Ever since the Daily Mail published that story about Prince Charles asking William to take over The Prince’s Trust, I’ve been thinking about when Charles becomes King. While Team Charles insists that he’s fine where he is and happy to take the load off of his mother’s shoulders, it does feel like the same team is also plotting for Charles’ ascension sooner rather than later. As in, in the next few years, we’re going to see King Charles. Take this bit of news… the Daily Mail says that Team Charles are organized a very official biography to be done for Camilla. It’s widely believed that Charles wants to ease Camilla into the role of Queen Consort rather than Princess Consort. So, the biography will be seen by many as a soft-focus rewriting of Camilla’s history with Charles, in the hopes that Queen Camilla will finally be seen as palatable to the public.
Earlier this month, David and Samantha Cameron had an audience at Clarence House with Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall. The Duchess and Samantha get on famously. Mr Cameron will, of course, have a key diplomatic role, if he happens still to be PM when Charles becomes King, over whether Camilla will be Queen. The sensitive issue of the title is likely to be examined in the first authoritative biography of Camilla.
Commissioned by HarperCollins, it is being written by Penny Junor, the respected royal biographer, who has already penned acclaimed books on Prince William and Prince Harry. The sympathetic but no-holds-barred biography of the former Mrs Parker Bowles will chart her childhood, marriage to Andrew Parker Bowles, and relationship with Charles, which resumed during his unhappy union to Diana.
On past form, Junor — who has also written two books on the Prince of Wales — is likely to be able to gain access to the couple’s most trusted aides and friends, which will make the book, working title ‘Camilla’, effectively a semi-authorised biography. Downing Street, I understand, will also co-operate.
At the time of the royal marriage in 2005, Buckingham Palace said it was ‘intended’ that Camilla would be known as Princess Consort when Charles succeeds to the throne. Privately, Charles was known at the time to hope public opinion would eventually enable Camilla to be crowned Queen by his side. Most polls suggest opinion is moving that way.
Part of me likes the fact that Charles sticks up for his wife even in the face of so many mixed feelings and so much ambivalence towards the idea of Camilla becoming queen. Charles is insistent though and he’s played the long game. I’m sure this biography will gloss over much of the worst parts of Camilla’s interference in Charles and Diana’s marriage, either that or Charles will take the bulk of the hit (as he should, quite honestly). So, will you be buying into the reimagining of Camilla Parker Bowles/Queen Camilla?
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Love her more than drama queen Diana for sure. Love that Diana inspite of her extraordinary beauty couldn’t hold onto Charles.
I think that is half the problem with the feeling towards Camilla, if Charles had left an average looking woman for a real beauty people would be very forgiving and all would be forgotten, but the fact that he cheated on and left a woman seen as an outstanding beauty for a woman that looks like Camilla now thats an outrage, our fairytale stories don’t work that way.
Personally I don’t mind Camilla, she seems hardworking and just gets on with stuff. She must have nerves of steel to take all the personal attacks on her looks.
I don’t think it’s because she’s less attractive necessarily, but the way she always seemed to be lurking around the marriage from the very beginning that’s always seemed quite off-putting (at least to me anyway).
In every other way, she seems nice enough, but that aspect of Camilla’s personality I’ve never understood in the same way others don’t get Diana’s draw queen tendencies. Diana wasn’t a saint, but it’s not like Camilla really sounds that normal to me either. Maybe if she had popped up later in the marriage after a long sabbatical from Charles it would be easier to soften towards her, but the fact that she seemed to make sure her presence was known from the very beginning, which no one really seems to ever dispute, just seems like all kinds of weird to me. Like, she sort of knew when to come in when Charles was feeling bruised or vulnerable. Nothing she did sounds accidental nor does she necessarily sound less calculating than Diana.
And nor does she really sound any less dumb than Charles to me. If he was the one she had wanted all along, she could have at least told him she was getting engaged or whatever– I think he may have summoned the will to fight for her if we look at how he’s done things the last decade or so for her. I guess I don’t get all the determination she had later on to keep him when he married, but not having any determination to keep him when he was actually single. Her logic baffles me as much as everyone else’s.
Penny Junor is a respected biographer now? I thought she was a shameless stenographer who writes what she’s told to and cashes the cheques.
