DM: Duchess Camilla ‘would go bonkers’ if Prince Charles cheated on her

wenn21182814

As we discussed yesterday, Prince Charles is the subject of a new “unauthorized” biography. I really think Charles agreed to parts of the book, likely in an effort to frame certain issues, scandals and controversies a certain way, but since excerpts began to be released this weekend, Charles and Buckingham Palace are closing ranks and claiming that the biography is utterly unauthorized. So, with that controversy brewing, how funny is it that Richard Kay at the Daily Mail did an exclusive, Charles-friendly propaganda piece? Kay used to be one of Diana’s favorites too – she used to leak information to him all the time. This Daily Mail article – which you can read here – is all about Charles and Camilla’s marriage and how Charles finally got a woman who “gets” him. Also: Charles and Camilla live apart much of the time?! Some highlights from the piece:

Separate lives by design: A source says, “Camilla seems to spend less time in Highgrove these days than she did when Charles was still married to Diana.” She likes to have her five grandchildren at Ray Mill, running noisily around the house and the garden. He likes the peace of Highgrove 17 miles away, where he can bury his head in his books and papers, and, of course, work in his garden and have space to himself.

When they are together: ‘But when they are together they are fantastic,’ says a close friend. ‘Camilla knows how to soothe him, when not to be there, when to leave him to his thoughts, when to be jolly, when to be his confidante, and when to be his lover. She is quite brilliant at being every kind of woman to him at the appropriate time. Poor Diana could never do this for him. I saw how she struggled to make it work, but it never did. But then, she was so young, while Camilla — well, she’s virtually made a lifelong study of the Prince of Wales. No one knows him better than she does.’

Charles plans to make Camilla “Queen” not Princess Consort: ‘It’s because he believes that when faced with a fait accompli, the British nation will always look to its strong tradition of forgiveness and fair play,’ says one close figure.

Camilla has always known what to say to Charles: ‘For a long time it was sex,’ snorts one of her lady friends. ‘Camilla would tell Charles what to do in bed. And he liked that.’

He hates that his sons & Duchess Kate get so much attention: ‘It makes him quite gloomy at times,’ says a country friend of the Duchess. ‘Camilla doesn’t hog the limelight as Diana did, thank goodness, but everyone knows he’s desperate for people to show their approval. Camilla’s so good at cheering him up when he’s like that. But even she can get fed up with his moods.’

They go days without seeing each other: ‘You must remember they are two people who have spent most of their adult lives apart,’ says a friend of the duchess. ‘They don’t feel a need to be in each other’s pockets all the time. Camilla’s not a needy person in herself, and that is why it works so much better for Charles than in his previous marriage.’

What would Camilla do if Charles cheated on her? According to one of her closest friends: ‘She would go bonkers. After what they’ve been through she expects him to be loyal — in every way.’

Residual guilt about Diana: ‘When Diana died, his instinctive reaction was to feel a terrible guilt because of everything that had led to that dreadful moment. But he no longer feels guilt for her death because he has come to accept that had nothing to do with where she was or who she was with at the time. Where he does still feel guilty, of course, is that it was him who brought Diana into the royal world and a life she couldn’t handle.’

Charles knows what ‘in love’ means now: ‘He knows exactly what love means now,’ says one of Camilla’s friends. ‘He knows that everything she does for him, from letting him be himself to listening to what he thinks, from consoling him to making him laugh, is because she loves him. He worships her for it.’

[From The Daily Mail]

I billed this as pro-Charles propaganda, but reading some of those quotes, it seems more like pro-Camilla propaganda. The genius of Camilla – if you want to call it that – is that once Charles’ divorce came through, she’s pretty much been stage-managed by Charles and his staff. Camilla doesn’t hold court with a group of advisors that are only loyal to her. She doesn’t publicly kneecap Charles or anyone else in the royal family. She has made herself into everything Charles wants. But what does Camilla want, I wonder? To be Queen? See, I don’t even believe that. Charles wants her to be Queen and I don’t think she really cares either way.

wenn20547853

wenn21876053

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

182 Responses to “DM: Duchess Camilla ‘would go bonkers’ if Prince Charles cheated on her”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Shambles says:

    I actually snorted at “the British nation will always look to its strong tradition of forgiveness and fair play.” Let’s ask Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boelyn how all that forgiveness and fair play worked out for them.

  2. LAK says:

    You know the saying that people tend to marry their parental model and go on to emulate their parental marriage model?

    It seems William emulated Charles in his second marriage.

    • michelle says:

      That is what I was thinking too, LAK.

      Also, I seriously doubt that Camilla would go “bonkers” if Charles cheated on her now – unless it was indiscreet. But, I don’t think either of them would be indiscreet in that way now. They’ve worked too hard for Camilla’s current public image.

    • FLORC says:

      LAK
      Idk. If you only have Diana and Camilla to compare to Kate for similarities it’s not an exact match either way.

      • LAK says:

        Florc: in the case of William, it’s an exact match since he married a nanny wife who panders to his every need whilst living separately from him.

        To paraphrase a comment I read on a royalfan blog, Kate will never outshine him (like Diana did) she will never challenge him (unlike Diana), she will never become independent (like Diana), pretty much does what he wants her to do (unlike Diana)

        In other words, swop out Kate for Camilla in that comment.

        Kate might not be the soothing, can read his moods, and jolly him along type, but in all other aspects, he found himself a Camilla lite.

      • FLORC says:

        LAK
        I see what you’re saying.
        Camilla lite is a fair way of putting it.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Camilla lite without the public service work?

        KM caters to W’s whims, dropping everything to be with him or letting him drop her for weeks/months at a time, to this day.

        In William’s own words “She’s got a really naughty sense of humour, which kind of helps me because I’ve got a really dry sense of humour, so it was good fun, we had a really good laugh and then things happened.” Of course, most of that interview was filled with lies, so who knows if he enjoys her sense of humor.

      • icerose says:

        I hope it is a case of what goes around comes around in her case

      • perplexed says:

        Doesn’t Camilla do more charity work than Kate Middleton? I can see the similarities in every other sense, but Camilla doesn’t seem quite as….lazy and uninterested? Kate seems to literally have no interests. But to be fair to Kate, she hasn’t committed adultery. She got William fair and square.

      • FLORC says:

        Perplexed
        Yes she does.
        There’s a lot of recent and over time articles/photos of Camilla either attending a charity event or supporting another by attending. She’s quite good with small children as well.
        My favorite is maybe from a few years ago. Camilla and likely a team came up with a great and simple idea for victims of sexual assault. Post kit and examination they’re given a luxury bathing kit assembled by hand. The victim/survivor can’t bath until the exam and having been through this myself it’s a terrible experience.
        This bathing kit is so perfect for 1 big reason. It’s simple. The only thing you want to do right then is clean off what happened.

        IMO cheating is cheating when in a commited relationship. And William wasn’t single when Kate got with him. Also, cheating is surprisingly accepted in that social circle.

      • perplexed says:

        I didn’t know Kate cheated with William. I’m not disputing it, I just really didn’t know.

    • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

      Got it in one, LAK, as per usual.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Including physical appearance and mannerisms, they both choose a woman a lot like their nanny (Mabel Anderson, Tiggy Legge-Bourke).

