Scandal: Prince Charles had ‘Reinventing the Royals’ BBC documentary pulled


Well, this is interesting. The BBC was supposed to air a documentary about Prince Charles’ campaign to get the British people to “accept” Camilla Parker-Bowles as his girlfriend and wife, but the BBC had to pull the documentary at the last minute. The documentary – called Reinventing The Royals – was allegedly done without any cooperation of Clarence House (Charles’ office) or Buckingham Palace, although I doubt the BBC could have gotten as far as they got without some cooperation somewhere, by someone official. The BBC worked in concert with the Radio Times – the RT was going to publish a preview article about the documentary, and although the film was pulled, the RT piece was published anyway – go here to read the full piece. Here’s what we would have learned from the BBC documentary:

*The argument being made by the BBC doc is that Charles hired spin doctors to help him change the PR around his relationship with Camilla just after Princess Diana died in 1997. Which is true. This is not the first time that fact has been alleged in print or in news reports. Charles waged a campaign – with the help of media professionals – for YEARS to get the British people to accept Camilla and deem her appropriate as his wife.

*For the first time ever, Charles’ former press secretary Sandy Henney gave an interview on-camera. She told the BBC that she was in London in the days after Diana’s death: “I remember briefing one of our private secretaries on the phone saying, ‘I know you’re seeing this on television but you really have to be here to feel the atmosphere. The people here are really anti-monarchy.’ I was really worried about where it was going to go.”

*In the wake of Charles split with Diana in the mid-90s, Henney says: “He was getting some pretty virulent criticism – bad father, unloving husband. I think he was pretty hurt… if you’ve got a middle-aged balding man and a beautiful princess, it’s a no-brainer as to who is going to get the media coverage.”

*From the Radio Times: “Prince Charles hired Mark Bolland from the Press Complaints Commission to act as entirely new sort of a royal media manager – a spin doctor. He quotes one royal commentator describing Mr Bolland as a genius who was very good at pulling strings and playing with the press but whom Princes William and Harry called ‘Blackadder.’” Bolland’s job was two-fold: make Charles seem like a decent single father and wage the campaign on Camilla’s behalf, which was known as Operation Mrs. PB.

*Prince William met Camilla for the first time just months after Diana’s death. Camilla has previously been quoted as saying she needed a stiff drink after that meeting, by the way. But at the time, The Sun got ahold of some details of the meeting and William was “left distraught.” He wasn’t yet 16. Sandy Henney was the one to tell William that The Sun had the story.

*Henney says: “”He (William) was understandably really upset because it was private. And apart from being angry and upset that this had got out, he wanted to know how it had happened.” Apparently, the leak was at first accidental, coming from a member of Camilla’s staff. But Bolland spread more details about the meeting to The Sun. Henney says this was a “defining moment” for William and Will felt like “he had been used to further his father’s interests.”

*The documentary also includes an interview with Tom Bradby, a “one-time royal correspondent and personal confidant of the princes” who says: “William and Harry were very angry. They thought that the media had hounded their mother to death. I don’t mean they vaguely thought that – they actually thought that’s what had happened.”

*I’m just going to leave this quote here: “For William, protecting his personal privacy and that of his family has perhaps understandably become a virtual obsession. But with anything not classed as ‘public duty’ regarded as off limits, and in a new media age dominated by the internet, with all the accompanying expectations of openness and transparency, there are real concerns even within the royal household over the sustainability of William’s approach. Can a future monarch be so media shy in the modern age? Many doubt it.”

[From Radio Times]

First of all, that was a crappy thing for Charles to do to his son. Regardless of my feelings towards William these days, that was a terrible thing to do to a kid who had just lost his mother. But I also think the last point, about William’s privacy-obsession, is a point well-made. As for the rest of it… if you follow the British royals, you pretty much know all of this anyway. One of the nastiest pieces of spin to come out of Bolland’s tenure – which I remember clearly – is the argument that Charles made that of course he had nothing to do with Diana’s death and he never would have wanted her to die… because her death set back his efforts to get the public to accept Camilla.

As for the fact that Reinventing The Royals has been pulled, the Radio Times says that Charles and Camilla’s lawyers threw a fit. It was supposed to be a two-part series, with the first part airing this Sunday. The BBC’s official explanation for pulling the piece is “resolving” the usage of some of the archival footage.



Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

131 Responses to “Scandal: Prince Charles had ‘Reinventing the Royals’ BBC documentary pulled”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Olenna says:

    Ah, very interesting. I’ve never heard this Prince William-Camilla-Mr. Bolland tale. Happy New Year, everyone!

  2. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    Just another example of what a lovely lady is Camilla. How people can stomach that self-serving, selfish old bag is beyond me. She cares about nothing but rectifying her original mistake in not snagging Charles. She makes a mockery of marriage, dignity and character. And don’t bother telling me what “good works” she has done over the years. I know exactly why she’s done them. She cheated with Charles the Brat for years, tortured Diana and then used a grieving child to further her interests. Nice. And so her.

    • Greata says:


      • fritanga says:

        As Jennifer Paterson (one of the Two Fat Ladies) once observed to her partner Clarissa Dickson-Wright as they were discussing the largesse of Queen Alexandra, who brought her husband Edward VII’s mistress to his deathbed, “Wasn’t the mistress one of Camilla’s ancestors? Runs in the family, it seems.”

        Yep – Camilla comes from a long line of, er, concubines. Charles can continue to scrub away at her image and the public’s perception of her, but blood will out.

    • Janet says:

      Besides the fact that she looks like the north end of a southbound horse, her whole persona just grates on me. I can’t stand the hag.

    • Jegede says:

      To be fair Diana ‘tortured’ Julia Carling, Diane Hoare, Kelly Fisher amongst many others.

      Diana helped in making a mockery of these women’s marriages.

      And she had no problem in publicly maligning the charcters of Tiggy Legge Bourke, Lauren Fawcett and even her good friend Fergie e.t.c if they got in her way

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Diana was 19 when Camilla started torturing her. 19. Years. Old. I’m not defending many of the actions she took later in life, but Charles and Camilla “helped” her to grow into the unstable, paranoid person she became. Imagine being her age and finding that the man you loved and were about to marry was still calling and exchanging gifts with his old girlfriend. Sorry, there’s no way around Camilla’s disgusting behavior, and whatever Diana did does not change the fact that Camilla is and always has been heartless, selfish, coarse and common.

      • COSquared says:

        Yes! I’ve always found it quite annoying how some Diana fans have complete indifference to her actions. Of course ALL the blame gets plonked on C&C. Di had her fair share of faults(Diana The Princess Saint is faultless in their eyes). Oh and Hewitt…

      • Jegede says:

        I have to disagree with you there GoodNames.

        Diana’s vicious actions towards her step mother and babysitters; as well as her diabolical treatment of certain people with no connection to Charles, indicate to me there was already something lurking there long before he came into the picture, and before her ‘doe eyed Shy Di act’ caught the world’s attention.

        And yes Camilla’s actions were very selfish, common and coarse but Diana then turned around and did the EXACT same thing to several other women, while publicly decrying that there were “3 in her marriage”.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I’m not trying to say Diana didn’t behave badly. Just that I think Camilla is a terrible person. Diana doesn’t have anything to do with it. Camilla would have behaved the same way if Diana had been a saint.