Camilla is not an ugly woman. If she were a better human being, she would at a minimum be refered to as “handsome”. She is the perfect example of the expression that beauty shines from the inside and her insides are hideous. In the same respect Di was a physically pretty girl but I didnt find her beautiful until I realised how she attached herself to unsexy causes (Drug addiction, AIDS, land mines). Her beauty came from within.
Incidentally Charles wasnt even faithful to Camilla for the bulk of their “relationship”. Its only in the last few years that they are believed to be exclusive, whether thats even true now. While he dated her, he was seeing Kanga (a conventionally beautiful Australian) on the side. Even during his marriage with Diana, there was a contest between the two women, who were both also married, to be Prime Mistress. Camilla won for being discreet and utterly accomodating to his whims. Also Kanga had a nervous breakdown and God knows Charlie is not one to provide support in those circumstances. So there goes the “true love kept apart” craptastic narrative. But never mind, the glossy bio will never bring up Kanga.
Red Snapper: seconded! Mind you, isn’t most journalism just stenography these days?
Zapp Brannigan/Flower: Quite agree.
A lot has come out in later years, but the initial reaction after the shock of Camilla’s outing was ‘how could he leave a pretty woman for an ugly one’, that’s not how fairy tales work. People discussed the physical merits of the two women as if that is all that mattered.
People can ascribe their feelings to much more rational motives now that most of the information has been revealed, but that upset fairytale REALLY upset everyone at the time.
Red Snapper: considering how Penny Junor feels about Charles, I think we can expect this one to be rose-spectacled and obsequious to the max. Best left un-read.
Perplexed
Completely agree. And the Chuck and Cam show has had years of Diana free space in which to rewrite history and calibrate the fairy tale.
I think that to the extent that Diana was in love with Charles, she was in love with Prince Charles and becoming a princess if she married him and not the man himself, if Charles was the nobleman next door she would not have given him a second look.
To me Charles, Diana and Camilla are all flawed and did inappropriate things regarding their “three in the marriage” situation, but what it boils down to is that Charles and Diana were not a good fit as husband and wife, that happens all the time, and like what happened with Charles and Diana, the end result is divorce.
I really don’t think it has anything to do with her looks. She was the other woman. Period. Most people don’t like the other woman. That being said, I think the fact that Charles did leave Diana and eventually did settle with the woman that it has been said he always loved and always wanted to be with – I think people are more forgiving these days. Diana was a beautiful woman and I liked her very much. But she was just as miserable in the marriage as Charles. At the end of the day, Charles is the one who should bear the brunt of the criticism. He married Diana for expediency, knowing he was in love with another woman and continuing to carry on with the other woman throughout his marriage – from day 1 of that marriage if the stories are to be believed. His lack of fortitude ruined his marriage and likely made all 3 of them miserable.
Diana was not a drama queen. She was reacting to finding out that her husband was a jerk and his mistress was a scheming witch.
aaa, how do you know Diana was attracted to his being a Prince. If you make this accusation against Diana, how about Camilla. I think she would not have given him the time of day if he were not the the Prince of Wales. You forget aaa that Charles courted Diana because she had no past, was fertile and an aristo. Diana was not some little golddigger she was in the group of aristos from which Charles would select his wife.
@Sandy,
I say that Charles being a prince was Diana’s primary attraction because I see very little else about Charles that Diana, nor most other nineteen year olds would find appealing. He was older chronologically and actually liked socializing with people even older than himself, he was intellectual, liked riding and blood sports, liked reading, liked Scottish country life, etc. Furthermore, while not hideous, Charles was not exceptionally good looking, was awkward and a tad pompous. I am not saying that Charles was totally undesirable, but if Charles was the exact same person he was in 1980 except that he was Charles Windsor, Earl of Whatchamacallit, IMO Diana would not be the least bit interested in him. And if by chance Diana and Earl Windsor did strike up a romance, I doubt if she would have gone along with some mad dash towards the aisle since, at age nineteen, she would not be under pressure to get married and have children.
As you stated Diana was part of the pool of aristocratic women from which Charles was expected to find his wife, as if she did not know that herself, and perhaps that shaped her thinking/feelings towards being in love with Charles in order to justify her ambition towards marrying a Prince.