  3. capepopsie says:

    She comes out as much more symphathetic than he does.
    He seems to be rather a difficult person to deal with.
    Poor Diana. . .

    • danielle says:

      I’m glad celebitchy covered this article, it was interesting. And yes, Charles sounds like a big baby.

      • Betti says:

        And William seems to take after him in that respect – a big temper tantrum toddler.

      • Trashaddict says:

        Big baby indeed. I am nauseated by this retroactive set-up. God how tiresome. Camilla’s probably somewhat relieved when he’s off with his books.

    • icerose says:

      I have no sympathy for Camilla even after his marriage to Diana she kept her control over Charles.

      • Jib says:

        I am a few months younger than Diana was, and I must say, I like Camilla a lot more than I liked Diana. Diana was very philanthropic, this is true, and good with people, but she was also very self-involved and whiny. She needed caretaking and a lot of hand-holding, and there is no way Charles was going to pamper her or tend to her needs. She also was a silly woman in a lot of ways, and shallow and not quite a paragon of virtue herself.

        I think it was short-sighted of the Queen to keep Charles from marrying Camilla in the first place. And Camilla really does put in a lot of hard work, and seems like she has fun doing it. She is often seen drinking toasts, and enjoying it!! Diana was more stage managed.

        Apples and oranges really, though. Diana was a kid, thrown under the biggest spotlight in the world and she melted down publicly. Her life was not easy.

  4. Sixer says:

    Buck House is having the screaming abdabs, I fear. They’ve even trotted out someone for today’s lunchtime BBC politics show. In fairness, I think the press coverage of this biography has as much to say about Murdoch’s republican agenda as it does about Chaz and I do believe it wasn’t in the least bit authorised. What is a Sixer to do? Stick up for royals when she’s a republican? Or defend the hideous Murdoch? That’s today’s conundrum.

    But sniggering at the thought of Camilla playing the dominatrix? That could easily take my mind off it!

    • LAK says:

      I can see why BP is having the vapours because Rupert Murdoch’s papers are masters at galvanising public opinion with their headlines which have nought to do with the substance of the articles. Eg the screaming headline ‘Charles will be a meddling monarch’ followed by article that (rightly in my opinion) rubbishes the gong system.

      Unfortunately, the other papers and news sites pick up the headline and run with it to inflame the public and before you know it, pitch forks are being sharpened.

    • Sixer says:

      That’s the one.

      Hey, LAK. Do you remember, years and years back, Charles saying that when he was king, he wanted to be a defender of faithS rather than defender of THE faith? It caused a big stir at the time but nobody ever mentions it these days.

      If Charles does ever do anything big constitutionally when he becomes king, that’s what my money is on. I don’t think he is as committed an Anglican as his mother and I wouldn’t be surprised if he wants to take the first step towards disestablishing the church. Forget all this petty celebrity stuff. Or do you think I’m tilting at windmills?

      • LAK says:

        I agree 100%.

        However, he pushed back at the religious question of the succession bill in a way that suggested reinforced CoE’s role so who knows.

      • Sixer says:

        Maybe he wants established churchES!

      • Flower says:

        Charles goes through the motions re The Church of England but his heart is somewhere between Buddhism for its philosophy and the orthodox church, Greek orthodoxy in particular, very few know about it and its hard to believe that no one has ever written about it, but for over a decade he has taken a regular sabbatical for a week or two at a cloistered Greek monastery to get away from it all and meditate.

      • LAK says:

        Flower: I deleted a similar comment to yours because I wasn’t sure if I was answering Sixer’s question, so decided to stick to his views/actions regarding CoE.

        I quite agree with your assessment of whatever spiritual faith he has in as far as I think it falls, plus every few years, an article pops up about his stay at that monastry.

        Further, I also think his faith is influenced by his mentors like Laurens van der Poost which makes his comment ‘…..whatever love means!’ less egregious for a person who is always trying to be meditative and philosophically Buddhist.

      • Sixer says:

        It does kinda answer my question! I am convinced that if Charles actually does work for actual, tangible change (rather than this woolly talk of meddling) when he is king, it will be something to do with extricating the monarchy from the CofE.

    • icerose says:

      snigger at both of them.
      Charles is a member of the status quo and all his ideals are based on maintaining the aristocracy and upper classes who he can continue to preach to the peasants about envioirmental and religious concerns.
      He wants the monarchy to have more of a role in forming public opinion.

  5. Cora says:

    That entire piece was about what Camilla does for Charles. Not a single word on what he does for her.

    • epiphany says:

      It all seems very one-sided, doesn’t it? However, in many relationships, there is a “giver”, and a “taker”, and that isn’t to imply that one is evil and the other good, it’s just the way things work out sometimes. Charles is obviously a taker, someone who is used to being the center of attention, getting what he wants, and taking for granted that his needs will be top priority. His marriage to Diana failed, at least in part, because she was also a taker, and expected to be the top priority. Mind you, her attitude could be excused in large part because of her youth, but because Diana had such a highly strung, emotionally volatile nature, and Charles never had to – and never would – put someone’s needs ahead of his own, the marriage was doomed. For all the talk of Charles and Diana having nothing in common, it’s ironic that their emotional natures were so like – in fact, too much alike. Camilla is a more centered and self confident person, and therefore is comfortable in the role of giver, or caretaker. Probably why she enjoys having her grandkids around, and Charles finds them annoying – they monopolize Camilla’s attention.

    • Leona says:

      I dont know, could it be that Prince Charles is a selfish piece of s….t? Nooooo, it couldnt be. Could it?

      Camilla made her bed, let her lie in it (or avoid it as she clearly already does), no sympathies from me

      • icerose says:

        Camilla encouraged him to marry Diana because she believed she was meek and mild and would not interfere with her control of Charles.

  6. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    Ugh. To spend your life tiptoeing around a giant, spoiled baby who pouts when he isn’t the center of attention…what a life. Couldn’t happen to a nicer frump.

    • Imo says:

      Camilla’s path to success has been *cough* horizontal. What a role model.

      • FLORC says:

        Imo
        Would you say the same of Kate or just Camilla?

      • Imo says:

        Very similar but not quite. Kate kept William captivated with sex and being accommodating but that is not how she initially intrigued him. With Camilla it was sex right from the beginning. And if anyone thinks Will and Kate grew close because she walked the runway in see through. Clothes they’ve only read the over-hyped stuff. The initial attraction grew over time.

      • notasugarhere says:

        How does this explain him cheating behind his girlfriend’s back with Middleton for months? Let me guess, you’re going to tell us that never happened and is just part of the “hype”.

      • Nikki says:

        IMO, you make it sound like she used sex to get to a better social position only. I think she’s always been a strong woman who went her own way, and there are things about that I admire. I believe she truly loved Charles, but got tired of waiting, and married. Later, when Charles and Diana were unhappy, she became his mistress again, and chucked her marriage when she was VILLIFIED as a cheating tramp who killed Diana, practically. Iran, people shouted epithets at her, and a woman once threw a drink at her! Don’t think she knew Diana would ever be killed, and don’t believe she slept her way to a position. I think she really loves Charles, and I admire she keeps her own place and enjoys her grand kids, instead of catering to him all the time.

