William. I do think that if Kate seemed to be usurping his position that the powers that be, William included or not, would put a swift end to it.
      As to the other, I think that William and Kate will not step onto the world stage in a certain large degree until after Charles is king. I do believe that palace has learned a powerful lesson about keeping the focus on the “heir”. That lesson was taught by Diana and I believe it has been well-learned. I suspect that William absolutely has a backbone of steel and I say that as a compliment. I think that Kate and William have made very unpopular decisions about how to live their lives but I also think that those decisions in the long run will preserve their marriage and their happiness. I don’t know that it will preserve their popularity or the monarchy. I think that it is too soon to tell.
      BTW, I think Charles, William, and Harry look to their mates (and in Harry’s case potential mate) to provide a certain mothering and idealist family situation that they have not felt a part of in their own lives. In fact, like you, I think that they need it. It is one reason why I don’t believe Harry’s relationship with Cressida Bonas is going to be successful. Like Diana was, I think Cressida is too young to provide Harry that which he desires in terms of mothering.

      • Grace Under Pressure says:

        Great post. Great points. I’ll just add that Cressida lacks a stable family life herself. Both her parents have been married and divorced numerous times and she’s got a boatload of half siblings. Cressida is likely to have latent commitment issues that will rear their head at some point.

        Re: Kate & William – I think William has had affairs (and may currently be involved in one) and Kate tolerates it. I think William is extremely attuned to his public image and to keeping his girlfriends very discreet. I also think the source of his deeper commitment to Kate relates to her family life. He thinks he’s giving his children the stability and support of a “normal” family that he never enjoyed.

      • Montréalaise says:

        Diana had ‘the star’ spotlight on her because she was a woman of extraordinary charisma – something which really, really got under Charles’ skin. A more secure man might not have been bothered (remember JFK joking, when his wife was treated like a movie star on their state trip to France, that he was ‘just the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris?). Charles, on the other hand, who always struggled to be taken seriously, was not at all pleased that his wife was the focus of attention wherever they went. I don’t think that William has that charisma, although he did inherit his mother’s good looks.

      • Suze says:

        The difference was that JFK also had great charisma – he and Jackie stood head to head in the charm category. Charles was completely overshadowed by Diana back in the day.

        Actually, I look back on it and am amazed. This young, uneducated country English aristocrat completely out-manuevered the monarchy at every turn – no wonder it was so fascinating to watch.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Grace Under Pressure,
        Good point about Cressida’s family background and the possibility that she may have commitment issues. I agree with that. I think the fact that Cressida’s family appears to be a large, gregarious group of loving individuals may be an initial draw for Harry. I do think that in the end Harry will require a more mature individual as a bride. Having said that, his decision may well be based more on a desire to wed and have children. He would not be the first nor the last man, or person, to convince themselves that they are in love with a compatible companion simply because they would like for that to be the situation. I really hope that is not the case.
        As for William and Kate, I don’t believe that William has been unfaithful. I would find it difficult to believe that he would do that after watching the calamity that was his parents’ marriage. Even if he were so inclined, and I don’t believe that he is, I think the Queen and top courtiers (sp?) would have put paid to that idea quickly. I suspect that this is one of the reasons that William took so long to wed Kate. I believe it was spelled out to him repeatedly that he better be damned certain about her because there would be no “bit on the side” after what the monarchy has suffered due to that problem in the past. Also, in this day and age I don’t care how discreet your girlfriend might be, the truth will out unless you can also absolutely trust everyone from her garbage man, to her family members, to any random person that might gain knowledge about an affair from the aforementioned people.
        I do agree that Kate’s family life is/was a source of comfort for William in that he saw their values first hand for years and, presumably, that has shaped the person that Kate is then and now. I do think that the strong family ties helped to convince him that this was the woman for him. I don’t think that is a particularly bad thing.
        @Montrealaise, absolutely Diana was certainly that rare individual that has the charisma to capture so much public and media attention that it is spectacular. I actually think that the kind of public attention, including the adulation, that she received is very unhealthy for anyone. Diana, and those like her, are aberrations. You cannot plan that kind of cultural impact. In fact, I believe that today due to the global community, the internet, and a more cynical people in general that we may have seen the last of her kind. So while William may not have that iconic quality, he does have the title, the charm, the social adeptness and the affability to be successful in his role. Further, I believe that ultimately he wants to do good. It is ingrained in him from mother and father.

      • sienna says:

        I once watched a fascinating documentary about “Kanga”, an Australian woman who was once the PoW’s mistress of choice. It was about how she went a bit nutty, whilst Camilla stuck to her game.

      • LadySlippers says:

        First, I love that other people know that Camilla wasn’t his ‘true love’ and understand the game Charles has played over the years. Charles had a multitude of mistresses (many that overlapped) with Camilla and Kanga being his most public ones. (I say this because so many people blindly buy Operation PB’s story).

        Second, as for William cheating, I think he has. Apparently Kate told Chelsy (can anyone confirm this? Directed at LAK, Florc, or anybody else) that Royal girlfriends need to put up with infidelity as it goes part-in-parcel with a Royal boyfriend. Now I haven’t seen the quote myself but knowing how William often feels entitled, it wouldn’t surprise me.