Diana herself, not “sources,” spoke of knowing that something significant lay ahead for her and tied being a virgin to what future had in store for her. Now what position was out there in the 1970s for which being an aristocratic virgin was a key part of the job description?
aaa
I think that if you were to read several biographies about Diana you would change your mind. And I’m not talking about fluff biographies but ones written by people who did not necessarily like her character at times. There is strong opinion by these biographers that Diana was primarily attracted to the stability that would come from marrying Charles. She was a child of divorce and a very tempestuous home life. She was an aristocratic girl but also very lonely, very withdrawn and very much addicted to the thought of a fairytale romance. She thought that marrying the future king would ensure that there would be no divorce on the table and that was very attractive to her. She imagined herself in a forever relationship surrounded by beautiful children. I don’t believe she ever fell in love with Charles the man but Charles the idea. But I strongly disagree that his title was a draw for her as far as access to a certain lifestyle. She had an aristocratic lifestyle her entire life and never paid much attention to money. Later she used shopping as a way to fill a void in her life, as many biographers will also declare. But she was not a Golddigger and the love of her life, although he was a cardiac surgeon, was not necessarily a multi millionaire yet she would’ve been completely happy to be a doctor’s wife.
According to Tina Brown Diana felt a great deal of sympathy for Charles following the assassination of his uncle. She imagined that she saw a different side of him then the stodgy, pompous, arrogant prince. Charles had dated her sister and even then Diana had no real desire or admiration for him. And let’s not forget that anyone can turn on the charm when they want something. Charles wanted to marry the acceptable, aristocratic, very virgin Diana so he turned on the charm. Diana wanted to be part of a stable relationship so she hid her temper, her tempestuous nature and she turned on the charm as well. Both of them put their best foot forward in a way and the results were disastrous. But it is wrong to paint Diana as a Golddigger with her eye on the prize, imo. Even for her time she was considered quite shy and naïve. When she tried to back out of the marriage her family would not let her. Even her father admitted years later that that was one of his biggest regrets.
Imo, Diana’s father was a royalist to the nth degree. He never made any statements of regret about her marrying Charles. He would avoid the subject (according to Diana’s interviews) if Diana broached the topic of problems in her marriage with Charles. Diana’s mother Frances (who had a hands off attitude about Diana and Charles marriage) did say she had misgivings about Charles which she did not share with Diana (during the C and D engagement). Her father after the engagement actually worked the crowds and was quite proud of his daughter about to marry the Prince of Wales. I do think Diana was attracted to Charles and fell in love with him. She did feel sorry that his great Uncle died and spoke to him about it. And totally agree that she was not a gold digger. She had a title in her own right.
aaa, back in the day Charles was considered the world’s most eligible bachelor. He had many “suitable” girlfriends and sowed wild oats with women he had no intention of marrying. He was publicized as the ‘action man’ who went in for sports and was in the military. Diana was not actually “sure” Charles would marry her. She spoke to her friends about doubts that he would indeed propose. She just had a vague feeling she was destined for something great but did not say she would marry Charles, she was not sure until the proposal came. She adored children and wanted a family of her own.
aaa,
There is a well documented moment that occurred between Diana and one of her sisters, I forget which one, in which she wanted to back out of the marriage and was told by her sister, “it’s too late, duch. You’re already on the tea towels. “
Charles wasn’t exactly the world’s most eligible bachelor, and the fact that he ended up with a niave 19 year old speaks volumes about his difficulty finding a bride. Not only did he have to find a woman interested in marrying in to The Firm, but at that point it wasn’t easy to find a virgin (again, hence the 19 year old bride).
I like Camilla. I’m Diana’s age, so I remember the outrage, but the long game seems to have worked for Charles. Can anyone who sees these two together deny that she’s very good for him and they seem very compatible? She seems warm, friendly, funny, not afraid to lift a glass or two, and she loves old men who seem to love her back. She seems like a really fun and kind person.
She’s 1000 times better than her daughter-in-law!
You love that despite her beauty, Diana couldn’t “hold on” to her husband?! Sure, because everybody knows beautiful people have no feelings and totally deserve for their spouses to cheat on them from the very beginning of the marriage!
@Flower
What a bitter remark. “Drama queen Diana” was all of 19 years old when she was sucked into this cold, fake marriage with three people in it. Charles never loved her and she never had a chance to grow into adulthood with a healthy self-esteem. And she could hardly help being beautiful any more than Camilla can help being hopelessly homely. Yet you hate her for her looks, and applaud the woman who aided and abetted Charles in humiliating and hurting Diana at every turn. Because Diana was beautiful. Nice. Beautiful women are the same as ugly ones, you know. They have feelings as well. They love, they get their hearts broken, they get sick, they feel pain. They have to endure they jealousy and hatred of petty women who hate them for something they can’t help. Thank you for keeping that anti-female tradition alive.