      • FLORC says:

        Imo
        The truth. Not rewriting of history, but simple timeline truth. Kate got with William while he was dating another. Everyone knew he had a gf too.

        William had a reputation of cheating as supported by his gf’s and college mates. It was observed and seen numerous times (and said to be covered by whitaker?) Kate would glare at anyone who dared to approach William and was a pretty female. She got the “limpet” name because she never left his side. Also, likely why after his break up with er he screams “i’m free” at a pub full of patrons.

      • Imo says:

        A few points:
        No I don’t think Cam was head over heels for Charles. He was fun, enjoyed country pursuits, was quite fond of her and gave her cache. But she really loved her husband who never loved her and never stopped cheating on her. – especially with the one and only Princess Anne. Cam would have ever divorced her husband without pressure from CharleszThe person who buys the rebranding of Chuck and Cam is prepared to overlook a lot of history.
        Nota
        You are so fond of proof so prove that W & K cheated for months before officially dating. And I don’t care about or disagree with Will having a roving eye. But I have seen nothing beyond gossip to prove Kate reelled Will in with sex. It is documented that is exactly how Cam and Chuck got together.
        FLORC
        You have repeatedly stated how little self respect Kate has for tolerating Will’s roving eye. So do you have different criteria for Cam crawling into Charles’ marital bed?

      • notasugarhere says:

        IMO you stated definitively “Kate kept William captivated with sex and being accommodating but that is not how she initially intrigued him.” Then you state “But I have seen nothing beyond gossip to prove Kate reelled Will in with sex.”

        What is your “proof” for any of your statements? Are you Bill or Kate? Were you in the bedroom with them? You think the stories from the W&K set at school don’t count as proof, but you count stories from Charles and Camilla’s set as proof and “well-documented”?

        Again, repeating as have done so many times before, we’re all drawing from multiple sources and forming our own opinions. Just as you are. Unless you are Bill or Kate, your “proof” is no more and no less than anyone else’s, but you seem to think only your interpretation counts.

        And note, I’m not the only person stating the info about William’s cheating, it is well-known – even if you don’t want to acknowledge it.

      • FLORC says:

        Imo
        Are you takingthis personally? I’m getting that impression.
        I’m stating facts. If you’ve read my comments more than just at you you’d know that’s incorrect. My response to you is a 2 parter.
        1.I think Kate’s greatest crime is apathy for her position. That her marriage came with a job to offset perks. Instead she indulges in the perks and phones in the duty. Not that she married a man that gets around. When addressing that i’m more directing at the pr and press. The issue comes up when you’re being told to buy a certain image, but you can clearly see it’s not the truth.

        2. I’ve answered this in another response to you. How sleeping around for Camilla, Charles, William, and aristocrates is under a different set of rules. Almost like a cultural difference if not exactly that.

        Personally I don’t agree with cheating in my marriage.

        And while asking for proof while they retrieve there’s even after the great whitewashing of the image how will you support your claims?

      • Someonestolemyname says:

        Kate and Camillia do cater to veery similar personalities.

        Kate DID get William with sex, He didn’t ask her out for a date until he saw her in underwear,Mitch a see through dress and Kate had been around him for awhile, before that, yet he never thought of asking her out until she presented herself in a undies on the runway,

        William also had a friend ask around about Kate after the fashion show and the friend got back to him telling William, …Kate will be no muss, no fuss, don’t worry if you hook-up with her She Won’t talk and Won’t make a fuss. She’s Cool.

        William replied I’d Like To Have a Go. (At Kate…)

        James Whitaker said , at the start of the romance the Palace did some inquiring about Kate and the Word at the Palace was
        “Kate is thought to be TOO EAsy with her wares” ……exact quote from Whitaker, from someone inside the Palace.
        I think Kate and Camilla have much in common.
        Kate made herself available for a decade, with no other interests, always at his beck and call…to the point where one UK journalist called Kate …The Mattress.

        I think Charles and William are very similR in personality, when it comes to women.

      • perplexed says:

        Didn’t a bunch of other women have sex with William too? I think Kate is pretty dull, but I don’t get how she can be considered The Mattress if she wound up marrying him (without any adultery prior to the marriage), which would make me assume that something meaningful exists between her and William if he spent a decade with her and then agreed to marry her.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It was a reference to her being nothing more than a beck-and-call girl for William any time day or night, never working, no career for a decade, constantly dumping her friends at the last minute because William suddenly had a weekend free and he wanted a bed mate. He didn’t treat her with respect and she allowed herself to be used that way.

        He constantly dropped her, went after other women publicly for a decade, and eventually settled for her. Loves her, isn’t in love with her as Whittaker famously said.

      • wolfpup says:

        FLORC – I noticed that you mentioned that Diana knew about Tyron being a mistress. I reviewed the video I posted earlier, and I am wondering if I’m am being naive. I do recall Diana confronting Kanga (Lady Collins Campbell’s book), but I believe that Kanga reassured her. There is so much denial around Kanga, (saying she had merely been a confidant, not full-flung affair), from her family, and the royal one. I wonder why Diana saw her as a friend and Camilla an enemy.

        Who’s hoodwinked me? Was Shy Di hoodwinked as well?

    • notasugarhere says:

      Sounds like Camilla and Kate Middleton have a lot in common.

      • FLORC says:

        After reading many books that touched upon Camilla and who she is I think she’s pretty decent. There was a campaign against her of people holding the torch Diana put down long ago before her death.

        She works. Seems thoughtful in her charitable approach. This just isn’t covered all that often much like how all the working royals take a backseat to promoting Kate.

      • notasugarhere says:

        FLORC, I wasn’t clear in my comment. I meant that they have a lot in common because of the nature/personalities of the men they married.

      • FLORC says:

        Nota
        Haha I get it now. Agree.

      • Leona says:

        I dont know. Nothing ”decent” about a woman who would cheat on her husband with a married man knowing full well the turmoil she was causing to another party. Thats actually the opposite of ”decent”. I know, because I just looked up the definition of the word.

      • FLORC says:

        Leona
        You find it shocking that in their circles cheating was accepted and normal.
        It’s pretty amazing what the differences. You should read up on it sometime. It’s shocking to me too, but I wasn’t raised in that world. Charles, and William as well as many others are. That is their norm. What’s more shocking is there’s a whole new never of etiquette involved..

        So, it’s not decent in your views or mine, but totally acceptable in their world.

      • icerose says:

        Camilla never let go of Charles even after his marriage -he may not have cheated on Diana physically at first but he definitely did it mentally and I have every sympathy doe Diana finding her self with a man who at best wanted a baby carrier.
        Diana was pretty much on her own because everyone close the royals new that Charles was still in love with Camilla and lied behind her back to support Charles.
        Most of the recent books have whitewashed Camilla,

      • notasugarhere says:

        Do you consider William’s relationship with Jecca emotional cheating? As we’ve discussed on here before, the one opinion that seems to matter to William is Jecca the touchstone.