      • Greata says:

        Diana was no saint, but Charles was a coward, who chose not to fight for the woman he supposedly loved so much. Instead he charmed and conned an impressionable Diana, and then punished her for being more popular. He then turned the entire firm on her, and began the process of covering up his ass. Forget Diana, and Camilla for a minute, let us focus instead on this weak, mincing, self- entitled wimp of a man. King Charles? I hope not!

      • Jegede says:

        @GoodNames – Possibly.

        But the fact is Diana dined out on this terrible aspect of Camilla’s behaviour; as a rallying cry to successfully win the PR War of the Wales’.

        Then proceeded to do this same terrible thing to many other women her exact self.

      • Amelia says:

        GNAT, out of interest, where did you get all this info from? I’m genuinely curious, I’ve never heard of half the things in this thread!
        In my defence, I was only a toddler when Diana died and everything seemed to be going tits up for the Firm. Probably should have done my own research at some point, but my interest in the Royal Family doesn’t really extend past PG Tips and the horses the Queen has in The Royal Derby.

        EDIT — Has anyone else’s avatar disappeared of late? Or is my computer being silly?

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Hi, Amelia, I was in my twenties when Diana and Charles became engaged, so I have read a lot about her for my entire adult life. She has always fascinated me, and although people try to make it out as though I hold her blameless for the many mistakes she made and unkind things she did,that’s not true. I’ve just always felt that she was so very young when she got sucked into this unprecedented scenario, and was surrounded by such uncaring, cold people who used her, then, as Greata says, punished her for being such a phenomenon. I don’t excuse what she did, but I don’t find it surprising that she made bad choices. There are tons of biographies out and about, and many people on here have taught me a lot about the whole BRF. I’m no expert. Just very opinionated. Lol

      • Evie says:

        See here’s the thing: there are NO innocents in the sad saga of Charles and Diana.
        I’m not taking anyone’s side here, just stating the facts. ALL of the principals involved were guilty of adultery. Being from a l-o-n-g line of blue bloods herself Diana was well aware at an early age that her set – the British upper classes – have affairs amongst themselves all the time and typically the spouses have an understanding and look the other way.
        Certainly Andrew Parker-Bowles knew that his then-wife Camilla and HRH Prince Charles were strapping it on and had no problem with it. Diana did and chose to be a martyr in the media until her own long line of pecadilloes became public knowledge. She was even smuggling Dr. Hasmet Kahn into her private quarters in Kensington Palace and sleeping with him while William and Harry were in residence just down the hall. From their private leaked phone conversations, Camilla and Charles refrained from doing the deed when her kids were at home.

        As for William meeting with Camilla for the first time months after Diana’s death, what’s the big deal? Charles and Diana had been divorced for several years by then AND both William and Harry had been introduced to and gone on a cruise with Diana and Dodi who had only been her BF for a couple of weeks at that point. I’m always amazed that no one ever mentions that. That said, Charles and Diana’s divorce had to be tough for William and Harry and coming to terms with their parents subsequent significant others was also undoubtedly difficult.

        I think Diana did tremendous good work in her public life. And she was truly the “People’s Princess.” But her private life was another matter. At the time of her death she was estranged from nearly her whole family including: her Mother, her two sisters, her brother Charles as well as Sarah Ferguson and a slew of others. Diana was also estranged from her father at the time of his death.

        Diana was often quoted as saying that she and Charles would have made such a “great pair and partnership” if he didn’t have Camilla. But I don’t totally buy that. One BIG reason Camilla was able to become the third person in that marriage was that Diana by virtue of her extraordinary beauty, star quality and charisma continually upstaged Charles sometimes unwittingly and sometimes in a calculated fashion. Now Diana couldn’t help being beautiful and charismatic but that was bound to cause big problems in their marriage. Charles was also never nurtured by his own parents Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. Along comes Camilla who continually stroked his ego and er, other things. Is it any wonder that he clung to her like a drowning man to a life raft?

        And yes, Camilla’s no looker, that’s for sure. But it speaks volumes that this very plain woman was able to gain first place in Charles ‘ affections and hold onto him for decades when her competition was one of the most beautiful, desired and admired women on the planet. And yes, I’m sure Charles had other mistresses in addition to Camilla while he was still married to Diana.

      • icerose says:

        Well done Di for standing up to that good old Royal entitlement that their position gives them the right to walk all over their partners feelings. It is common knowledge that Camilla vetted Di before her marriage to Charles under the belief that she would keep mum.
        Everyone but Diana knew what was going on and it must have been devastating for a young girl of that age to find out that she was courted for the purpose of being a royal a brood mare. Part of the Royal rationale for choosing a young bride was that they she was young and immature and could be moulded in their image.
        And then Charles immature jealousy when Di proved to be better at the Royal PR than he was followed by the wrath of the Royals because she refused to bow to their sense of Royal entitlement which that everyone gives way to their wishes and demands,
        Why should your birth give you the right to abandon the basic kindnesses standards of human behaviour. The aristocracy and the Royals may have lost the power to rule but with some exceptions but they hung on to the same feelings of entitlement that what applies to the masses does not apply to them.

      • jwoolman says:

        Icerose- I find it hard to believe that Diana was as naive as you assume even at 19. She studied English history, I’m sure. She must have known her real job was indeed to produce an heir and a spare. She hardly knew Charles. It was basically an arranged marriage. She had to know that- she wasn’t 12 years old and playing with princess pony dolls. She was a rich aristocrat, she had to know the drill. She could look around her and see the pattern of marriages with both parties taking other lovers. She did that herself later. The patterns aren’t good but they are rather common. It’s a way of coping with marriage for reasons other than love.

        I do think Diana had many problems long before marrying Charles, despite her many gifts. He may have had no idea what to do about her issues, many people are baffled by manifestations of mental illness. And the British royals don’t seem to be a terribly functional family in general so he wasn’t getting support either to act any differently. He didn’t push her into her problems, mental illness doesn’t actually work that way. She was the right age for built-in problems to start triggering and/or exacerbating big time. A healthy person would have been able to handle it, but I don’t think she was at all healthy. The pregnancies were certainly an extra stress, and so post-partum problems were added to the mix already brewing inside her.

        So I’m not surprised that Charles kept going back to Camilla. You may not like her, but she was not mentally ill and they actually knew each other well. They are far better suited for each other than the arranged match which trapped both Charles and Diana in a bad situation.

      • Ava L says:

        Preach it, Jegede! It’s true, Diana had her share of affairs with married men after her divorce. No one ever talks about that. She wasn’t a saint, herself, just had an excellent PR team crafting her image to make her look like one.

    • Rosalee says:

      wow, what cat peed in your corn flakes this morning? William was aware of the relationship between Camilla and his father, it was simply a meeting that was leaked to the press. By all accounts they have a good warm relationship. William was not being used he was meeting the women his father was involved with in a romantic relationship. No matter how the relationship was brought about Chuck decided Camy was the woman in his life and rather keep her undercover :)) to meet William was only a natural step in the progression of their relationship. As for her actions being selfish, common and course..well it could be said of a number of relationships. In this fairy tale Camy was waiting for the grieving period to end. But their actions don’t affect us personally so I don’t understand the aggressive comments. They obviously loved each other for years, they had an affair, they married, they appear happy.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I’m not surprised that someone who opens their comment the way you did would be a Camilla fan. Birds of a feather.