        Third, courtiers don’t control private lives. They do manage protocol and a lot of other things — might advise someone but they do not have the power to change behavior. Plus, William is also known to be very resistant to any effort made by others to control him.

        Fourth, I do think many people look for a mate to create or fill in something missing in their lives. Charles, William, and Harry aren’t exceptions as all of them are human and fallible.

  11. Talie says:

    It doesn’t matter — QE will probably live another 20 years and you know her ass ain’t giving up the throne.

  12. LadySlippers says:

    HM actually has been VERY conservative when it comes to Camilla’s official title. She may like Camilla personally but there’s a lot of things that are more telling than doing a few engagements together (i.e. CoE prayers).

  13. Louise says:

    Should she be called Queen? Prince Phillip isn’t called King.

    • Tulip Garden says:

      I know LAK will know the answer to this but my guess is that Prince Phillip would be assumed to supercede the Queen if he had been called King. Does that make sense? Is that it?

      • Florc says:

        Yes.
        Not to step on LAK’s toes of infinite Royal knowledge, but in simple terms you got it. Blood gets the title of highest rank.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Actually, you can create a King Consort title if one were so inclined. Historically it’s not unheard of.

        Currently, husbands in the UK do not take on their wives’ rank which is why Philip isn’t King Consort. They (HM & Philip) decided against officially awarding him the title Prince Consort, like Albert, because that meant his DoE title would be put to the wayside.

    • LAK says:

      What everyone above me said. Also ‘King’ ranks higher than ‘Queen’. A King Consort has the potential to rank higher than a Queen. The highest status in the land is always King. That’s just how a partriarchal status driven society works.

      Historically, all the King consorts were held to be co-rulers either properly or in some capacity.This type of arrangement always proved somewhat unpopular for those Queens who took up King Consorts.

      • LadySlippers says:

        At one time, Queen Consorts also had a lot of power too, way more than they do now. Basically what I’m saying is things change and evolve over time and there isn’t anything saying that this couldn’t either. If they wanted to — they could make a King Consort rank lower than Queen Regnant. HM isn’t a trailblazer so it won’t happen on her watch.

  14. John says:

    Camilla looks fantastic! She’s aging beautifully.
    She’s taken a lot of flak over the years, and has maintained a quiet grace about her. She seems like a real lady, and obviously she and Charles love each other very much, have forever. If Chuck had been permitted to marry her, as William was permitted to marry Kate, things would be very different, albeit the story not as compelling on the world stage.
    I like her.

    Louise– the term “consort” after “queen” makes clear that she is the partner of the reigning monarch.

  15. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I know I’m alone here, but I can’t stand Camilla and I loathe the fact that she will be queen. Charles and Diana would probably have had a rough marriage no matter what, but Camilla made sure they never had a chance. She had Charles, but got tired of waiting, and married a man she didn’t love. While she was married to him, she took up again with Charles and didn’t bat an eye when he became engaged to Diana. She sent him presents right up until the wedding – the famous interlocking C cuff links for Camilla and Charles. Diana found them shortly before the wedding. Camilla never let Charles have a chance at finding a good relationship with Diana. I don’t care what she’s done since. Her behavior then speaks to her character, and I think she’s despicable.

    • John says:

      Diana was a naive, not-terribly-bright little girl whose parents permitted her to be thrust into a situation that was well beyond her capacity. The coupling never stood a chance, if it hadn’t been Camilla, it would have been someone else.
      It takes two to tango, Charles encouraged her, and Diana spread her legs for the stable boy.
      Everybody’s human.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        So that makes Camilla a good person?

      • Jaded says:

        Nothing is black and white here, Diana’s parents didn’t “permit her to be thrust into a bad situation”, she was obsessed with Charles and totally manoeuvred herself into that marriage by presenting one image then becoming something quite different once the ring was on the finger. She was notoriously high strung and tempermental, a real drama queen, no pun intended. Charles and Camilla had always maintained a close friendship and when things went rocky with his marriage and hers, they naturally turned to each other for support. As you say, everybody’s human.

      • John says:

        Yes, Jaded, that’s pretty much precisely what I was saying.

      • Florc says:

        GoodNames
        Camilla and Charles both behaved poorly poorly. They made bad, impulsive decisions, cheated on their spouses, and carried on a very risky affair that would damage many. So, she wasn’t a great person.
        Since then Camilla has married Charles. They remain loyal and make each other very happy. She has put up with public backlash that would have made some women say a relationship isn’t worth it. Camilla has also kept a low private profile. Her family isn’t seeking fame or cashing in on her title. And she does work very hard with her charities. She is informed and passionate about her charities. She’s worked hard to be redeemed.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        By the way, I find your expression ” spread her legs for the stable boy” to be extremely vulgar and disrespectful to women and stable boys.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Good Names,
        I agree about the “spread her legs for the stable boy” comment plus WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE POOR HORSES?!*snickersnort*

      • Snarkweek says:

        Indeed! The spread her legs commented me a bit of a jolt, a level of vulgarity that I am not used to on this site….tsk tsk. And I do not care how bad your marriage is, bringing someone else into your bed will never fixed the problem. That is the simple truth of The matter. Neither Charles nor Diana should have had an affair. Is that so hard to admit? It does not take away anything from Charles and his wife currently. I happen to have a lot of admiration for the couple that they have turned out to be. But the affairs should have never happened.