      • FLORC says:

        I do Nota
        Cheating on both sides.
        When discussing this before I think this is what kept Jecca then main threat to Kate. Why William’s relationship with Jecca was always noted in articles that were strongly pro Kate and written by Middleton friendly connections. Even to this day the Jecca as William’s Camilla was done so by Tanna.

        William can sleep around and have it be that. But an emotional connection? That will last. That will create emotional distance. Imo emotional cheating is a greater danger than physical.

      • Someonestolemyname says:

        Do you remember at one point during the Courtship of William and Kate, that one ( or maybe two) of the British Journos , referred to Kate as “The Mattress? ”

        It was shocking, that the syrupy British press called her that, because usually with the British press it was all about Kate love, even when she was his girfriend.

      • bluhare says:

        Actually, I think she did give it up for a while, icerose. Charles said (and I think Diana did as well although I’d have to go look that up) he was faithful in the early years of their marriage and I’ve also read in more than one book that the happiest years of their marriage were either right before or after Harry was born. So there was at least affection between Charles and Diana, even if he wasn’t passionate about her.

        I think Camilla and Charles thought Diana would accept the unwritten upper crust rules about infidelity; that if you are discreet, enjoy yourself. She didn’t.

      • perplexed says:

        I always thought it was a little weird how Camilla seemed to always be lurking around Charles from the early days of his marriage to Diana. Charles didn’t seem to beg her to be around — she just seemed to always be there. Charles has to bear responsibility for not making the right decisions, but I also don’t think it was necessary for Camilla to be so adamant that she’d always be around Charles, whether Diana liked it or not. I just don’t get her her need or determination to be around Charles at the start of his marriage. He did kind of seem to be very attracted to Diana, so I figured he was willing to make the marriage work, but whenever Diana’s insecurities seemed to get the better of her, Camilla seemed to always be there waiting for Charles to come pour out his emotions about his troubles. That kind of deliberateness always struck me as odd. It didn’t seem like she just happened to be there by accident, like when actors fall into bed with their co-stars one chance night and the affair just kind of continues. It seemed like there was actual game in Camilla’s strategy.

      • FLORC says:

        Bluhare
        I think Harry was conceived during their 2nd honeymoon period.

      • notasugarhere says:

        There are quotes from both of them (C&D) about how during certain periods “we loved each other very much”. I remember Diana being emphatic about that, and stating that anyone who said otherwise was, “wrong.”

    • Natalie says:

      I’m sure William fancied Kate but their connection is based on both being extremely codependent. William can’t break away from Kate no matter how much he seems to resent her at times because he can’t be by himself. All that cheating meant he was pretty much never single.

      I think Diana fostered that codependence in William by looking to her very young son for emotional support and then praising him by publicly telling stories of how a young, confused child tried to comfort his crying mother.

      • Someonestolemyname says:

        Unless he meets a girl who he’s attracted to who plays the same things Kate did and her family is Just as ambitious

        I think Kate and William’ s relationship is co-dependant on Carole.

      • Natalie says:

        I agree. Actually seeing as they spend so much time apart, another woman could get close to him as Kate won’t be there to glare her away.

        Kate is definitely codependent with Carole but I think William finds her useful and amusing rather than being dependent on her.

  7. Anastasia says:

    I can never get over how much his fingers look like sausages these days.

    • Forthelasttime says:

      Fluid retention. Could be a number of causes including too much alcohol.

      • LAK says:

        Charles doesn’t drink. The sausage fingers are a genetic inheritance from Philip. WH have them too.

      • Thinker says:

        High blood pressure is the most likely cause. Possibly arthritis. With that red glow, he could be drinking again too. Nobody could say for certain except Chaz & his physicians.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Could be rosacea. Or the elements (sun, wind, being out in cold weather) from gardening and hill walking.

      • Someonestolemyname says:

        According to most reports Charles doesn’t drink.
        I think he use to hold a glass of water or cider at parties.

  8. scout says:

    Look at them clowns. Yikes!!

    Anybody remember Charles on phone to Camilla many years ago, saying “I miss you, I want to be your Tampon inside you so desperately” or something like that. Classy future King of England.

    • Maddy says:

      I think he wanted to be reincarnated as a tampon.

      From King of England to damp tamp 🙂

    • Jen43 says:

      Hahaha. That is forever etched in my memory.
      Also, remember that TV biopic years ago? (Maybe it was about Diana.) It had Charles whining, “But Mummy, I WANT to be King.” That is how I will remember Charles.

    • ickythump says:

      O god yes, that was the most cringeworthy thing ever! yuck!!

    • FLORC says:

      Scout
      You do realise Diana was married to this man with this kink. She likely also was a part of this back and forth. Would you mock Diana?
      And you never replied to the last thread so i’ll post here.
      Diana was quite friendsly with Kanga. A favorite mistress of Charles. She was aware of her sleeping with her husband and was still friends. Also, before Diana passed she was friendly with Charles and Camilla. She put down the Camilla hate torch. You quote Diana to justify your hatred, but she let it go. Do you think you’re correctly using phrases Diana later disagreed with to support this campaign against Camilla?
      Can’t you just say you don’t like her and Leave Diana out of it since she didn’t share those feelings within the last year or so of her life?

      • H says:

        In Diana’s later years, she was extremely media savvy and understood Charles was going to be with Camilla regardless of what anyone thought, so why carry the hate torch? Plus if I had kids with someone, I’d try to be friendly with the new (old) gf for the sake of my kids. And no matter what anyone can say about Diana these days, good or bad, she did love her kids. Her choice in men? Yeah, that’s a whole other post.

        I got no hate on for Camilla anymore, I figure she got what she always wanted…Charles. That enough punishment for one lifetime. He’s a big, cry-baby whom I wouldn’t wish upon any sane woman. I mean, who begrudges children running around making noise and playing? They are CHILDREN.

      • Leona says:

        Perfectly stated H. Her Prince turned out to be a frog in disguise. Supposed ”soul mates” who cant stand to live in the same house, lmao. I bathe in this schadenfreude.

      • FLORC says:

        H
        Diana was savvy from the start. Her game was miles away. She got better, but she was good for years and years.

        And who’s begrudging children? Charles? Camilla? I’ve read those tab stories as well, but don’t want to respond without clarification.

        Regarding living apart.
        This is pretty normal. I was shocked to learn how many older married couples i know that live apart. They explained it simply too. Like many older couples that are still married and in love sleep in seperate rooms or beds. Others have seperate homes because they can afford it. They still love eachother.

        It’s on a level of man caves as well. Their own space to have time to themselves or with others.

      • icerose says:

        you sound like my mother who argued Diana should just have put up with it because that is what she was suppose to do. Sorry I think had idea of the minefield she was walking into until it was too late. The media was the only thing she had to support from a jealous husband and a manipulative mistress, And yes she started off playing the royal wife but I always admired her for fighting back.

      • FLORC says:

        icerose
        Is that in response to my comment?
        Charles had numerous mistresses. Kanga was a passionate love of his and wasn’t too shy about that. And Diana approved.

        I think many people forget all the affairs and the dynamics/politics that came with them. It wasn’t simply Camilla slept with Charles. Diana was angry and Camilla was manipulative. That’s almost creating an entirely new story only keeping names. That’s how far off many people are on this.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Didn’t Diana help promote Kanga’s clothing line by wearing some of the pieces?