      • Brandii says:

        You think that because William knew that Camilla had made his mothers life hell it was ok for Charles to insert her into his life afew months after the traumatic loss of his mother? I would hate to know what some of you have done in your own lives that allows you to view this madness as quite alright behavior.

    • Carolina says:

      Didn’t prince Charles have more than one mistress? Everyone always makes Camilla and Charles adultery to be some kind of love story about how Charles couldn’t marry the woman he loved but I heard he had more than one woman on the side and Diana only threw Camilla under the bus because she didn’t like her.

      • Citresse says:

        Diana at some point wrote that Camilla was a “decoy” and that Charles was going to marry Tiggy. Diana grew paranoid of everyone. Diana had major mental problems and Charles is an ego driven prig and short tempered bully who wants the public to accept Camilla as Queen someday. Not going to happen IMO. That marriage should have never been allowed.
        I keep hoping the Queen will outlive Charles. Please let it be so.

      • Sharon Lea says:

        Yes, there was Lady Kanga:

        “High Society reveals how, for a period during the 1970s, when both women were married to friends of his, HRH bounced from the bed of Camilla to that of Lady Tryon, then back again.”

        And then during the Diana trials, info came out about Michael Fawcett, the British press were under a black out about this so its harder to find stories, but Wikipedia has the basics:

        “He also claimed to have witnessed the Princess’s estranged husband, the Prince of Wales, lying in bed with his aide, Michael Fawcett, on one occasion when he brought the Prince his breakfast. Diana made a tape of the interview.”

    • Christina says:


    • Murphy says:

      Camilla didn’t want Charles back in the 70s. And she didn’t want to marry him in 2005 either. But she did it because Charles wanted it.

      • Citresse says:

        I heard that too re- Camilla not wanting to be married. She was happy with the status quo. Just shows you how Charles wants you to believe he’s had a lifetime of being bullied by others when it’s actually the opposite.

    • Maria says:

      Somehow I don’t think the British public has accepted her so much as they tolerate her. A big difference.

    • Lahdidahbaby says:

      I’m with you on this, GNAT. 100%.

    • SK says:

      I think Evie covered a lot of it; but I’d also like to point out that Diana was young, pretty, and charismatic in a public sense; but she was also completely lacking in life experience, tertiary education, much intelligence or humour. I know and have met numerous people who dined with her, worked with her, met & talked with her,etc. they have all unanimously said that she wasn’t particularly bright or interesting; but a lovely and warm person.

      Camilla, on the other hand, is well-known to be very bright, interesting, and most importantly, funny. She made Charles laugh and lightened the load. No, she’s not as beautiful or public ally appealing as Di was; but beauty isn’t everything.

      Charles was too busy playing the Bachelor in his 20s and missed out on Camilla. He was the under significant pressure to marry; but none of the ladies he liked wanted the job and everything that comes with it. So the intelligent, sophisticated man aged around 30 married a sweet, pretty 19 year old who had no life experience and with whom he had nothing in common. It was always bound to be a disaster. Blaming it all on Camilla is ridiculous.

  3. Talie says:

    Can the BBC even call itself a news organization at this point?

    William is riddled with issues — everyone knows that. Tina Brown still says that he and Kate would’ve been engaged sooner but he threw a temper tantrum the first time when he thought she was setting up photos of herself on a holiday. Apparently, he made her sue the photog to prove his point. Yes, obsession. And control.

    • MonicaQ says:

      I’ll take the BBC over any news here in America any day. Yeeesh.

      • M.A.F. says:

        I still pick the BBC American news over my local US news. The only bad part- I keep missing the traffic reports.

      • wolfpup says:

        BBc’s okay, still a little magazinish; and getting the news from one political viewpoint, can be biased. I like Al Jazeera myself, but try to round it out with several news sources.

        On Dec. 17, William made a remark about Kate’s hair being “nightmarish”. I wondered at the time where he would take her on a “make-up” vacation. It should have been no surprise when on Dec. 23, the DM had a very long and colorful article, on the Kate’s hair, and how beautiful it had become, from being a princess. How do they do that? – talk about power…the greatest power on earth – the press.

    • Kiki04 says:

      I guess when it’s compared to what the US calls news (Today show, anyone?)…….

  4. scout says:

    Charles is heartless, typical “stiff upper lip” royal person when it’s convenient for him, I am not surprised. I am sure both his sons are affected emotionally.

  5. Chrissy says:

    Just confirms what I thought of Chuck – he’s nothing but a petulant self-serving ass. You’d think think that the welfare of his children would have taken precedence over little Chuck after Diana’s death. This is the heir to the throne. SMH I hope the British public reaction bites Chuck in the butt and forces this program to air eventually!

    • CTgirl says:

      I think that there is enough horrendous behavior between Charles, Camilla, Diana and “The Firm” to sink the Good Ship Lollipop. Each of them cheated, lied and bought into the supposed “privilege” of royalty. Not one of them is more to blame than the the others.

  6. MonicaQ says:

    Among the older set (my grandmother works in a nursing home), Camilla is persona non-grata STILL. I’m not sure how well the British commonwealth receive her but these elder ladies turn from sweethearts selling cookies at the annual bake sale to putting the Mean Girls to shame at the mere mention of her name. One of the ladies who is 96 is sure that “Camilla had Diana killed”. But then again this same lady who has lengthy talks to her cat. That isn’t there. And has been dead for 16 years.

    • Tippy says:

      There’s been persistent speculation that Tony Blair and MI5/MI6 were responsible for Diana’s death.

      • Amelia says:

        Too bad 5/6 haven’t done away with Tony Blair, yet. Aren’t they meant to be protecting the British public?

        Sorry. Off topic – one too many mimosas on the last day of this bonkers year.
        Happy New Year, all!

      • Ducky la Rue says:

        Yes, but there’s also been speculation that the moon landing was faked and Elvis is still alive. No matter what event it is, somebody somewhere has a conspiracy theory about it, often with little or no facts needing to be involved.

        This case was highly scrutinized, and I think it is exactly what it looks like: drunk driver, high rates of speed of they tried to dodge photographers, and hitting an immoveable object while not wearing seat belts. In fact, the only person in the car wearing a seat belt DID survive.

      • icerose says:

        Tony Blair saved the Royals backside after Diana’s death by appealing to them to at least pretend behave with some level of human compassion.

      • Lady D says:

        I remember the headline: Where is the heart in the House of Windsor? This was a week after her death, and the palace still hadn’t said a word about it. The people at the gates, the blocks long mountain of flowers, the fact that GB ran out of flowers to sell, and nothing from Charles or the Queen. I remember being surprised they had said nothing about Diana, and the fact that the whole world wanted to know how the boys were. I thought the rumours that the Queen hated Diana were true.

    • Scott says:

      Well as for the British commonwealth, I’m from Canada and I can tell you that there is a very similar outlook on Camilla in this commonwealth realm.