    • Tulip Garden says:

      I am not a Camilla fan either. I vacillate between feelings of “whatever” about her to outright dislike. I don’t think that she and Charles are this great love story wherein they just “missed the boat” or weren’t allowed to wed. Much has been made of the Wales’ marriage but very little is ever said about the Parker Bowles. I believe Camilla was very in love with Andrew Parker Bowles and that having Charles on the side was salve to her ego as Andrew was forever “stepping out”. Had it not been for the revelation of Camilla as Charles’ mistress, I think that regardless of what happened between Charles and Diana, the Parker Bowles’ would have remained wed. I believe that just became untenable for Andrew Parker Bowles when the whole world got word of what he had always known and, while the people close to them understood their relationship, the to world at large he was a laughingstock and that became too much for him.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I agree. I think Charles wanted what he couldn’t have until he got it.

      • LadySlippers says:

        In the upper echelon of British society, infidelity is a common occurrence. The rules are different for men and women too. Men didn’t have to wait whereas women had to wait until the ‘heir and spare’ were born to step out on their husbands.

        Read ‘To Marry an English Lord’ for a wonderful glimpse into British society. It’s noteworthy because so many American heiresses struggled with particular aspect British culture. Noteworthy: Diana’s great grandmother divorced her philandering husband AND fought the system and won. She was a hero to Diana and the source of Diana’s middle name.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Good Names (love your handle),
        I believe Camilla petted, mothered, and babied Charles when they weren’t in the sack and that was as much an attraction for Charles as anything sexual between them. It was easy for Camilla to be the ever understanding mistress after all the fun, excitement, and social cache of being the Prince Of Wales mistress must have been a heady and mostly undemanding existence (just agree with everything he says especially about the “unreasonable” wife) and then pat his head and send him on his way. The idea of becoming his wife, I believe, was anathema to Camilla. I mean along with that title comes expectations from Charles, the Queen, and the public. Not only that but guess who now has the potential to become the “unreasonable” wife? I believe Camilla has avoided that by taking plenty of time away from Prince Charles but, by and large, I don’t think that Camilla wanted to be his wife.
        As to Charles, I do think that he wanted Camilla as a wife. I don’t think that he imagined that she would be any different or less understanding as a wife. I just think he had an egocentric understanding of just exactly where he fit into Camilla’s life. Of course, Camilla finds herself having no choice but to continue in the path that she laid as understanding mistress. She, of all people, probably understands the consequences to her should she fail to please His Highesness. I just wouldn’t be surprised if Camilla often heaves a sigh and downs a cocktail (or two or three), rolls her eyes before she then gives her standard “poor thing” speech…and then quickly plans her next holiday/family get together or whatever it takes to get some breathing room.

      • wolfpup says:

        I will read the book that Lady Slippers mentioned. But what are vows – especially given by a Prince and King to be? Perhaps the vows given, need to be changed for all of the Lords, so they are not lying.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        I see your point wolfpup but the definition of a vow doesn’t change due to who is taking said vow. The intention to keep the vow may be questionable but the vow itself is inviolate. As to changing the vows taken, I suppose that would be a personal decision made with one’s personal conscience. In other words, if lying doesn’t trouble them or their mates then that is their issue. If the lying bothers them or their mates, I suppose they are free to “write their own” as it were so there is no mention of fidelity. I suspect, though, that the lying bothers them little although they may not be happy with “certain” others knowing…and I don’t mean their spouses necessarily, I mean those that wouldn’t hold them in high esteem for taking a vow with no intention of keeping it.
        BTW, I do believe both Charles and Diana made their vows in good faith. As to Camilla and Andrew Parker Bowles, I have no idea but wouldn’t be surprised either way.

      • LadySlippers says:

        It’s not fair or right to judge another’s cultures based on your own cultural norms.

        In the upper echelon of British culture, marriages were business contracts and weren’t arranged with love in mind. At all. (Charles thought Diana understood this as it’s that implicit). It was intended to uphold society and its values and everyone looked the other way when people looked for happiness.

    • Baskingshark says:

      As a Republican who believes that we will only even begin to scratch the surface of all the MANY things that are wrong with Britain and its society when the monarchy is abolished, I completely agree. Camilla is contemptible.

      Plus she looks like something that escaped from a Tobe Hooper movie.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Camilla never wanted to marry Charles. She was pursuing Andrew even during her fling with Charles. She literally married Andrew only months after their fling ended.

      The love story we’ve been sold is just that — a fictional story to beef up Charles’ tattered image.