      • Someonestolemyname says:

        Yes

      • wolfpup says:

        I’ve read very different accounts of Kanga. Kanga was friends with the Queen and they often rode together (horses). If the Queen had believed that Kanga was having an affair with Charles, I believe that she would have been deposed from court (the Queen’s court), as Camilla had been. Diana did confront Kanga at one time about these allegations. Kanga denied; and denied until she died, and her entire family has continued to do, to this day. Even with all the speculation about her, you will not find a solid source that ties this relationship down as a consummated one. That she was a confidant to Charles (and the Queen), is no doubt. However, Diana did not sever the friendship, and wore one of Kanga’s designer gowns, after that frosty encounter with her.

        It seems as though the royal sons feel that entitlement is central to their roles. Charles cried, “You cant expect me to be the first Prince of Wales without a mistress! Royals need women who are willing to tolerate cheaters. This is acceptable in their world, because everyone is willing to play along (10 commandments, and all vows be damned). Sometimes it just amazes me that the peasants actually believe that they can tell the royals to work! The are above all the rules of decent society.

      • *North*Star* says:

        The Queen was and is friends with many a mistress and/or lover; it’s just part and parcel of the British aristocracy. Kanga (and others like her) would be accepted into society as long as a fuss wasn’t made about the affair (meaning the affair was done in a suitably quiet manner).

      • wolfpup says:

        I retrieved this film about Kanga from youtube, in case if there is any interest in Diana, Kanga and Camilla, “sharing”…

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPDxjTVmL3w

        Two minutes in, you will hear peals of laughter coming from yourself, when Prince Charles is described as the “sex god” of that time!

      • wolfpup says:

        I am sorry – but the book “To Marry an English Lord”, is not acceptable for generalizing modern day ethics, in the royal family. That book was written for turn of the century American heiress’s, who were marrying English lords. Diana had a entirely different background. Different day and age, as a matter of fact! She expected fidelity and love, like most young women fond of romance novels (as she was of Barbara Courtland). Charles, (still in the dark ages), believed that he was entitled *not to have to be* the first Prince of Wales without a mistress (suckie thumb).

        The Queen did stop Camellia from attending certain royal events for a period of time, for this very reason of insanity. The Queen also refused to sleep with Phillip for a long period of time after an affair of his – there were no children for years after in that marriage. Frankly, polygamy and mistresses don’t work well in any society! (Two’s company, three’s a crowd). In a marriage, there is no top dog!

        To view the royals in some way set apart, authorized to to engender these kinds of immoral transactions, (which harms many people; especially women and children), is both foolish, and remarkable. These folks are considered to be the head of the Church of England, and the Head of State of the British empire. They believe in their own debauchery, and the world is to accept this as normal?!? – a mere cultural difference!?! We are actually discussing power differentials – and who has the right to make vows with a lying heart. How can one trust people with these kinds of ethics? (and excuses).

        Diana came from a family that was taken apart by the spectre of adultery. She was very sensitive to this issue, and like every young women, she wanted to do it better than her own mother and father. That this was her intention and belief, and very important to her, is obvious in any texts or stories written with her comments in mind.

        This is not something we should get wrong on CB. How can people discuss ethics in marriage, where ethics do not apply? Or do they? Are the royal family ethical, or not? Are they like us when it comes to obeying laws, engendering good government, keeping their families in order and following established rules of conduct? Or can we call it corruption, plain and simple? Is it a cultural difference with the same text used (Bible) in all religious contexts and ceremonies in that country? Can Charles be trusted making his vows during his investiture as king? How do we know that their vows are meaningful?

        This kind of behavior would not get a pass in most countries with their heads of state. What a bunch of hooey – misogynistic hooey.

  9. Forthelasttime says:

    By god, she is unattractive.

  10. What was that says:

    According to an interview I watched with the author on the BBC she did have access and she was very judicious in her comments ,trying to make clear what has been said and what has been hinted at.I found her quite believable.She is trying to highlight what kind of man/king he will make ,and how his views may have to be curtailed on ascending the throne,if he ever makes it .She did point out her’Madge’ is very healthy from a long living female line!
    I like the comparisons with Wolf Hall ,which were mentioned to her years ago!
    In retrospect ,the person that is more questionable in all this is William,what has he done for any Charity or cause like his Father,Brother or Mother???

  11. Imo says:

    Without the titles, wealth, charity work and upper crust lineage these people and this marriage would be seen as shocking failures.

    • Leona says:

      They are stuck together now. Ride or die. If I were her, I would break a few thermometers in his tea and be done with this mess once and for all.

    • icerose says:

      too true-it is part of the process of entitlement that as aristocratic men they are allowed to have affairs .Every one new Philip had affairs.

      • bluhare says:

        Yes, they are. With married women. Yet everyone slags Camilla for it and not Charles.

      • wolfpup says:

        If these men were not royals, they would be strung. Are there any other celebrities that are able to play so fast and loose with the rules? This is sexism institutionalized at it’s worst – because no one seems to notice that women are being stereotyped and disrespected in the worst ways. If male leadership sets the example for “men’s rights” – – -when the worst of lies, are held at the topmost layers of society…does this not drag a civilization in the direction of dissipation? (I keep forgetting, they get a pass, they get a pass…)

      • FLORC says:

        wolfpup
        Well, the women don’t object. They appear to allow it.
        Sad, but true.

      • wolfpup says:

        The ladies lack of objection, changes nothing concerning the ethical content of this debate. I would also question these women’s ability to object in the first place. That was Diana’s mistake, from the royal point of view, as she did object. Yet in that she did push back, she scored a coup for all other women mixed up in this sort of criminal behavior… She demonstrated courage in her feminism! Geez – she took on the entire royal family!

        That’s the word – crime – this behavior is illegal in England. What is wrong for British citizenry, to not to being able to name that which is criminal, when it exists in high places? This is called fair play? Cultural differences…please!

  12. Talie says:

    This is all an IF. His mother is going to live to 100, most likely.

    • Murphy says:

      You’re right–the Queen is not going anywhere any time soon. She’s as sturdy as a boulder.

    • Ginger says:

      They do have great longevity.

      • LAK says:

        Do they have longevity or is it the extreme pampering with no danger of being harmed in any way that has created the illusion of longevity.

        Think about it, until Goerge 2 , every previous monarch who didn’t go to war was pampered above and beyond their regular subjects.

        They had security in every way possible unlike their subjects. Assassination and peasants revolting aside, they lived much longer than their subjects.

        These days, the general populace has access to the very good healthcare, food, welfare with practically no hardship and more importantly no more wars or marauding brigands to shorten their lives so we are all living longer and or catching up to the longevity of the centuries long pampered royals.

  13. aquarius64 says:

    Cam wants to be queen because it would legitimize her. Princess Consort is a mark of Cain, a reminder that she got her HRH dirty.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Or it could be used as a sign of gender equality (I know, equality and monarchy?). This was discussed as part of the changes around the succession (first born vs. first male would inherit) but rejected. Right now “king” is considered a higher title than “queen.” If the monarchy is still around after HM passes, neither Camilla nor Kate Middleton should be Queen Consort. They should be Princess Consort for gender equality, like Daniel in Sweden will be “Prince Consort” if Victoria becomes queen.