  7. Belle Epoch says:

    Thank you GNAT! I know she has supporters but I am not one of them.

    Calling Prince William “media shy” seems off. If he is distrustful and resentful of the media, that makes sense. I remember Diana crying in the early days, before she became media savvy. Presumably she taught her sons to be wary.

  8. Maefabulous says:

    My mother worked for Clarence House PR in the early noughties – there was most definately a campaign to get Camilla accepted, wether that happened straight after Diana dying, I don’t know. She met Camilla and said she was actually a really nice woman – something she stands by even now, years after she left work there. But she is a staunch royalist/apologist, so … *shrugs*

    What I find interesting is the Beeb actually trying to release something that DOESN’T lick the royals arse into next week. Very interesting. I’m sure Jennie Bond, Royal Correspondant is clutching her pearls somewhere.

    • Elly says:

      people who met her all say she is a nice woman. And she looks that way. She looks uninterested in royal life and just seems to want a quiet life. She never made a big fuzz and was always silent.
      I really think she is just one of those old british ladies. She never held a job. I imagine she arranges flowers and paints fruits all day. As it was normal in her time she married, had 2 kids and then the couple mutually agreed to have affairs while living the little posh country life with all their aristo friends. That´s how it works in those circles and i think she was happy with this.

    • Sharon Lea says:

      Maefabulous – your account makes sense, I had read for years before Diana died that Charles was trying to ‘bring her out.’ He even threw her 50th birthday party at Highgrove right before Diana’s death. Press took pictures of the guests driving to the party and Camilla smiled big when her car pulled up.

  9. MinnFinn says:

    I wish Charles would anger Kim the dear leader, then Sony hackers could break their impasse in a Guardians of Peace minute.

    “Can a future monarch be so media shy in the modern age?” This last statement in the RT piece is ridiculous. Wm is “Media shy”? Wm & Charles have a long-game strategy that amounts to them pissing all over the democratic rights of their subjects whilst they litigate the UK into total submission.

    • cannibell says:

      “I wish Charles would anger Kim the dear leader, then Sony hackers could break their impasse in a Guardians of Peace minute.”

      YES! The Sony hack was exactly what I thought when I read that BBC had pulled this series. Maybe the DPRK can throw it out online for the curious!!!

  10. Thinker says:

    Big story. A huge aspect of Charles’s renovated reputation is that he is, and has always been, a loving and supportive father. This story is a knife to that phony tale. No wonder William spends the vast majority of his private time and holidays with the Middletons and not Charles. No wonder Charles is the last to know things (like the engagement, or Kate’s pregnancy).

    No doubt now, there is no closeness between father and sons. And Camilla is a leak!!!!

    • Moma says:

      you really belive that charles did not know about the engagement or pregnancy or the last to know? william, if he wants the millions of grandma and to be the next king, has to ask the queen, his grandma if he wants to get engaged. the queen is the first one who is informed by all this and her eldest son charles is the one who is informed at first when she desides if its ok or not. and if william has something to asks the queen where he fears she would not be amused about it he sends his father first. That diana died was not charles fault. that charles and diana were unhappy married was the queens fault. but you know, life isnt always a fairytale, they are rich and famous, at least. And dont believe that william is so cool, he is at least, the son of his father charles and he got the same nurture as the next kind of GB like Charles did.

    • Anaya says:

      Absolutely! I feel that William doesn’t trust anyone in his family except for his mom who passed away and Prince Harry. The rest of them he merely tolerates. With Kate I sense there’s trust but even that has its limit. William’s disdain for the media and his obsession to be private, “normal”, and a control freak all stems from his childhood. Particularly how the media treated his mother and how some in royal family, the firm treated her. Wouldn’t it be something if William has a plan to retaliate against the monarchy? It would make sense I think. He hates being a royal but loves the perks. If the monarchy will be brought down it’ll happen during William’s reign as King. It’ll be his way of avenging Diana’s death as well as a kick in the balls to those in the firm for treating his mother badly. I sound as nutty as a fruitcake haha.

      Actually I think Camilla is okay. I believe she will become Queen consort once Charles is king and for the people who’ll oppose her being styled as queen consort well too bad, is what Charles may say. He’s always wanted Camilla so he’s going to get his way with that. Charles will do whatever benefits his public image and whatever makes HIM happy.

      • wolfpup says:

        It’s just so sad what people are willing to do to insure their own happiness: it’s all about being number one. Diana was smeared most vigorously by Charles, after her death, when she was no longer there to defend herself. People who say that she was a mental case are very cold, about Diana’s experience in the firm (where most of us would have been reduced even further than she was). These accusers are willing to accept the narrative of an ex-husband, who needed to defend his choices, which he did *vigorously* after she died. However, most of this can only be supposition, because *she was dead*, and could not defend herself against a man whose sole objective was to create a man worthy to be king.

    • Talie says:

      True… and yet people get all twisted up when anyone points out that he clearly prefers Kate’s family. It’s not just for her benefit. He probably craves people who don’t backstab.

      • Natalie says:

        He can also control the Middletons. If they get out of line, he can cut off their sponging opportunities.

    • Citresse says:

      I could tell there wasn’t much warmth between the Middleton parents and Charles and Camilla on the balcony appearance on the wedding day of William and Kate.
      And did you notice when PGTips was born, the Middletons arrived at the hospital after Charles and Camilla left? Avoid mode.

  11. Natalie says:

    I firmly believe this is a major part of William’s issues with his family and why he hides with the Middletons: Charles spent the years after Diana. died primarily focused on legitimizing Camilla. I think Charles’ concept of parenting was spoiling his sons and outsourcing their care to nannies instead of giving them proper structure and guidance. He then mindlessly defends them against anyone else in the family stepping in because he still remembers feeling pushed around by Philip.

    And William gets by playing everyone off against each other: Charles against Elizabeth and Philip, Windsors against the Middletons, and previously royal duties against military service. Sadly, whether by Diana, Charles or the Middletons, William has been manipulated and used his entire life so maybe that’s why he’s a bit of a mess now.

    • COSquared says:

      Chuck against EII and Phillip? And you know this how?

      • Natalie says:

        That Charles resents his parents? He’s given quote after quote that he hated how he was brought up and felt very bullied by Philip in particular and not cared about by Elizabeth. Charles’ preferred mentors were the Queen Mother and Mountbatten. This is really commonly known stuff.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Philip’s favorite is Anne and the Queen’s favorite is Andrew – they’ve never bothered to hide that, which IMo is quite bad parenting, but then the BRF is IMO deeply dysfunctional as a family.

      • wolfpup says:

        I just can’t work up any boo-hoo for Charles and his upsetting childhood; all of us were children once, and at the mercy of adults. Who gets to shirk any sort of adult responsibility or accountability, because mummy and daddy were not kind enough; or get to broadcast that discontent onto a world stage! Geez…so tired of this line of pity. I’m sure that almost any other person would feel that Charles was lucky to be a prince.