    • Kate says:

      everyone has their opinion. I’m a Diana fan but she did her her flaws. Several of her lovers were married men. I would think since she was the wronged wife, she would have picked lovers who weren’t married. Diana seemed like a trouble soul and wasn’t a saint.

      When Charles becomes King, Camilla should be crowned Queen. HIs sons have accepted their relationship and hopefully people will start to move on.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        I am a Diana fan too and I agree with everything that you have written. For some reason, these days people don’t seem to able to differentiate between fan and fanatic. A true fan can admire/sympathize/enjoy (or any other number of adjectives) a particular person without resorting to defending their every action or failing to see their flaws. Now a fanatic will defend any and everything that a particular person does and attack others with an opposing view. It is frightening how very muddled the fan/fanatic line seems to be getting particularly with an adult crowd.

      • wolfpup says:

        Fanatic or fan – what is one called if they present between the two?

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Wolfpup,
        Good question. I don’t know that their is a name for that specifically. “Interested party”, maybe? I understand you to mean that when a person is neither a fan or a fanatic. Perhaps, indifferent is a good adjective but not so much a “name” for such a person. Although, there are many people that I am not a fan of but like to read about because they (or their life or something about it) holds some fascination for me.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Bluhare,
        Ha! Your explanation is better, love it!
        Seriously though when did “fans” of a person become people who couldn’t/wouldn’t see the flaws/errors of another person? Are you saying that there are no fans anymore at all, just fanatics? That’s sad :( Perhaps fan versus fanatic is not something that we can label ourselves anymore, especially in internet discourse, maybe the labels will be decided by others based on whether or not we post rationally. I would like to believe that fans are rational and fanatics are not but I have seen too many irrational people label themselves as simply fans.

    • Sloane Wyatt says:

      You are not alone. GoodNamesAllTaken. I too loathe the idea of ‘Queen Camilla’.

      In their aristocratic rarefied circles, ‘arrangements’ were common, so we don’t know to what degree, if any, the wives of Diana’s lovers were wounded by her liaisons their husbands. What is known, however, is the gut wrenchingly deep betrayal that Diana suffered at Charles’ and Camilla’s hands. Born out of a need to escape her horribly lonely and isolated existence within the coldly unsupportive royal family, cynicism and a jaded heart became Diana’s bedfellows, along with her lovers.

      This was a woman who went out into the dead of night to hand out blankets and money to prostitutes and the homeless. She held babies with Aids at a time when it was thought to be highly contagious through multiple vectors, and she secretly spent time with many gay men as they lay dying of this horrid scourge. The People’s Princess even spent time with lepers and sought to learn from Mother Theresa.

      In a total break with royal protocol, Diana also insisted on taking on an unprecedented role in raising her sons and brought them with her as she literally ministered to the world’s unfortunates. ‘The Firm’ hated her well before Andrew Morton’s tell all for her popularity, for the esteem in which the public held her, and for how she made them look aloofly irrelevant next to her incandescent star power. Regardless of Princess Diana’s flaws, she had more sheer humanity than all the royals (at the time) put together!

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        @ Sloane Wyatt – Exactly.

      • Suze says:

        Frankly, you should hate Charles more if this is how you feel.

        He was the one actually married to Diana.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        Suze,
        Perhaps Sloane does dislike Charles more, I don’t know. What I do know is that to disapprove of Charles and/or Camilla’s behavior is not to “hate” them. While I disapprove heartily of Charles’ behavior towards Diana, I think that he will make a fine King. He cares greatly for his country and has attempted to make changes for the better for decades. As for Camilla, I disapprove of her behavior as well and, perhaps, because I know less about her than Charles, I will probably never feel a warmth for her personally. Having said that, I think that she is due the title of Queen and I think that she has and can continue to have a positive influence for the betterment of her country.

      • Suze says:

        Charles has done some fine things for his country. He did some terrible things in his first marriage. So did Camilla.

        If I’m reading this correctly, Sloane loathes the idea of Queen Camilla based on her behavior during the marriage of Chuck and Di. I’m just saying that based on that logic, Charles should be equally, if not more, loathed since he was the one married to Diana at the time.

        My take is that none of them were saints, and the marriage was doomed regardless of Camilla’s part in it. I also believe that Diana was a great POW and a very flawed person, all in one, but the fact remains that she’s dead. Nothing is going to change that. Camilla is doing the job, has been doing the job for a long time, and deserves the title of Queen Consort.

      • Suze says:

        Those were incredibly beautiful words you spoke on behalf of Diana. I believe that most of the sentiment behind them is also true.

        That said, I still think Camilla deserves the Queen Consort title.

      • Sloane Wyatt says:

        Although Prince Charles married Diana Spencer in 1981, he never ended his affair with Camilla that began sometime after a polo match in 1970 when Mrs. Parker Bowles introduced herself: ‘My great-grandmother was the mistress of your great-grandfather – so how about it?’. Even so, my dislike of Prince Charles is somewhat leavened by lifelong commitment to our Mother Earth and his self-aware struggle of recent years to be a better person.