      • Jessica says:

        King/Princess Consort and Queen/Prince Consort is not solving gender inequality, because it still says that King is a higher title than Queen. That still says “the husband of a Queen cannot be King because King, even King Consort, outranks Queen”.

        The only way one could solve the gender inequality with those titles is to have it be King/Queen Consort and Queen/King Consort. Then the titles would be equal and the only difference would be the Consort part.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I don’t read it that way, and that wasn’t considered in the legislation. I wonder if they thought of that version? The one they considered was monarch would be either “King or Queen” based on gender (and those would be considered equal-level titles) and the spouse becomes “Prince or Princess Consort” (equal-level titles).

        There was a UK politician who suggested “Princess Consort” as part of the recent legislation. “Princess Consort” was also put forward for Maxima in The Netherlands. The people protested, so she was made queen (consort).

      • Jessica says:

        They only put the “Prince or Princess Consort” thing out there because they are afraid of the title of King Consort – because then the “King” title would be below the “Queen” title in that situation. They are afraid to actually make the titles of King and Queen equal. The “Prince or Princess Consort” thing is about *not* making the titles King and Queen equal. The current title for a spouse of a Queen Regnant is Prince Consort. Using Princess Consort is just bringing the title of Queen Consort down, not elevating the title of Prince Consort.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Again, other countries are doing or looking at doing the same thing. Do you think they are all afraid of this idea?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Jessica, I did mean that as an honest question. It never occurred to me that they would re-do the titles your way, or that it was lingering sexism or fear behind it. I could see that in the UK, but would be surprised by that in places like Sweden or Holland.

  14. vauvert says:

    You know, I actually think Camilla got what she wanted out of life. She had fun when young, dated Charles, he had to go marry his virgin while she had her marriage and kids, and then after the big Diana divorce and fiasco and everyone knowing about the affair, she shrugged it all off until she could quietly divorce and marry him.
    She has the guy, her kids and grandkids, a title and a luxury lifestyle and I think she shrugs the rest off. Honestly don’t believe she cares about being queen, and I don’t think that she so much panders to Charles as it happens they have a lot in common. A woman who goes off and lives separately part of the time so her grandkids can run around does not strike me as a panderer, but I may be wrong. She probably knows Charles really well and is comfortable both doing her own thing and doing their together stuff because it happens to be things she enjoys.
    We may think she is unattractive, and that Charles was despicable in how he treated Diana (who IMHO was no saint herself) but I must say I admire a woman who has weathered so much scandal with her head held high and who has held the attention/love of a man who was probably avidly pursued by lots of women if for nothing else than his title.

    • Azurea says:

      I agree. I have a friend who lives in England. A friend of hers knows Camilla, and says Camilla’s pretty down-to-earth & great fun. She really had no interest in getting married to Charles, it wasn’t important to her in terms of their relationship, but he wanted it, so she agreed.

      • wolfpup says:

        Camilla didn’t want to be married to Charles, Diana did. Camilla is a mother-figure to a man who is a wimp.

    • Jenny says:

      Just running in to agree with you, Vauvert. And I have to say to the up above comments about giving/taking in relationship, I agree there too! I wouldn’t always use the word giver/taker but I think some people are more nurturers and caregivers and that comes out, so someone who is more high strung or high maintenance is going to work well with someone who enjoys reading them and “helping”. Do I like the infidelity, emotional in the beginning, physical down the road? Absolutely not. And I would quash that in my own life or leave. But it’s interesting to see the whole picture years on out, how everyone’s hands were at the very least muddy and life is messy. You just hope for happiness when the dusts settles and I think these two probably have one of the more content relationships in the BRF.

    • Imo says:

      Admirable for these traits? When I chat with my mom, have long lunches with my sisters, catch up with college chums and even look in the mirror I’m grateful I’ve learned to value…different qualities.

      • FLORC says:

        O.o
        When same values applied to different people in similar situations result in largely different opinions.

      • vauvert says:

        @Imo: Well, my first instinct was to throw shade at your response but really, good for you, if you live in such a righteous world.
        I remember in my early twenties I used to absolutely despise people who had affairs, left marriages etc. (I blamed Monika Lewinski and branded her a whore – but I view things differently now.) And I am not saying that it is something to strive for, but life is messy. Life can take turns you don’t expect. And having seen people close to me make mistakes of various kinds and deal with the fallout, I am capable of understanding that no one tried to hurt anyone on purpose in most of these situations, including Camilla. Being able to move past that without running to the tabloids (hello Brandi Glanville), making a pity party out of it (hello Jennifer Aniston) and continuing with your life – parenting, charity, work, making your new (old) relationship work… that takes gumption. It’s fine that you disagree, and hope your life never takes you down a path where you require empathy or forgiveness.

      • Imo says:

        By saying I apparently have a righteous life you are throwing shade but you word it in such a way as to avoid responsibility. That is not a great feeling personally, as if the commenters are targets and not just their comments.

        As for the rest I just feel that I try to foster forgiveness and compassion but I reserve true admiration for those I wish to emulate. Crawling out of the wreckage of your own mistakes takes courage and grit but being the last mistress standing? I’ll save my praise.

      • FLORC says:

        Imo
        Are you aware of how similar Kate and Camilla’s actions were regarding this discussion?
        And while William was not married Kate pursued him while he had a gf.
        So, I’m asking. Do you have admiration for Kate or wish to emulate her? Or maybe just arguing the other side of things?

      • Imo says:

        FLORC
        I do not admire Kate because she has not given me reason to. But Camilla has given me specific reasons not to admire her. If, and I am not convinced that Will and Kate hooked up while dating others in college there is no way in hell that compares to adultery. I can not believe this is arguable.

      • LAK says:

        IMO: the girl William was dating when he got cheated with Kate didn’t take it lightly nor dismiss it the way you are doing.

        If I recall the episode, and I won’t post her name since she’s a private person, she created quite the stink about it.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Camilla wasn’t interested in marrying Charles back then, it wasn’t a tragedy that they didn’t wed. She wanted a fling to make AndrewPB jealous, but APB was her goal.

      • FLORC says:

        Nota
        How true. So many easy forget (or never knew) Camilla wanted Andrew.

        The Charles, Diana, and his mistresses story is so crazy with agendas, interweaving lives, ending marriages, and even a mysterious death (Kanga). It’s a true shame people isolate the full story to Charles and Camilla’s love affair behind Diana’s back when that’s barely any fact. It’s the stuff of a Soap Opera.

    • Natalie says:

      Or Camilla is just shameless. I don’t think there were any perfect victims in the triangle but I just can’t admire Camilla. What she and Charles did to a 19 year old girl was deplorable.

    • Ginger says:

      From what I’ve read about Camilla wasn’t she quite popular with men in their circles in her heydey? Even while married? I understand she was considered attractive and charming. What I don’t understand is how Charles believes the British people will be forgiving of the affair between them and the divorce from Diana so as to allow Camilla to become Queen even if they’ve been married and living a quiet life together. It seems that Diana was always so popular despite everything. I’m not sure her memory won’t taint a bid at being Queen even if Charles is made King. But I’m an American (although of British descent) but I have a comfortable distance from it all. I may be getting this all wrong.