        This is the same line of reasoning used to explain Diana’s distress with the firm – her childhood. This is used heavily against her, particularly to discount her as a human being – to justify Charles’ excesses. Fact is, half of all children grow up in divorced families, and become responsible citizens. No one calls foul on this! Diana may not have had the emotional reserves for this kind of conflict – but she was a racehorse of the finest breed, who outshone all of the royals as to true depth of character: that she tried so hard should be enough for all of us. Let’s see some stone-throwing from anyone who could have done better: it’s her polish that has given the British royal family gloss and gleam. *Yet* they keep on dishing her! Charles is a weak, horrible man.

    • Moma says:

      Then how do you know that Diana didnt outsourced the paranting to the nannys?
      I really dont belive that Charles was only focused on Camilas reputation after Dianas death, he does not have a job from 9-17. You do know that? hes not a regular Dad who has no time cause he have to work 😉

      • Natalie says:

        Because the biographies both pro and anti Diana have talked about how important it was for her to spend time with William and Harry to the point of annoying some of the nannies because some of them were pretty old-school and thought it was their duty to raise the kids.

        Charles broke his arm playing polo when William was a little boy -William was actually excited because now Charles could spend more time with him but instead Charles just scheduled his time doing other things -it didn’t even occur to him to give that extra time to his kids. He had his regular activities with the boys and then that was it. Diana had to step in and gently point out that William was disappointed so Charles would think of William more. To his credit Charles did, it’s not like he doesn’t love his kids.

        Both Charles and Diana made some phenomenal blunders -I don’t prefer one to the other, but I do think Charles is a pretty old-fashioned parent: the boys got some scheduled time and almost certainly more than Charles got from his parents, but overall Charles was basically thinking about his own interests -a primary one being legitimizing Camilla.

        And I know Charles barely works -Wasn’t it Mark Bolland/Blackadder (lol) who pointed that out -the royal family does very little but are very good at making it seem like more?

    • Jen says:

      Nailed it. I despise Camilla and Charles. Not a fan of EII at all and Philip has always been reprehensible. I remember Anne not being very nice to Diana either. Because she didn’t participate in hunting.

  12. MinnFinn says:

    A documentary about Queen Victoria and Albert opened my eyes about the incredible dysfunction of the BRF. V & A’s intense level of being effed up imo has been passed along unmitigated down to Charles and Willy today.

  13. Eleonor says:

    Oooh juicy Royal gossip !
    Happy new year to everyone !

  14. Jackie Jormp Jomp says:

    I don’t see how that’s crappy. I lost a parent at that age and if–MONTHS after my father’s death–my diveorced mother had wanted to introduce me to a boyfriend I’d have understood.

    • Elly says:

      yes, people seem to forget that Charles and Diana were divorced for years before her death. It´s not as if Charles lost his wife and was suddenly a widower with a new girlfriend. He was official in a relationship with Camilla. Charles made it public, he promoted her as his partner. So of course he wanted to introduce her to his sons at one point. Both boys knew about the “new old” girlfriend for years. There was no reason why people would have to pause their lives.
      He didn´t told them after the funeral “stop grieving, here´s your new mummy”. He just introduced his longtime partner months after his ex-wife died.

      • FingerBinger says:

        They were only divorced a year. And introducing your girlfriend, who was a former mistress, to a fragile 13 and 16 year old months after their mother’s death seems just tad insensitive.

    • perplexed says:

      I think it’s the leak that bothered him. Although I think leaks had been happening for years. I think he was kind of “used” by both parents (if you can call it that) in the same way Kate and Wills use George to counter-act certain narratives about them or other celebrities use their kids for marketing themselves (in that way, royals and celebrities are similar in their PR tactics). Maybe he was okay with Charles and Diana leaking stories, but drew the line at Camilla (which makes sense, since she’s an outsider of sorts. From the article it seems that someone from Camilla’s camp leaked the story, not even Charles? I could be wrong in my understanding, but I was surprised to see Camilla’s camp mentioned rather than Charles, but I guess Charles will take the hit for Camilla).

      Whether William realizes it or not, I think he may guilty of the same thing his parents did (dropping pics of George to the press at convenient times to distract from negative press), but again maybe he wasn’t hurt when his parents did it, but was agitated when Camilla mentioned his name though her sources in the press. To be fair, I think that would tick me off too. I’m okay with my parents constructing a certain narrative to other people when questioned about me, but can’t stand outsiders trying to do the same (not that it’s really the same thing, given that I’m a nobody, but I was trying hard to find a parallel to show how what Charles and Diana, and Will and Kate are now presently doing (without maybe realizing it), are sort of similar?)

      • bluhare says:

        I agree with you. Reading the article, it wasn’t meeting Camilla that bothered William but the fact that the details of what he thought was a private meeting were leaked (apparently accidentally at first and then deliberately as part of the PR campaign).

        So it wasn’t the meeting per se, it was the fact that the meeting was then put out for public purview by Palace PR. William should be angry at his father for allowing it.

      • LAK says:

        Camilla had a close relationship with the editor of The Sun newspaper for years. It’s amusing that someone ‘close to Camilla’s camp’ leaked the meeting. Very high chance the ‘close source’ was Camilla herself since she was known to do that from time to time during the war of the Wales.

  15. Moma says:

    I do feel sorry for diana but i also think the pityness towards her was always too much. people acted like she was sooo unhappy and wronged, did she went through a war, was raped or her children? was she broke or sick? she had ONE unlucky marriage. how unrealistic right? Charles and Camila were the romeo and juliet. And what he did only shows how much he loves camila. And they have every right to be togehter. It was all the Queens fault. She directed this drama, shes responsable for Dianas and Charles and Camilas nightmare. Charles was young and naive like lots of young adults when he did what his mother told him to do, his was the next king and most kings married woman they didnt love. All these things happend because the Queen is a mean oldfashioned B! And Diana also used the Media for her revenge and her own advantage. she was no innocent angel. she divorced after 2 kids in her early mid 30. If she didnt die, she could have had a pretty life after charles with his money. What Charles did to make the people like Chamila was great and the proof that camila is his true love! He did what HE wanted finaly! William was angy? well, he was still sad after Dianas death, maybe it was too early but maybe his dad wanted to prepare him because he knew the media is going to make huge storys around him and camila.
    I always liked Diana and i do still like her but i also do feel for the unhappy lovestory of Charles and Camila. He married his true love and his best friend.

    • LT says:

      I agree for the most part (except for the Queen being a B – I like her too). I feel bad for all of them – Charles loved Camilla but had to marry a virgin. Diana had doubts about the marriage but was told by her family that she had to go through with it now that “her face was on the tea towels.” That marriage was unfortunately never about love – it was about duty and keeping the business of the monarchy going, which has been the case for centuries – the emotional collateral damage be damned. I am actually happy for Charles and Camilla. They are imperfect (as we all are), but they seem to love each other – despite their aging bodies and fading looks. I can’t throw shade at that.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        and about the ambitions of their families – I really blame the families for that marriage, especially Diana’s because she was so very young.

      • COSquared says:

        Lord Mountbatten was one of the people gunned for a perfect,virginal, aristo w/o “a history”. Yes he was killed in ’79, but his advice still played a major role after his death. His(and many others) expectations of a PssOW is one the main reasons why Cam didn’t get over 40 years ago. As much I stan for Harry, I just wish Chuck & Di never married. It’s clear C&C are much more comfortable w each other than C and D ever did.