        He’s been organic since the time of Rachel Carson. Charles fostered programs reconnecting city-dwelling families with farming and food production, connecting Big Agriculture with the rural communities that supply them, ensuring native animal breeds are not lost, and to funding projects such as a fruit trial center with “1,000 apple trees of 1,000 different varieties”.

        “In the five or six generations that we have departed from the land, a divide has grown up”. The irony is, given what we know of Charles’s callow disregard for Diana, he characterized that divide’s not just between urban and rural values, but also within individuals. “We behave one way in our business lives and another in our homes, and between our interior and our exterior. The thing is, we need to be examining our souls a little more.”

        On the other hand, Camilla’s literally a piece of work when compared to the soulfully conflicted, yet somehow always authentic, Charles. Mark Bolland, the ‘spindoctor’ recruited by Charles in 1995 to refurbish his own reputation, was assigned to the Camilla Project. Even today, we’re seeing the fruits of Bolland’s labors in the ongoing wholesale successful rehabilitation of these two. At least Prince Charles is heartfelt, highly ambitious, and energetically engaged on many fronts while beset with more than a few contradictions.

        IMO, Suze and Tulip, the title of Queen Consort should be conferred upon a noblewoman possessing wisdom of the heart, royal comportment, and a certain gravitas. She lacks the character to merit the majestic title of Queen Consort. Camilla, no matter how she is spun, does not sufficiently enhance the image of the Monarchy.

    • Janet says:

      You are most certainly not alone. I can’t stand Camilla either. (Never mind that she looks like the north end of a southbound horse; she can’t help that.)

  16. Lila says:

    Honestly I’ve always thought that the idea of Camilla’s title being changed to respect Charles’ ex wife was ludicrous anyway. I agree that Diana was beloved and her death was tragic but before she died, they divorced. I disagree with changing something that has been steeped in protocol for centuries purely because of sentiment. Camilla going by Duchess of Cornwall is one thing because she is the duchess just as much as she is the princess of Wales. Calling her a princess when she will actually be a queen on the hand is stupid to me.

    I also feel like it shifts blame from Charles to Camilla. They both screwed up but I tire of the feeling that she will wear a scarlet letter for eternity, all the way to an asterisk by her name for why she wasn’t queen in the history books, while he becomes king. If they are going to move on with Charles as king they need to just do it and skip the pandering.

    I’m more curious about how the Queen and Anne feel about Kate than Camilla. In theory they should hate Camilla and love Kate. But really, Anne hasn’t been the perfect royal herself. I feel like her pluses and minuses are closer to Camilla’s than Kate’s- both work hard for the monarchy, both have some shadiness in their personal pasts. The Queen doesn’t really seem to care as much about the specifics of it all like the press does. She just wants everyone to do their royal duty without bringing along any f-ed up public embarrassment. So what do they think of perfect-on-paper Kate? I’ve never gotten the feeling they were as crazy about her as they ostensibly should be so I would love to know the story.

    • Tulip Garden says:

      As to your comment about changing Camilla’s title out of respect for Diana, I don’t believe that. Camilla’s title was changed in order to PROTECT Camilla, Charles, and ultimately the monarchy. If the powers that be had thought that they could call Camilla Princess of Wales without a public outcry, believe me they would have in a snap. I acknowledge that these many years later and with hindsight, it may seem of little moment and even silly to have called Camilla by her lesser title. Of course, history favors those still alive to write it. In this case, that is probably best for the monarchy.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Again, Tulip, we are in agreement EXCEPT I see it as a way to protect Charles and show how ‘in tune’ he was with the public. Call me a bit jaded but almost everything Charles does personally seems to promote Charles more than anyone else.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        LadySlippers,
        We are still in complete agreement. The protection of Camilla is only an extension of Charles’ will. I don’t remember Charles being particularly concerned with the consequences for the then still married Mrs. Parker Bowles when he admitted to an affair with her on television. I don’t believe Camilla thought that was a good idea at the time and it put her in a horrific situation within her own marriage and with the public. Again, I think that Charles has an inability to understand how someone could not agree with or want what he wants/thinks is best. Unfortunately, the people close to Charles are the ones who feel the brunt of this personality flaw.
        Also, while it seems that I am eviscerating Charles, I do not mean to. I think that for the most part he is a well-meaning man. I also believe that it is inarguable that he has done a great deal of good. I just believe that there are certain things that he unable/unwilling to see, an emotional blindspot.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Oh, then we ARE two peas in a pod. ;-) Plant analogies and all!

        I’m not trying to eviscerate Charles either but he was raised to believe the world revolves around him and does not deal well when that ‘fact’ is contested. Diana never adjusted accordingly which caused just as many problems in their marriage as Diana’s issues did.