  15. Mellie says:

    I used to just despise her because I was such a Diana fan, and I still am, but I can’t help it, I’m starting to like her. I think she stays in the background and just does her own thing…doesn’t try to hog the spotlight and he does seem like kind of a big baby, but he does seem like he might be kind of fun too. Really though, why do all of us (myself included!), give these people any attention…people that wouldn’t give two craps about us if the we saw them out on the street. I guess it’s just for our amusement.

    • H says:

      THIS. My hate for Camilla was high when Charles divorced Diana and after her death, but it’s waned in the ensuing years. Camilla is the right match for Charles, Diana wasn’t. I wish Diana had lived to see her son marry and have a child, and finally find the happiness that eluded her in life. I think she would have been a cool grandmother.

      My problem these days is Charles. All these reports just make me think he’s a spoiled, entitled brat whose waiting for Mummy to die – she’s going nowhere – so he can take over. The British monarchy is stuck in a time warp, and I don’t think Charles is the man to modernize it. YMMV.

      • wolfpup says:

        I’ve been aware of Charles since he was an epic bachelor (in his own mind). He has been talking about his mother’s death for years in his greed to be king. I’ve always thought this *so* unseemly – but “king’s are worlds apart (wrong). There is no graciousness to this man – I find him revolting on many levels. I think that it is past the level of the personal, because it’s the job that cause his human disfunction.

    • Janet says:

      I still can’t stand her. I read that she used to publicly deride Diana as “that ridiculous creature” when she was still alive and living with Charles. She was openly banging another woman’s husband and had the nerve to talk trash about the woman? At least she could have kept her dumb f*cking mouth shut.

      • bluhare says:

        Who’s dumb f’ing mouth shut? Diana slung it with the best of them. Rottweiler anyone? Diana was also banging another woman’s husband, and then stalked him when he broke up with her because he didn’t want a divorce. In this writer’s opinion it was only her position that stopped her from being prosecuted for it. She also called Camilla when she knew she was home alone and hang up. I read that not too long ago. Diana was no saint in this story. Wronged and disillusioned, maybe, but definitely no saint.

      • FLORC says:

        Bluhare
        It’s my opinion fact largely does not have a place in this thread.

      • Bridget says:

        Diana was pretty ridiculous. Could you imagine if one of your friends behaved like her?

      • wolfpup says:

        It is not logically to equate these two women. We are all flawed, but personal flaws do not cancel out other’s personal flaws – all that does is provide excuses all around. These are two very different women with very different stories; however alike with the factor of adultery,

        This is how we *do not* take responsibility for our actions, in the same way we learned as a child.

  16. The Original G says:

    For someone who is s student of history he seems pretty deluded about what a future monarchy might look like without his mother. She’s an extraordinary figure and without her, the whole thing goes.

    God, Charles sounds like an overstuffed needy baby.

    • LAK says:

      Charles is practically a saint compared to other POWs, and no POW was more despised than Bertie, Victoria’s heir, who for various reasons was the ultimate party prince. People really dreaded the advent of that particular reign. And he turned out to be a pretty good Monarch.

      The point is, with very rare exceptions, every sitting ruler is beloved whilst the heir is despised. And generally the despised heir ends up being beloved. Go figure.

      • FLORC says:

        LAK
        It would be so easy for the switch to be made for W and H. Harry is already beloved.

        Question. Would William still have any say on his image or what gets released should Harry be the heir and William steps aside? I can’t tell with Harry since he handles things well. Wills must have some protection still being royal? Or no?

      • LAK says:

        Florc: for that you only have to look at the example of the 2 brothers, The Duke of Windsor vs George 6. When the Duke of Windsor was still POW, he was treated as the golden prince no matter what. George 6 was treated badly.

        The minute the Duke of Windsor abdicated and suddenly his younger brother was King, their PR reversed. George 6 ‘s grey men (with a lot of help from QM and the establishment) swang into action and painted a very bad picture of The Duke of Windsor whilst painting a saintly picture of George 6.

        That image still holds today, and most people won’t consider the circumstances or even the possibility that a lot of it was down to PR in shaping their image of The Duke of Windsor.

        The QM, even in death is protected. We’ll never know the extent of her behind the scenes shenanigans for probably another 100yrs. That extends to George 6. There are hints here and there about her role in proceedings, but the full picture won’t emerge for a long time.

        In other words, if William abdicates or steps away, irrespective of who steps into his shoes, Harry or PGtips, his image will nose dive, helped along by BP and general establishment PR machine.

      • FLORC says:

        LAK
        I guess I was not connecting the Duke of Windsor because he left and wasn’t terribly strong willed given how wallis-simpson carried the balls.
        And that William would still crave press control. That for whatever reason he wouldn’t be the heir, but still wanted to keep his position of control and power.

      • LAK says:

        Florc: everything i’ve read about The Duke of Windsor indicates that he abdicated thinking he’d retain all his perks and have the same influence despite stepping down.

        Boy was he given a rude awakening.

        Since heirs are always raised the same, I can make a pretty good guess that William would step down assuming that everything would remain the same except for his title.

        And he would receive a similar rude awakening as his ancestor.

      • FLORC says:

        LAK
        Interesting. Thank You.
        I’d be pretty amazed if William stepped aside. Though it would be a media frenzy for years to come. When someone is raised as a golden boy and protected from consequence how poorly will they act thinking they could get away with it?

    • Someonestolemyname says:

      I think when all is said and done Charles will make a good King.
      William would be worse. He lacks work ethic or even seeming to care much about anything in royal life.

  17. Elizabeth R says:

    Has anyone read the other Richard Kay piece in the DM this morning? “Why Charles is worried by the march of the Middletons & what he really thinks of Prince Andrew’s scandal” (Can’t seem to get links through moderation, for whatever reason).

    Curious to hear what our resident Royal experts make of the article – Kay discusses the attempted consolidation of the communications offices as well as quotes a source describing William as “difficult like his father.” Seem to be hearing that with increasing frequency….

    • Someonestolemyname says:

      I think when/if Charles becomes King, …Carole and the Middleton’s will not be bulldozing their way to church service or anywhere else if Charles can help it.

      I think Charles is just laying-in wait for the Middletons.

    • wolfpup says:

      It’s the failure of male leadership that will bring down the House of Windsor. I’m beginning to wonder if the grey men are in charge of keeping the whole British system of government afloat.

      I’m looking for the best drama in the future, to surround the courts of Charles and Carole – he’s daft, she’s calculating… I see Carole having far greater power than Camilla.

  18. AppleOne says:

    I still wonder WHAT was he thinking when he said “whatever in love means” on national television.

    • bluhare says:

      I think he was trying to say what was expected without lying. Came out a bit clumsily to say the least.

    • Someonestolemyname says:

      I think Charles was trying to make it not sound gushy ( because he knew it wasn’t ) and he was trying to sound philosophical.