      • inthekitchen says:

        @COSquared – there actually many, many photos of Chuck and Di from early on in their marriage – both at working engagements and private events (polo, holidays, etc.) – where they look very much in love…or at least quite loved up. Holding hands, C kissing D’s hand, snuggling, laughing together, etc. They look much more comfortable and in love than Will and Kate ever have (IMO)! Go to the RoyalDIsh website and look in the Diana photo thread – TONS of photos of the two of them!

        I don’t know how “in love” they really were but I do think they could have made a much better go of it if he could have let go of his many mistresses. I also partly think you can convince yourself that you’re in love with anyone, given the right circumstances (the Bachelor/Bachelorette series, especially the early ones when people weren’t just trying to get on TV).

        I think Diana was young and naive (about some things) and really felt that he would give up other women once they were married, and ifCharles had and gave her some attention and acted proud of her popularity and hard work (instead of acting like a jealous, petulant brat) then things would have gone much better. I think if she had felt more confident in their relationship, she could have been able to do some of the ego stroking that he seemed to need (which the mistresses provided).

    • icerose says:

      Charles was a grown up (all be it a spineless) man of 33 when he married someone 13 years younger that him who it has to be said was not the brain of Britain, He knew he was using her which is probably more than she did, And it was the Queen Mother who thought they would be a good match and encouraged the relationship not the Queen.
      And for the record royals can marry non virgins because Philip certainly was not one. There was up until recently an embargo on marrying a divorced women because the Royals also represent the Church of England which did not really accept divorce until recently.
      Camilla had her chance but she turned him down and only came him hanging round for the were and social prestige it gave her to be the Prince@s mistress in the circles they moved in.,
      However once it became public knowledge (in a generation who were less accepting of the Royal’s entitlement that to have as many lovers as they want) she was the main cause of the breakup of the royal marriage she and her husband had no choice but to split to allow Charles to marry her.
      I cannot bring myself to like a lady who wanted the prestige and the power of being the prince’s mistress and the expense of a younger more naïve women.

      • wolfpup says:

        Vows spoken in a church before a congregation, and in the case of the royals, before the world, need to be changed. I believe that 95% of the people witnessing the rite of marriage, think that the folks are making VOWS! If only dynastic considerations are consequential, then the vows should to reflect that, so no one makes the *mistake of believing* in those promises.

        That everyone (particularly the bride) is supposed to know that the marriage ceremony is actually a sham, is almost unbelievable. All the romance novels must be thrown out the door, for the young aristocratic woman, who needs to grow up believing that true love will never belong to her, in “noble” circles.

        The Prince of Wales, of the United Kingdom; the British empire, can actually lie to a woman in front of billions of people?

        Lies, top government official, controlling the press – this just looks bad. Let’s conveniently blame it all on Diana’s childhood.

  16. HoustonGrl says:

    I find it alarming that the royals have the power to censor a documentary. Isn’t there free speech in England?

    • Suze says:

      To me the crux of this is that the *FUTURE MONARCH* is strong arming the press to do his bidding. And they are complying. I can just imagine the outcry if that happened with a public figure stateside.

      That to me is more horrifying than anything salacious about Camilla/Charles/Diana. As if there’s anything new to mine there, anyway.

      • Sixer says:

        I concur, Suze. And I remember the BBC fiasco over Jimmy Savile. Making reports, then pulling them, then being outed for making reports and pulling them, then fart-arsing about with reacting to being outed for making reports and then pulling them. It was reductio ad absurdum.

        That said, I think the problem here is a BBC with a dysfunctional management and no adequate crisis management rather than subservience to power (not that they don’t do that, too). They’ve always been reactive. They’ve always made stupid decisions.

        Why a public service broadcaster is spending money on a tabloid-level programme in the first place beats me. If they want to make a “non-deferential” royal programme, there’s plenty of fertile ground that might actually inform and educate the public, not bloody titillate them. Even so, what an embarrassment. A prince doesn’t like it so we don’t see it.

        I DESPAIR.

      • Suze says:

        Exactly Sixer. If the BBC (or any production company) made a well researched documentary about the operations and machinery of the BRF, I’d watch it. But this tabloid tomfoolery I wouldn’t bother with – and the fact that Charles is apparently involving himself doesn’t speak well of him.

      • bluhare says:

        Agree. However, I don’t think it’s the first time. This is just a topic that gets a lot of attention.

      • icerose says:

        I agree but I do not think it is just the BBC who are in many ways restricted by their structure and ties to the halls of power. I think they still wield a power over those around them which included big business as well as the press,
        They are also one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the minimising of the class structure, As long as they are still courted for a quirk of birth they are instrumental in promoting the ruling class. Their so called charity work masks a sense of entitlement and is to often used as an argument to maintain them in the lifestyle they are use to. And one of the reasons’ for Saville’s untouchability was his relationship with Royalty. As a young girl I was enamoured by the bloodline but now I see them as an impediment to progress,
        I do think the BBC was not just focusing on the relationships but using it as an example of how we are manipulated by the monarchy and that was why it was pulled. So I have no problems with them making it just annoyed that they allowed it to be pulled

    • Citresse says:

      Censoring a documentary is the tip of the iceberg.

      • misstee says:

        It is – im surprised most of the comments focus on the dysfunctional three way relationship rather than what’s most important – that the next British King has an unconstitutional grip on the media – no mention of the fact that he has also banned private letters to coerce government to his will being printed – despite it going to the High Court?

        I like his work with the Princes Trust but other than that ( and the agriculture interest) he is a piece of work.

      • icerose says:

        I read an article that said he is quite high handed with the people who live around his estate,

    • bluhare says:

      You don’t think things are censored here? Free speech means the government can’t throw you in jail for expressing an opinion. Doesn’t mean that your opinion will get published, though.

      • MinnFinn says:

        Bluhare, yes there is censorship here. However, if mainstream media doesn’t want your opinions, you can get them into the public domain more readily i.e. witness Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

        Charles & Wm’s power in successfully suppressing press freedom and also the democratic principles of photography in a public space feels much more oppressive and dangerous to me than the type of press censorship that goes on stateside. The BRF has a form of unique power over Britons thanks to their caste system. That is part of the reason this seems dangerously oppressive to me.

        I find it mind-blowing fx that BP prevented the release of Charles’ housekeeper’s tell all book. Anyone else would have been forced to litigate for slander and/or violating an employment contract after the release. For all intents and purposes, BP unilaterally acted as judge and sentencer by preemptively deeming the material slanderous. Also, in effect, BP turned the act of violating one’s employment agreement by gossiping about the boss into a criminal offense.

    • Caz says:

      Yes. THIS is the story. Not rehashing the Charles/Diana/Camilla triangle. Charles must be concerned about the content. The truth I the doc will damage the Monarchy. Otherwise it would be aired.

  17. perplexed says:

    Did Camilla leak everything or did the PR strategist? I can believe they hired spin doctors for common sense purposes, but I can’t tell who actually constructed the narrative. I’ve always thought of Camilla, despite her faults (and I do see them as MAJOR faults — you don’t wait around for a weak moment from the married guy to strike) as at least being somewhat nice in not uttering a word or saying anything to the press (then again, maybe she’s smart enough to know the knives would come out if she did).