I agree. She was a babe in arms when he swept in. Most people would not believe this now, but in the 70s and early 80s he was THE catch. Yeah, yeah, I know. Andy was the bad boy. Shock!
Anyhoo, on one very late report it said Diana wanted to stop the marriage, but the juggernaut had sailed. She made some hideous choices, but she was thrown into a situation way over head and manipulated by the more sophisticated characters in the situation.
Diana wasn’t sucked into anything. She got what she wanted, she married her prince, unfortunately just like her mother, the title didn’t make up for the day-to-day reality of having no common interests with your husband. Diana was emotionally high-maintenance and that was anathema Charles’s generation of Royals.
Manjit
How sexist. Johnny Spencer beat the crap out of Diana’s mother, emotionally terrorized her until an heir was born and made her life hel duringg the divorce. Yet she was the high maintenance one? She was the problem?
Charles and Camilla were having an emotional affair.
I don’t think anyone of us would want our husband or boyfriend to have the kind of friendship Charles had with Camilla -and I don’t mean having a close female friend. Diana made it clear she did not like it and those two thirty-somethings disregarded the nineteen year old girl’s feelings.
What Charles did to Diana was predatory and in aggressively disregarding her feelings, imo he crossed the line into emotional abuse.
Now Diana went on to be predatory and abusive herself, but at the time they got married, she was still essentially a kid.
The whole point is that they were/are not like us, they have a totally different moral out look, it may be shocking to us but in their circle mistresses were/are tolerated Diana was raised in this world and should have known that it was possible even likely, she spent many years at boarding school and let me say that any innocent blinkers would have swiftly been removed there about the goings on of her upperclass friends and relatives.
Diana chose to ignore the possibilities and only saw the ‘fairy tale’ , when the facts became know she wasn’t really that put out about Charles affairs, because she was actually friendly with Kanga, on the otherhand she hated Camilla. Because of her own personality problems ,(anyone who wasn’t in complete agreement with her was a sworn enemy) add that to her utter emotional neediness , she couldn’t find a compromise. Camilla didn’t really care about marrying Charles ,she and Charles would have been content to leave it as it was, but Diana by that time had become quite irrational and vindictive, not just with Camilla but with anyone she thought was not on her side, including the boy’s nanny and the wives of her lovers. She even pushed her stepmother down a flight of stairs at one point because she couldn’t get her own way.
Charles didn’t create Diana’s emotional problems they were always there, her father said later he should have warned the RF of her emotional instability. Charles simply didn’t know how to cope with her, the RF did try to get her psychological help (a bit late in the day) but she refused.
I do believe that Camilla would have been quite happy to have not married Charles but Charles felt it was an absolute necessity and told his mother that marriage to Camilla was non-negotiable , with the veiled threat that he would give up his position unless she agreed to the marriage (a legal requirement ) on some strange level it was almost a repeat of the Wallis Simpson and ‘not without the woman I love’ speech, with pretty much the same consequences for the ‘woman’ in the eyes of the general public.
Bravo! Diana was still a teenager when she met Charles (teenager who had a difficult home life) and she was just 21 when she had her first child. She was ignored by her husband, her family and her in-laws. On top of that her husband started cheating (I blame both Charles and Camilla since it takes two to tango). What was she supposed to do? Take it in a stride like Cannot does with Willnot? Diana gave back as good as she took and I’m happy that even though she has been dead for almost two decades she still has a great reputation to go with her good looks.
I don’t love either one of them, but blaming Camilla for Charles’ lack of backbone in marrying a woman he didn’t want to marry, and his subsequent adultery, is ridiculous. Charles and Diana were a bad fit from the start. Charles should have put his foot down and refused to marry her. Diana’s family should not have pressured her to marry Charles. Her family pushed her as much as the RF pushed Charles. And Diana had her own psychological and emotional issues coming into the marriage, and several affairs of her own after, so they were both at fault – and she had no qualms about pursuing married men. Camilla must have something special if she’s kept Charles in thrall all these years. She didn’t “steal” Charles from Diana – she’s had him since 1973. The only people to blame for Charles’ and Diana’s martial woes were Charles and Diana.