      Also …maybe he was sending a message out to someone. LOL!
      Kanga,Camilla, Pr.Phillip…., whoever hahahaha

  19. The Original Mia says:

    I didn’t like Camilla when Diana was alive, but age has made me see things differently. None of them are perfect. They all made mistakes. That’s life. No point in continuing to shade Camilla for something that they all did, ie…cheating.

    • wolfpup says:

      Yep, they all did it – they all became cheaters! Does that negate the weight of the assumptions and beliefs and entitlements honored in their transactions? Do these transactions bestow gravitas without any examination other than – they all did it?

      What are the underlying problems in their actions, or their belief systems? Who is the guiltiest? A judge would be able to delineate the cost. As many royal families are cultural and religious figures and leaders, the way that they carry on in their personal lives has a very direct correlation to those who follow. Just reading down the thread you will find those who read their excuses as justifiable. Are they really? – that is the question.

  20. Iheartgossip says:

    Once a cheater, ALWAYS a cheater. And the Prince and This One are both cheaters.

    • notasugarhere says:

      How do you feel about how William and Kate got together? So many of the women he pursued didn’t want him – because they knew William was a cheater.

      • caitlin says:

        I’m sure there are many other reasons. Seriously, without the royal credentials, he really doesn’t seem to have much to offer.

    • Someonestolemyname says:

      Diana also cheated with James whositname ….so was Diana also a Cheater?

      Just asking?

      • Jaded says:

        Absolutely, it was James Hewitt. And there were others, some of whom were married: her bodyguard Barry Mannakee who died in a motorcycle accident in 1987; Oliver Hoare, art dealer and friend of Charles, she was obsessed with him and called him dozens of times a day; Dr. Hasnat Khan, the renowned heart surgeon, said to be the love of her life. She was no angel, believe me.

      • FLORC says:

        Dozens of times at night as well.
        Diana was an amazing woman who left such a hole in the world when she died. She also was horrible. To her step mom, nannies, and ending at least 1 marriage.
        Her image is glorified.

      • wolfpup says:

        I am Carole’s age, and watched the whole story with Diana go down, reading dozens of books etc., following her. The image currently under construction is not the one experienced as it happened. Most of the negativity toward Diana has come from the man who was supposed to honor, love and cherish her. Yes, she had to go looking for warmth, after years of games with Charles. It was wrong of her to play by Charles’s playbook. I wouldn’t go so far to call her more horrible than any of us, but she was mean to those who were mean to her; true.

  21. Stephanie says:

    Camilla sounds like a lovely person…I simply cannot forget the cruel way the young Diana was treated. Not the savvier, older version. The girl who never stood a chance against the older, wiser mistress. I’ve always wondered who Diana might have become, given love and a little nurturing from a husband who respected her.

  22. anne_000 says:

    Baloney. Oh Ok. Yeah sure. It was all about a fated love, and just simply about love, nothing more. Sure.

    Never mind that Camilla’s actions went against a fellow woman by embarrassing her and making her feel unwanted, insecure, and a tool. Camilla knew what she was doing when she was making her presence felt before and during the engagement and wedding period. She hosted Charles’ parties while he was still married to Diana. She made Diana feel like a loser. Why? Because her love for Charles was so perfect and destined? Really? Then she should have done a waity like Katy instead of marrying someone else, having kids with him, and then embarrassing her husband too.

    Then this PR saying that their marriage subsequently was not about anything but love? Again, really? Oh Ok. Then why hasn’t she come out years ago telling the world that she won’t accept the Queen title when there was so much anger and scandal about it? Put up or shut up, if it’s truly about only love.

    I just can’t with the re-writing of history. I know the ‘victors’ write history. They have no boundaries or limits in re-writing what it all truly consisted of because Diana’s not around to tell her side of the truth. [end rant]

    • Someonestolemyname says:

      Camilla does not need to say anything, besides she’s way too crafty to start telling the public her thoughts.

      She will still be Queen Consort regardless.

      Not giving Camilla the QC title will right the wrong done concerning Diana.

      I think Camilla is still going to be QueenC. Regardless of what was reported.

      Camilla is not one of my favourites but she married Charles and if he is King one day I think she will be QueenC.

      • anne_000 says:

        It is “crafty” to have your PR team put out this rewrite of actual history that insinuates it was all about pure sweetness and light type of love like it was a fairy tale romance.

        Of course there was craftiness involved in her actions in having a permanent affair with a man during his process of engagement, wedding, and marriage to another woman. And of course she married Charles knowing and no doubt wanting to be Queen.

        It’s like the article from yesterday in which Charles said he’s not all that interested or whatever in being King. Yeah sure.

        He was born into it and wanted it for all these decades but his mother keeps hanging on and I don’t think they like each other all that much.

        As for her, would she have had an affair with him, left her husband, and married Charles if all he was ever going to be was a middle manager in some mid-size company? Of course not.

      • FLORC says:

        I like you anne, but that’s a lot of assumptions you stating as facts. Camilla never wanted the heir. She wanted Andrew. I’m with others thinking she really doesn’t care if she’s consort or not.

        Also, Charles had a greater affair with Kanga only Kanga blew it. In that time Camilla didn’t do anything. I would think if she wanted Charles so badly she would have made a move.

      • wolfpup says:

        Kanga was a confidant, not a mistress (if one is to go by facts available from the royals, including the Queen, Charles, and Diana). There are some good doc’s on Kanga on YouTube – Wiki has a bio – also Lady Collin’s book about Diana, goes into this story in some detail. Kanga cannot be stated as a mistress for fact! Although Charles has never stated this was true, the tale is used insidiously by Charles’s camp as another way to state Diana was all for fun and games in the royal household.

        Kanga’s story is tragic – she suffered from spina bifida, which she died in complications from. (pushed, shoved, or suicide from the wheelchair on the balcony of her nursing home).

      • FLORC says:

        wolfpup
        confidant and mistress are constantly coming up.
        I’m going through several information routes.
        And I should have clarified. Kanga’s death wasn’t suspicious, but the events ultimately causing her death were.

        I will say this. Only by observation of Charles and Kanga there appeared to be passion and much time spent together.

  23. Bridget says:

    Good lord how are people still so invested in the Diana-Camilla rivalry?

    • Someonestolemyname says:

      I feel Diana is on the level of Royal Icons throughout History who have great or troubled impactful stories. The Diana,Charles,Camilla drama will be written about and discussed for decades.

      I really do put Diana in the legions of iconic royal ladies. She was so intriguing. I miss her .,.Drama and All.

  24. Carrie says:

    Well isn’t that rich.

  25. Citresse says:

    Would Camilla really care?
    Back when it was pre-wedding time between Charles and Diana, recall Camilla invited Diana to a London restaurant called Menage a Trois.
    Now add the rumour, or perhaps it was even fact that Camilla and Andrew Parker Bowles were known as swingers before and after their wedding?
    Helps to explain why Andrew never seemed bothered by Camilla’s long, ongoing affair with Charles.
    Therefore, when Camilla met with Diana, perhaps she was gently attempting to get her to understand or even begin to accept that she and Charles were really a part of the upper class swinger set, within a somewhat covert manner and was gauging Diana’s willingness to eventually be a participant?
    It’s speculation. My apologies in advance to any readers who may be offended.

  26. wow says:

    Camilla looks so nice in these pictures…happy.