    • inthekitchen says:

      I don’t know about this particular instance, but supposedly Camilla – personally – was the source for TONS of leaks (many and ongoing) to some tabloid. I can’t remember the details, but I’m sure if you google it, you’ll find the info…

      I don’t think she’s a very nice person at all.

      • LAK says:

        Camilla had a close relationship with the editor of The Sun Newspaper and would often ‘leak’ on Charles’s behalf.

  18. Heather says:

    Oh man, juicy stuff! Who knows what really happened. I always thought that William and Harry disliked Camilla – I mean, what kid would not in those circumstances? However, that “story” will never be “leaked” because it would have destroyed Camilla’s image. I did read something to that effect somewhere (probably some British rag) and never saw it again. I would like to know what they really think of Camilla, and what she is really like.

    I also saw some stories about how Charles and Camilla are not really all that happy. BUT they have to spin it as some magical love story, because if they admit they have problems, or God forbid, break up, all hell would break loose. Everyone would be like “you destroyed people’s lives and marriages and you didn’t even stay together?” Kinda like what would happen if Brangelina broke up.

    • Natalie says:

      Yes! What sort of true love story is this if Camilla needs to maintain a bolthole away from Charles? How high-maintenance is he if even Camilla can’t manage to live with him full-time in whichever mansion, palace or castle they happen to be? I mean, it’s not like they’re living in cramped quarters.

    • Sharon Lea says:

      I agree Heather & Natalie, Camilla and Fergie both know a lot of stuff. Whats that saying, ‘Keep your friends close and your enemies closer?’

  19. Nedsdag says:

    Maybe it’s me, but I think Charles got off Scott-free due to the misogyny of the Camilla v. Diana thing. It’s either “Camilla was/is the whore” or “Diana wasn’t an angel either” story. He basically got a “slap on the wrist” so to speak because he is the heir apparent. To me, he reminds me of those guys on The Jerry Springer Show who stand on the side while Jerry’s security guys break up the fight between the two women in his life. He couldn’t make up his own mind and was asking for advice and never was able to become his own man. Had he been able to make up his own mind, he wouldn’t have put Diana through this in the first place. Plus, he and Camilla didn’t do their homework in finding this so-called “virgin bride.” Yes, Diana was bred for this life, but she had a lot of “issues” that made her both unstable and unsuitable. His doddering about marriage to me makes him more responsible for this “love triangle” in the first place.

    • perplexed says:

      Nah, I think people have derided him plenty which is probably why he had to hire spin doctors. People thought he was a crappy husband, and by extension, crappy father. People also thought the throne should bypass Charles and go straight to William. The sympathy was with Diana (until maybe she hooked up with Dodi). I don’t think he had the power of the teflon like Brad Pitt. If he was as good-looking as Brad Pitt, people might have sided with him, but I don’t remember that ever happening. I think over time people just kind of accepted the Charles and Camilla thing because Diana was dead, William and Harry had moved on, and what else was there to do?

  20. Kacy says:

    I don’t know if this was said before, but has anyone noticed that this article came out after the Kate hate one and after the lovey dovey Sophie one? It just doesn’t add up. I’ve read a lot (A LOT) of comments on here over the years and I’ve learned one thing: question everything. I’m just wondering why all this is happening at the same time. Also, why did the DM decide to push up Sophie one day and the next push her back down by comparing her with Kate? I don’t know if this is just a DM agenda or their personal press offices. Just some thoughts! Let me know what you all think!

  21. Jaded says:

    At the risk of being pilloried by the Dianaloonies, she zeroed in on Prince Charles from the time she was in her early teens. She was obsessed with him, and when he finally started taking notice of the striking teenager, she played him like a pro. She became everything he liked – she hated horses, hunting and Highgrove “country life” but took it up anyway. In fact her nickname was “Duch” for Duchess during her teens because she made it quite clear that being part of the BRF was her plan. It was only after they married that she decided city life was her preference. Yes, she was hurt by Charles and Camilla’s close friendship and the gifts he gave her, but they’d always been great friends and Camilla even helped bring Charles and Diana together, and assisted with her transition into public life. I believe it was only when the marriage had unraveled and was being expertly played out in the media by Diana that Charles and Camilla restarted their affair.

    To place blame on any one person or characterize Camilla as some evil shrew in the debacle is silly – they all took part in the crash and burn of the marriage, they all made mistakes and acted selfishly. It’s human nature at its most juvenile and behaviour that we’re all guilty of, royal or commoner. Camilla actually took the worst of the media bashing but never once did she ever say anything good or bad about the situation, or even defend herself for that matter. She kept a stiff upper lip and refused to be drawn into a public battle, and for that I have to give her some grudging respect.

    • bluhare says:

      Quit being so rational! 🙂

    • Natalie says:

      Diana was a manipulative, short-term thinking *teenager*. She was a dumb, conniving kid. Charles was in his thirties and fell for this nonsense because she played his ego so well.

      Charles and Camilla thought she was a malleable kid and damn did they turn out to be wrong. Diana was not a perfect victim, but at nineteen, whatever she did does not outweigh Charles’ and Camilla’s predatory behavior and motivations.

      Now, Diana’s decisions once she was in her mid-twenties and onward is a totally different story. She definitely did some very destructive and dysfunctional things.

    • Margaret says:

      Well said Jaded. Y’all need to check the Royal Foibles blog for some eye-opening royal stories/gossip. Eye-opening to say the least; hair-raising in a few cases.

    • Santolina says:

      Interesting, Jaded. The real villain is “keeping up appearances.” It destroys lives.

    • Nikki says:

      Jaded, of all the comments I’ve ever read about the Diana, Charles, & Camilla triangle, yours is my favorite. No one seems to fealize that CHARLES GAVE UP SLEEPING WITH CAMILLA upon his marriage; it was only when Diana needed more emotionally than he knew how to give that he turned to Camilla. Diana was super needy, and Charles was hardly emotionally adroit enough to provide her with the endless reassurance she needed. She then tried to twist everything to be the total victim , with Charles the complete lout, and her terrible behavior to the wives of various lovers is a proven fact, as well as her instability in bombarding a married man with literally hundreds of phone messages. etc. a sorry situation all around.

  22. Fan says:

    What a waste. It could have been a beautiful royal family if Diana didn’t die. Or he should not have married her.

    • tigerlily says:

      I am a couple years older than Diana would’ve been had she lived. I recall only too well wondering WTF when she and Pr Charles were “dating”. I wondered what she saw in that old bore and assumed she was after the title, being part of BRF etc. Then when the interview of Charles and Diana after they became engaged came out….I was aghast. His response as to whether they were in love was “whatever love is”. I knew then and there this was no love match and I felt sorry for Diana. I thought she was gorgeous and best thing that every happened to that frumpy family. But I do think she knew what she was getting into. She may have been virginal but she grew up in an aristocratic family with close ties to the BRF…she knew the score. And her older sister had dated Charles……..