Ugh. Really? I hope your husband, if you have one, never cheats on you, but if he does, please let me know how it’s your fault, not his and his mistress’s. What Diana did LATER is NOT an excuse for what Camilla and Charles did FIRST. They aren’t prescient.
There were quite a few women who “kept Charles in thrall for years”. The man knew no fidelity but once he scored an easy mistress, he kept her. He kept them for decades even after they married and when one fell pregnant with her husbands heir, he would just move her from rotation. The only reason Camilla beat the Baroness Tryon ( who Chuck described as the “only woman who ever understood me”) is because Camilla was a submissive, accommodating and discreet woman who played the long game. Theirs is not the true love story their PR would like to sell, I mean they cant even live in the same house now – hardly a Nicholas Sparks novel.
I think I made it clear that Charles was responsible for his infidelity, not Camilla, and certainly not Diana. Yes, Camilla’s made a career out of playing mistress, no argument there, but she didn’t “break up” a marriage, Charles did that. Also Charles and Diana had a host of problems apart from the business with Camilla, and to that extent, Diana was culpable, as was Charles. It takes two to make or break a marriage. And one partner’s adultery doesn’t excuse the other. Diana was a charming, charismatic, but deeply troubled individual who was terrific when dealing with her public, but was far more adept at understanding other’s problems than dealing with her own.
Diana had some issues (as did Charles), but I wonder if the infidelity exacerbated those issues. I can’t imagine dealing well with Camilla as a pressure point, with or without issues. Since she was only 19 when she married, she still was at a point in her life when she was developing psychologically so had she not had to deal with the possibility of Camilla lurking around everywhere from the start (along with the pressures of fame and royal responsibility), it’s possible her issues might have manifested less or she could have developed and matured in a different different direction. Considering the amount she had to deal with at 19, I don’t know if it’s really that out of the ordinary how she coped or how her issues took shape. Way too much happened at once for me to believe that anyone could have behaved with utter composure under those circumstances or not had some dramatic tendencies.. That said, I don’t dislike Charles either, and I think the way he turned out also makes sense to me on some level too. Camilla is more of a mystery to me and I don’t get her. Her psychological background is never talked about, and why she harboured the determination to be Top Mistress #1 is too hard for me to wrap my head around whereas I’m more understanding of Diana’s and Charles’s problems and issues.
“The only people to blame for Charles’ and Diana’s martial woes were Charles and Diana.”
No. Wrong. They never had a marriage to begin with. Because Charles never gave it a chance. He was too busy wishing he was a tampon in another woman’s vagina. He never tried because he didn’t need to, and that was on him and Camilla. It’s ridiculous to say that one person can’t break up a marriage. It happens all the time. One person is faithful and the other is not, one person is an addict and the other is not, one person is a fraud and the other is not. How could Diana have salvaged this marriage? He didn’t love her. He wasn’t faithful to her. He didn’t support her in her transition into unprecedented media fame, in fact he was petty and pouty and jealous, he didn’t support her when she tried to gain some control through an unhealthy eating disorder, in fact he ridiculed her for it. So how was this 19 year old girl, with limited education and family support and a faithless, spoiled jerk of a husband supposed to evolve into a healthy, wise, kind and soothing expert in saving her marriage? You tell me what she was supposed to do.
Nobody forced Camilla to sleep with Charles. Don’t forget she got a lot of perks from sleeping with The Prince of Wales. Camilla could have said go back to your wife, closed the door and stopped taking his calls and visits.
If you don’t believe that Chuck and Cam are star crossed soulmates who finally found true lurve with one another then you are an uninformed Diana worshipper and have been drinking the koolaid.
Kami, Camilla “submissive”! Oh please. She was and is a nervy woman with a cast iron nerve at that. A submissive woman would not have trashed the wife nor played hostess at the wife’s home in the wife’s absence. These are things “submissive” Camilla did. She pushed the right buttons and out manipulated the other ladies. Imo, are you serious with that post or is it sarcasm?
I totally agree with you Epiphany.
GNAT, I understand your outrage at infidelity in traditional marriages, but this was an arranged marriage. He was a prince in need of a titled virgin to marry and Diana fit the bill. I think some of the outrage goes to the Spencer family for not telling her the rules of her royal marriage: Her husband is marrying her, not for love, but for heirs. He will never be faithful. She must remain faithful until she has provided an heir and a spare and then she too many wander.