        Anyone who succeeded in Charles’ circle (or solar system) had to regard him as the sun. He had to be coddled and mollified and Camilla (among a great many others) was brilliant at it. Diana, however, failed miserably. That’s always been the key to Charles — being a subtle sycophant.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        I like our pod, it’s cosy in here :)

        I do believe you are correct about Charles’ being surrounded by sycophants, subtle and otherwise. I count Camilla among the best at coddling Charles. That’s why they work out so well.
        As to the others, I believe they did both Charles and Diana a grave injustice in jumping onto Charles’ “poor me/evil Diana” bandwagon. In essence, I do think that the marriage had a possibility, a small one but still, of working out with more support. I am not saying that it definitely would have as the two had serious issues to contend with but I do think that they both wanted it to work out badly. Unfortunately, I don’t think Charles had people close to him reminding him that being a husband to a young woman was going to require more of him then it did of her simply because he had already attained so much more wisdom and knowledge through the course of life that she simply hadn’t had a chance to gain yet. There is no doubt that Diana would have, and did, require a great deal of understanding and patience. I would have thought it would have behooved Prince Charles’ circle to support Diana in this and help to insure, as much as they could, that the marriage had a fighting chance. I truly believe that no one wanted to stand up to Charles and tell him the truth of the matter.

      • Lila says:

        Is there a difference between changing the title out of respect for Diana and doing it to protect the monarchy? Diana was not just the People’s Princess, she was William and Harry’s mother. I feel like Camilla going by Duchess rather than Princess was for the best for everyone and that is why it was decided. My issue is with her not becoming queen, not going by Duchess of Cornwall. Diana was never queen and was never going to be queen because she and Charles divorced. So why shouldn’t Camilla be queen, especially since she will be regardless of what she’s called?

        Is there a prince in that family who doesn’t expect their world to revolve around them? Charles was raised to be king. It requires a lot of ego to honestly believe that being king is your birthright. I have no doubt he was raised to believe that he occupies a different place in the world than normal men and while I don’t agree that he is special, I don’t disagree that his position is. A certain amount of that attitude from the people around him is necessary IMO because they have to recognize how important protecting him is. And I don’t just mean protecting him from himself, I mean protecting him from the people who want to catch a picture or comment of anything that can be spun as inappropriate. Protecting Charles, and Queen Elizabeth and William, is not just about protecting the person- it’s about protecting the bigger picture. If the people around him didn’t believe that he was special, they would be less likely to take that part seriously. That likely doesn’t make him the most normal guy but then again, he is never going to live a normal life surrounded by people like me.

        I don’t think the issue was that no one would tell Charles he was being a crappy husband. When the question of divorce for the heir to the throne came up, I’m guessing he was told to do whatever it took to make Diana happy because the monarchy did not need a divorce. And at that point, one for Charles was NOT acceptable. While I’m sure Diana was told to shape up too, I’m guessing Charles is the one who was told he was expected to handle the problem. He was the heir and one raised in the family, and he was the one expected to know better than to think divorce was an option.

        By the end, I think it is more likely that everyone in the inner circle looked at the marriage and thought whatever the fallout, better them apart than together. I don’t think they would have done that if it was just about Charles not doing his part. To me that says that they were making each other so miserable that the hit the monarchy took with the divorce was preferable than trying to ride the problems out. I don’t think their marriage could have gotten to that point without both of them contributing to the negativity and problems.

        I also feel like regardless of what the situation was when they married, by the time they divorced fifteen years later they were on even ground. Combine the power that Diana had from public opinion with the power she wielded simply by the royal family’s desire to prevent divorce, and she was not simply a victim. It had also been fifteen years. After a certain point, I don’t think the argument about being too young and not knowing what you were getting into is valid anymore. You figure it out. She knew what was expected of her and she knew Charles. They both chose to cheat, air their dirty laundry on television, create massive scandals for their family (and since her boys are Windsors, it was THEIR family), and divorce. They both had a lot of arguably better, IMO, options than the ones they chose.

      • LAK says:

        Lila: My personal view is that the war if the wales reached such low depths precisely because they were not allowed to divorce. Diana herself once said that she married the one person she knew could never divorce her. It sounds a lovely sentiment given her background, but it was a cold hard truth. I’d go a little nutty if i was forever tied to someone i had come to despise. If they had divorced somewhere in the mid-80s when their marriage had broken down, it would never reached the lows it did – i think.

        Instead they had to remain yoked because divorce for the heir was deemed impossible unlike the other siblings. The separation alone was a BIG deal and only allowed to go ahead with caveat that there were no plans to divorce.

        And so the war of the Wales found new depths until Diana went on national [international] TV and told the world that Charles was unfit to be King. THAT was the line she crossed. Nevermind everything else that she said in that interview. That was the line that precipitated something that had been deemed impossible.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        @Lila,
        As to the first, I have no issue with Camilla receiving the title of Queen. She will be regardless of what she is called. As far as this “Duchess of Cornwall” business and if it matters why it was done? Maybe it doesn’t matter to the world at large especially now. I agree that it was for the best but I don’t think that the royal family, outside of her sons, held Diana in any respect by the time of her divorce so the suggestion that they didn’t allow Camilla that title for that reason is erroneous. It is a small but important qualification to me.
        I am not unsympathetic to Charles’ plight as a husband. I am, I guess, more disappointed that a man’s Charles’ age with Charles’ life experience failed to realize what he was taking on in marrying a naïve, immature young girl and then being horrified by her immaturity. I realize that as the unhappiness in the marriage grew that both Charles and Diana contributed to the war. They both behaved abominably. However if you were to ask me of the two which put their heart and soul into the marriage from the very beginning and did so even after it was probably not a good idea, I would tell you that Diana did that. She was by no means a saint but I do think that she would have been happy to make that marriage work long past when Charles had realized that he did not want to continue the relationship. I think it would have better for all concerned if Diana had been able to take the attitude toward the marriage that Charles did. She wasn’t able to pretend that it didn’t matter that she and her husband were only a façade, I can’t dislike her for that.
        I don’t think Diana’s power was equal to Charles’ and the monarchy. Public sentiment as we see is fleeting. Their power is not.
        LAK,
        Agree that Diana’s greatest sin was to suggest that Charles wasn’t fit for the throne…also, it was incredibly stupid.