      • wolfpup says:

        What is the score that everyone keeps referring to? “To Marry an English Lord”, is old time, from turn of the century literature. Are there any real life dames out there, who can confirm that marriage does not exist among the aristocracy, except for dynastic purposes for the male, and as a means of luxury, for the woman being pimped. Prostitution: there is no respect in this for young lady. It is also a very poor bargain with the devil; money means nothing without love. But if everything is very well-stated, then we have a new sort of relationship. Toss out the marriage manuals, for this is a new beast!

      • LAK says:

        Wolfpup: actually we are going back to the old beast. Romantic and love marriages are a 20th century invention pushed by Hollywood and the advertising industry.

        Marriage is first and foremost a consolidation of wealth in the form of property and other means. Even for poor people who perhaps only have a pot to offer.

        Romantic love has convinced us of ‘soul mates’ and ‘the one’.

        BTW: did you know that Diana’s favourite author at the time of her courtship with Charles was her own step-grandmother, Barbara Cartland? I dare you to read one (nevermind the 00s Diana devoured at an impressionable age) of her treacly romances and not emerge with a headful of ‘Princess and the pea’ delicateness requiring rescue from a tall handsome Prince Charming who only has to look at his princess to know how to make her happy leading to happily ever after!! Now imagine a real life prince starts courting you when you are filled to the brim with these notions of love, and bonus, he can never divorce you because the POW was the only man in the world who wasn’t allowed to divorce. (I know they did divorce, but a loop hole had to be found to make it possible)

        Marriages, especially for the elite, have always been cold affairs where both sides only come together to propagate heirs to carry on wealth and bloodlines.

        Many couples married with no intention of being faithful because that wasn’t a requirement of the marriage.

        The most famous romcom book in the world is ‘pride and prejudice’ which opens with the line,’ it is a truth universally acknowledged, a man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife!’ nothing about the man (or woman) seeking to love and be loved or even to care for each other.

        Look at arranged marriages as currently practised in the rest of the world. Love is the last thing anyone looks for. Instead compatibility is the key issue. (the less we speak about forced marriage the better because that is a can of worms best discussed in a different forum). The status of the potential bride and groom are also assessed. Love is a bonus that is hoped will spring out of the union. Eventually.

        CD’s arranged marriage was clearly put together by people who were blinded by status and all other things except compatibility.

        From the beginning, these 2 people were not suited. At best they should have had a love affair and nothing more. This marriage was doomed, irrespective of Camilla and other contributing factors.

      • wolfpup says:

        I agree with you LAK, about the fate of the Wale’s marriage, but mostly because Charles is such a D*K. (sorry, curse word).

        The first society is mother and child. In the beginning, a man probably became necessary, to help with childcare, during the first years. The male probably kept coming back, because of having access to a female. *It could have only been his larger size, and capacity for greater ruthlessness*, that allowed him believe that he could own it all: additional wives, subsequent labor, additional capital. One man could easily have had 25 working children. Just add a shaman imagining that it is all, by “God’s” own design; we have the historic defeat of the female.

  23. Irene says:

    If I was a British citizen, I would be livid that I was paying for these useless people to live in opulence.

  24. bettyrose says:

    These notes really made me feel for little Prince William. Those poor boys must have been so traumatized, and while they themselves were somewhat shielded from the media at that time, the source of their trauma (their mother’s death, their father’s affairs) were headlines on every paper across the globe, nearly impossible to avoid.

    • lrm says:

      I wonder if this latest ‘leak’ is part of Will’s new PR strategy to make him more sympathetic? Didn’t he just hire an american to re-work his and Kate’s disastrous PR?

      • wolfpup says:

        I’m so tired of hearing these *fantastically wealthy and privileged people*, whine about their childhood traumas, as an excuse for their irresponsible behavior. Damn, there are tons of kids who would call food a blessing! I can’t find a single tear to shed for these folks, even if I tightly squeeze.

    • bettyrose says:

      Agreed Wolfpup. I meant my heart breaks for 15 year old William, who I didn’t know much about at the time. 30 year old William should consider a support group.

  25. perplexed says:

    I never thought of either Charles and Diana as being particularly bad people — just caught up in bad circumstances and a royal prison that was difficult to maneuvre through because of their bad circumstances. But Charles does kind of stink at his PR. Maybe he should have let the piece run and hoped no one would notice.

  26. aquarius64 says:

    If the Camilla roll-out was a stunt for her to gain public acceptance, I call it a fail. If it were successful, Camilla would be publicly called Princess of Wales NOW, not the Duchess of Cornwall cheat. The old the-marriage-automatically-makes-her-Princess-of-Wales argument is a half step, she still can’t be publicly called that. Frankly I think the queen dubbed Camilla DoC as a smack on the hands for her and Charles almost dragging the country into a constitutional crisis and almost becoming Edward and Wallis 2.0. And since that bullet was dodged Charles should have fought for Camilla getting PoW (and still do so) openly and to the queen’s face, and not have these stealth campaigns, or wait for the queen to pass and Charles to ascend to the throne to elevate her title. No matter how many good works she does how many character testimonies she gets, the DoC title will always remind people Camilla got her HRH dirty. Dragging out Diana’s messes will never negate that.

  27. RedWeatherTiger says:

    I still hope that QE2 outlives her son so that Camilla can’t get her dumpy ass anywhere near a throne.

  28. lily says:

    Never hear this one before but I find Charles’ the statement about her death being a hindrance to his agenda creepy. And even more creepy is the statement that he did’t have anything to do with it, not saying he did by the way, it just strikes me in a weird way I can’t explain.

  29. LaurieH says:

    The best thing about England’s royals is that they never change; they’ve always been insular. Palace intrigue has existed since the first palaces were built. Compared to some intrigues – say, the princes in the Tower – this is pretty tame, but the Charles/Diana/Camilla story is not particularly original. It reminds me slightly of the Henry VIII/Katherine of Aragon/Anne Boleyn triangle. Not the same motivations, mind you – but that same burning love and desire to have the object of his affections accepted by the British people. In this case, Diana was like Katherine – much beloved by the people and considered the victim. Camilla is like Anne Boleyn, reviled and “the rottweiler”. Like Charles, Henry went to great lengths to have Anne accepted by the people (though unlike Charles, Henry chopped people’s heads off if they didn’t). Like Henry’s marriage to Katherine, Charles’ marriage to Diana was palace-arranged. She had the right pedigree; she was young and virginal. She was chosen, not out of love, but for the benefit of the royals; much the way Katherine of Aragon was chosen because of the beneficially Spanish ties to the powerful King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. In fact, much of the aristocratic outcry (and eye-rolling) over William marrying Kate Middleton is much the same as the way 16th century aristocrats felt about Henry marrying Anne Boleyn….both commoners. That’s what I love about the English royals; the more time marches on, the more they stay exactly the same.

  30. No lip service please says:

    So much for the Royal Family not having any political influence.
    This is disgusting. The BBC is founded by the people and they are supposed to report newsworthy stories that are relevant for the people. Surely news about the Head of State (Queen) and her successors (Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George) are important.
    This is disgusting.
    It is censorship.

    • Anne tommy says:

      Sorry if repeating earlier. Posts but I’m sorry I just can’t read all this about those people. Don’t even care if they are wonderful as individuals – and they don’t seem To be – it’s an anti-democratic system.