In this case, hate the game and not the players.
sienna, I agree with you.
I think all of us are a combination of good, bad and indifferent and the three players here are no exception.
Sandy, Camilla was and is completely submissive to Charles will. She never turned him away, asked to be publicly acknowledged or even asked to atleast be the ONLY mistress. Contrast with her closest competition, the Baroness, who did clearly had more self esteem than to settle for “one of the married women with kids from my past that I ocassionally visit for shagging and coddling”. That was Camillas appeal, shes the ego stroking mattress who took his insulting conduct on the chin and crossed her fingers for her patience she would be rewarded with the “prize”. Submissive.
Sienna, it is on the man seeking that type of marriage to make it clear to his 19 year old virgin bride whose worst nightmare is to relive her parents marriage and for whom seeking divorce would be unthinkable for an entire nation. It is on him and his entitled butt that he didnt find an older woman who both understood and accepted those terms.
Absolutely agree, Sienna. At the time, I was a 16-year-old small-town-Oklahoma girl, and I knew, without having to be told, that it was an arranged marriage. How Diana didn’t figure that out is beyond me.
Kami, I think I would describe Camilla as manipulative rather than submissive. She was out for Number One though played the mistress who would do anything for him. And she got the perks and was able to trash the royal wife as well. She even sat in Diana’s seat at Highgrove playing hostess in Diana’s absence (obviously Diana did not ask her to do this). Elizabeth, Charles asked her out on dates how on earth would she think it an arranged marriage? It was not as if Charles asked her parents to draw up a contract and have it “arranged.” Why are you blaming Diana for the mess Charles made of things. Why not blame Charles for marrying her to get heirs and knowing he preferred another woman? It’s amazing how this guy keeps getting free passes and Diana is blamed for accepting the proposal with the admonition “she should have known better.” IMO Charles should have known better. Diana for all intents and purposes thought the marriage proposal meant the man loved her.
Really good post, GNAT.
And good point Kami, I mean we go after Kate for spending her twenties at William’s beck and call but Camilla spent her life, including while being married, doing that.
I’m with GNAT on all counts.
And, just because a marriage is ARRANGED it is not a given that there will be infidelity. I don’t know why people are equating the two.
Exactly imo and Crumpet. Imo – if you don’t hate Diana it’s because you believe all the “lies” – because the absolute truth lies with two cheaters, we all should know. And Crumpet – thank you. Arranged or not, you stood before God and country and promised to love, honor and cherish. You got married, regardless of your reasons. Pressure, you’re a wimp, whatever, live up to your vows.
I don’t think it’s about Beauty. I think it all comes down to personality of the person and whether you are attracted to it or not. It’s not that one was prettier then the other. Diana had her chance, so to say, in the beginning – according to many Charles was very much into her. Maybe not in love (“whatever that means”) but love at first sight isn’t very common anyway. What happened after with Charles and Diana is what happens to a lot of couples everywhere: people become infatuated, start dating and figure out whether or not they are right for each other. Only these two (or three?) couldn’t just get out when things weren’t working. It became a vicious circle 🙁
Charles thought he could have it all. The mistress, the wife, and the heirs. He was raised to be the center of the Universe and his big ego got in the way of any common sense he had.
YES. This was the woman he always loved. Queen Palatable of Legitimate Ever After.
Well Flower and why do you think Diana could not “hold on” to Charles? Because Camilla was in there interfering in the marriage? It’s like saying a woman “asked for” being treated like dirt. Why could not Charles hold on to Diana? Because he was not man enough to grow up and stop seeing his mistress
This is interesting timing for news of a biography on Camilla. On August 31, 2017 it will be 20 years since Princess Diana died. Many people will be remembering the “People’s Princess” and also taking a closer look at the wife of the future King of England. This book may be a good thing.
It is not a good thing. It is just another Diana bashing exercise by Penny Junor.
As if queen were a title only for the morally upstanding. There is already precedent galore for rewarding bad behavior.
if Great Britain wants royals, then Great Britain accepts that royal marriage is 1,000 times more a business arrangement than ordinary marriage.
For the same reasons I have no issue with Camilla being Queen. We’ve had badly behaving royals or in-laws before, this lot are positively beige in their bad behaviour.