      • Montréalise says:

        @Tulip Garden: I remember what was reported at the time of Charles’ and Diana’s engagement and two things stand out – one, that Charles was under tremendous pressure from the Royal Family to get married. Here he was in his thirties, no serious girlfriend in sight, but with several married mistresses – they were afraid that history might repeat itself with the same scenario that led to the abdication crisis in 1937.
        Secondly (and this might seem strange in our day and age)any bride he chose had to be a virgin. His taste in women ran to women his own age, who were sophisticated, educated and worldly – and what is the chance that someone like that is still a virgin in her thirties? So he was presented with Diana – a sweet, pretty woman with an impeccable background and no experience. Even then, with the media and public succumbing to Diana-mania, there was talk that she was so unlike all the other women he’d dated and didn’t seem particularly eager to marry her.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Lila, The problem of coddling the eldest male (heir) in all the upper echelon of a British society means you end up with weak, selfish, and petulant men. And a lot of them too. To me that does not spell or create the type of men you want leading your family or your country. Please remember most of these men that are peers end up in parliament or in other prominent positions all throughout the UK.

        Charles was well known baby and was mocked for it. His grandmother (QM) encouraged it but his father saw it for what is was (although went about it the wrong way). I honestly think Charles and Diana had a chance to make their marriage work. I really do. I’ve read too many accounts when they were in sync they were fantastic! A real team and a dynamo. People often point to Diana’s insecurities (and she had them in spades) but the truth is, I think Charles’ selfishness (created by being heir not because he is a selfish or cruel man by nature) that was absolutely compounded by the sycophants, killed whatever teeny tiny chance they had to make there marriage work. His friends’ seriously made him worse because no one is able to be honest with him.

        And it is different for the other children. Sure they get mollycoddled but not like the heir. QM really only paid attention to Charles and William. There is more than one report about how Harry ceased to exist when William walked in the room.

        Diana (as Tulip pointed out) was young and naive going into their marriage. Charles thought she knew it was all for show and the truth was, she didn’t. By the time she figured it, she was one hell of an angry woman. To add insult to injury, Charles blamed her for the fact the public adored her and not him. It become a Molotov cocktail in the Wales’ marriage.

        Sorry, I’m not a fan of coddling the heir as I think it’s to blame for David too. And a lot of other heirs’ issues. This is not a new problem.

  17. good buddy says:

    Time does heal all wounds. This would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago.

  18. Anon says:

    There was a recent picture of Charles and Camilla together seated at some event, Charles was laughing from his belly at something Camilla said while she grinned broadly. Look at other pictures of them together, it may be 2nd marriages for them both, but they love/support each other greatly. Camilla telling the little art students that her husband was a very good painter too…she’s got Charles’ back and most importantly, she watches out for his soul.

  19. Anon says:

    from wikipedia on Parker Bowles…”Parker Bowles was a player on the Prince of Wales polo team in the 1970s. He dated Princess Anne in the early 1970s.”
    Probably why Anne dislikes Camilla.

  20. Angela says:

    I don’t think Anne dislikes Camilla. Anne strikes me as a pragmatic woman who doesn’t act out in any way that will damage the monarchy. She also loves her brother that’s why they live close to each other is Gloucestershire and William and Harry grew up close to Zara and Peter.
    As adults you learn life isn’t black and white.
    Living in the UK people accept the monarchy. They also are pragmatic, not wanting perfection we expect them to work for the country, not to abuse public money like prince Andrew. Camilla in her 8 years as a royal has done this quietly. What she is now is what people look at. it takes too much time energy to go back over 30/40 years, he said, she said. most of us have lives and don’t care.

  21. phlyfiremama says:

    The british monarchy is a holdover from a feual system of government that needs to vanish into the dark ages. There is no reason why the people of the UK should still be forced to support these nominal figureheads when the royal family is rich from having plundered civilizations all over the world. The sales job and propoganda to make them still seem relevent in a day and age when they so clearly aren’t is staggering.

  22. Algernon says:

    I have always said and I will always say it. There is no way she will be called anything other than “Queen Camilla” when Charles is king.