Than why even have them at all (royals)? You can’t even vote them out of office if they behave badly or live lazily on your dime. I really don’t get the monarchy. smdh
agree. the whole upper class marriage contract is for the protection of existing wealth through inheritance (children) and the amassing of more wealth through linking to other wealthy people. It has zero to do with love and I blame Diana’s family if she went into it with fantasies of middle class life. The Spencers have been involved in these contracts for hundreds of years and Charles no doubt thought she would know the score, but it wasn’t his job to tell her. it was her Grandmother’s job to let her know what she was getting into and she didn’t do a very good job of that as Diana ended up shocked when Charles did exactly what every other “aristocratic” man in an arranged marriage did and does; find love elsewhere.
As a Brit i don’t have a problem with Camilla or her being Queen Consort – she’s proved herself and is clearly not afraid of work (looking at you Waity). You know, its not always about the journey but where you end up that matters.
What happened happened and no one was the innocent party in that mess. There will always been Diana ‘rose tinted glasses’ supporters – the same people who think William and Katie Bucket can do no wrong either.
Betti, I see a lot of people swallowing Charles spin and recreating his behavior with Camilla as a “great romance.” they see things through rose colored glasses. Diana is dead and can’t defend herself but it does not mean that Camilla did not get where she is today without scheming and seeing off the first wife and Charles used Diana as a broodmare. Charles cheated on Camilla with Janet Jenkins, a Canadian woman (their love letters sold on ebay) and he had the other mistress Lady Tryon. Camilla does the bare minimum of work and she really has no choice since Charles paid megabucks trying to whitewash her image. Camilla got where she is today by deliberately undermining another woman. The Sun Editor reported that she gave “her side” to him for ten years (and this before the Morton book). Diana went into the marriage in a sincere way, she was in for a rude awakening when she realized Camilla was going nowhere.
Well stated , Betti.
We all agree, Charles was a pussy in
The life department . He didn’t sack up or man up. He married a teenager who had a better familial lineage, Superior to the House of Windsor.
But I can’t hate in love.
the spencers may have had a better english lineage from being huge sheep owners in the 16th century onward, but they never wore a crown. for diana, marrying charles was the top of the food chain of husband options and she was nothing if not competitive. for all that wealth and lineage, she had zero education.
As a citizen of the US, I have no problem with Camilla or with her becoming Queen “IF” Charles ever ascends to the throne. My problem always has been with Charles and started long before either Camilla in the 70s or Diana in the 80s came on to the scene. In my opinion and mine alone, Charles was, has been, and always shall be a twit, defined as a silly, annoying person (in case there is a differing definition in Britain). Leadership is not a word I associate with Charles. His basic personality comes across as rather weak.
“It’s not always about the journey”? It’s ALWAYS about the journey.
If Charles becomes king Camilla will be queen. Full stop.
I think she will be known as Queen Consort. All the Britishers will moan for a year and then forget about it and call her the Queen Consort. Usual stuff. Charles will get his own way because, in the end, nobody really cares – beyond a moan-up on the interwebz – what she’s called. Welcome to Britland: we moan about everything and do something about pretty much nothing!
Charles will be regent-in-all-but-name soon enough. But I think he probably respects his mother enough not to go for that particular title.
Yes and given how frail the DoE has been looking recently that may happen sooner than some people realize.
Thou for me the big thing is how he deals with the Cambridge ‘issue’.
Yes. At some point, ER’s health will fail – if not for serious specific illness, in terms of capacity to carry out public duties. I guess she will just sequester and live privately for most of the time. But I doubt there’ll be an official regency.
I suppose the Cambridge issue will be kicked to the long grass until the point Charles actually becomes king.
Charles is no spring chicken himself. Arguably, he could have health issues down the road. and maybe his lazy son William can help him out and be regent to the regent. Long Live the Queen
Of course she’ll be known as queen consort — all women married to the reigning king are. The word “consort” is not used, though, just understood.
Other than the actual change in title, is there any difference in terms of lands bestowed, castles? What is the big deal? Phillip has been prince to queen Elizabeth forever.
No there isn’t. There’s never been a princess consort–she’ll be Queen however they want to dress it. Nothing particularly goes along with being a consort–male or female. Any possessions are still the property of the monarch. Even the private homes–like Sandringham–are in the queen’s name.