  23. amelia says:

    The past notwithstanding, Camilla seems to be warm, sincere and down to earth. The tree decorating party she hosted for terminally ill and disabled children at her home is testimony to this. She was so compassionate and caring and in many cases seemed deeply moved. Kate, could learn a thing or two…

  24. Maria says:

    I simply adore the Queen’s outfit and sad to say, but she could do well by offering advice to the younger royals (one in particular). But I digress. No way, no how should Camilla be called Queen consort or any title with Queen in it. Let’s get beyond the reality of what went on between these two, if Prince Phillip is Prince Phillip (and he has royal lineage) it’s good enough for Camilla.

  25. DanaG says:

    Anne can hardly throw stones she has had many affairs. Rumour is that she and Tim don’t even live together and lead separate lives. He only comes out on official events sometimes. She can’t divorce again cause she already did that once. I have heard of her and Andrew PB being together for a couple of years now. I doubt she hates Camilla maybe her work ethic but on a personal level they are both pretty similar. I don’t Camilla I never will it isn’t just that she wouldn’t leave Charles alone she is also the one that started the Diana is mentally unstable stuff so no one would believe her when she said that Camilla and Charles were having an affair. Which of course we all now know is exactly what happened. Diana had affairs because she was being ignored by her husband if he had been a better man and tried a little harder things could have been different. Problem was both were needy Charles for someone who mothered him and came at his beck and call and made no demands on him and Diana who wanted a husband to protect and love her no matter what. Charles is too self involved to do this even now.

    I doubt much has changed Charles always had mistresses the big difference is that unlike Diana, That is what makes me laugh people make out Camilla was his great love but she had some very stiff competition and Charles chose Kanga over her for several years. Camilla is willing to overlook the other women. She is used to the men she marries having other women she doesn’t seem to care that says so much. I think the Queen plans on living a long time because Charles becoming King really seems to worry her. No more pet projects for Charles no long vacations where Camilla can just disappear they both be more accountable. And I don’t think either of them will be happy about it.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Actually it was Penny Juror (among others and all with Charles’ permission) that was known to mud sling. Camilla, very smartly, kept her comments to herself. When Camilla did speak to editors she usually only steered them in directions rather than being anonymously quoted. She was excellent at the art of discretion. Much better than Kanga, which is why Kanga lost her ‘top spot’ as Charles’ mistress. And both women turned a blind eye (he was seeing both for quite some time) to all his other mistresses too. It wasn’t just turning a blind eye toward each other….

  26. Thinker says:

    I don’t care for Camilla. The campaign to make her fit for the public has not worked on everyone, and I, for one have nothing remotely close to affection for the woman.

    In my opinion she is an extremely immoral person. She’s not a workhorse, she is lazy as Kate. She is just a well-born slag who slept around not only with Charles but with most of his friends, thus acquiring her first husband along the way. Charles has only kept her attention because he’s a Prince, because she’s of the social set that buys into the idea a title means something truly significant. Newsflash: Its an empty title. Frankly, I just don’t think Camilla is an admirable person in any regard. She’s spent her life at Chuckie’s beck and call.

    • Maria says:

      That’s food for thought. I once read an article that while Wills looks a lot like Diana, he has his father’s personality and vice versa for Harry. If that is true, than I can see the similarities between Camilla and Kate and how both may be spoiled little princes who pout and need a woman at their beck and call.

  27. Deeana says:

    Oh my goodness, what a GREAT late night read with some fellow British Royals gossip fans!

    There were a few small details here and there that I’ll correct with info gained from having read every blessed book ever written about any of them. It’s an addiction. I just can’t stop myself. Good Lord, the last one I read was an official, approved biography of the Queen. Written for her 25th Jubilee I think. Picked it up at a rummage sale. And it was actually kind of good in its own way. Surprisingly, the author made several statements about the Queen “not being a deep thinker”. Which I found to be not too flattering to her, but then thought maybe somehow in Britian that is a good quality?

    Camilla – I still just am not a big fan of hers. I did love Diana, so that’s probably why I still have the lingering bad feelings about her. Camilla is not the one that the Queen knew from the time she was a girl. That was Sarah Fergusen, married to Andrew. I believe the Queen may have met Camilla once a long time before the Wales divorce situation. As I recall it was at some large formal gathering and Camilla was married to Andrew Parker Bowles at the time.

    Camilla was after APB. They had been dating for well over a year and she could not pin him down, plus he was seeing other women. Charles was a friend of APB from polo and that’s basically how Camilla met up with him. She and Charles dated for about 6 months and he then went to sea, apparently failing to ask her to wait for him. In any case, she married APB about 6 months later. Big white wedding and all that.

    Camilla next started up with Charles as a married woman with two small children. He was polo friends with her husband. Her husband was still seeing other women – marriage didn’t seem to slow him down.

    Somewhere in here Kanga, another older married woman, became a steady mistress of Charles. Much later on, after she was long out of Charles’ life Kanga killed herself. By jumping off the roof of a building as I recall.

    In the “upper circles” in Britian, if your spouse is having an affair with a royal it could mean better social status for the “injured” spouse, so there are lots of blind eyes.

    Deeana