Nothing can gloss over they had an affair and both played a role in really bullying and causing a lot of pain to Diana. They both kept denying the affair for years spreading rumours Diana was mentally ill, then it came out that they had been having the affair for years so Diana wasn’t paranoid. Camilla has one of the lightest workloads and she and Charles barely even live together. It’s just another load of PR rubbish Charles has ALWAYS had a mistress or two if anyone thinks he doesn’t with camilla who unlike Diana is more then happy to put up with that sort of thing you need your head examined. He HAD to marry Camilla or look like an idiot she doesn’t do half the engagements that Diana did and the press are not interested in her in the slightest which works against her in many ways. As for Charles being King I’m afraid your wrong there Charles will not be Kind unitl the current Queen dies she has made it very clear she will never abdicate if she lives as long as her mother she could be around another 10 years or so which would make Charles well into his seventies by the time he reaches the throne. He will be doing more and more but it is about time he did too Prince Charles has pretty much did his own thing and has done engagements with his own interest now he has to do all the boring stuff too. .
Diana WAS mentally ill. She was a flawed, deeply troubled woman who did many wonderful things.
I think she was ill, but not necessarily crazy if that makes any sense. A person can be ill, but also correct in their assumptions too — she was correct about Charles and Camilla. Just because a person has depression or an eating disorder doesn’t mean that everything they spout off is suspect or wrong. You can still be ill and perceptive at the same time.
Snapper that is showing that you buy into Charles’ spin. Diana was not mentally ill. She was in a no win situation with Charles and his pushy mistress. It is just fabrication to try to justify the vile conduct of Charles and Camilla.
Exactly, perplexed. I have struggled with depression for my entire adult life. I’m doing really well, thanks to exercise, therapy and medication. Technically, I’m “mentally ill.” Sorry, that doesn’t absolve me of responsibility for being a good partner to my husband, and it doesn’t give him an excuse to slime around with a mistress. It doesn’t mean everything I say is crazy and untrue.
I will never have any affection or respect for Camilla as a person. I simply don’t buy into all of the excuses made for her or the deflection of excusing her bad behavior because of Diana’s own behavior. I don’t buy the big love story – kept apart by circumstances but finding their way back to one another after *cough* Charles marriage was irreparably damaged. Right. I do not believe she has a decent bone in her body, or she could never have hurt another human being the way she did. The same goes for Charles, even more so. They are two self-absorbed, selfish people who deserve each other, and I think they tolerate each other fairly well but they hardly seem madly in love.
Having said that, if he’s going to be called King, I see no reason she shouldn’t be called Queen. He’s as bad, if not worse, than she is. Call them anything you want.
All of this ^^
Diana’s flaws don’t excuse the behaviour of either of them…
That said, I guess the title upgrade has not and never had a connection with moral character.
yassss to all this
I think it was too little too late Good Names Taken. He should have been the stand up guy when she was alive. And the fact that his sycophantic friend Junor keeps writing this trash about Diana, it shows how insincere Charles was and is.
Hail hail!
There has only ever been one moment when I thought Charles behaved in anything other than a totally selfish manner, and that was during Diana’s funeral as he held little Harry’s hand (which, btw, was incredibly un-monarchly behavior). He looked genuinely devastated, if only for his sons.
Yes, I agree, he stood up during that time period. He went to get her body and I honestly think he was there for his sons.
Queen Camilla all the way.
I am the same age has Prince William and I never got the rose coloured view of Diana.
I always prefered Camilla and Charles despite the less than perfect way they got together.
I’m younger than William so I didnt live much of Dianas heyday and I didnt care one whit about this situation. Then one day I caught a documentary on Charles and his many women. That got me reading and by the time I was done I realised that the undisputed facts were that Charles had multiple mistresses and that Camilla was just one of two compteting favorites who knew about each other and even socialised together. Camilla is everything I hate in a woman, “a do-nothing-b*tch” who lives to appease a man who she knows to be disloyal to her in the hope that one day she will be the main (not only) squeeze. Either she has appalling self esteem or she is a conniving heartless woman. Either way, an embarrassment to my gender.
Actually it is Charles not the courtiers who made the mess of things.
I loathed the way Camilla butted in. She was never really out of Charles life and made sure Diana was put aside. I don’t get why people like the woman. She slept her way to the top and did a lot of scheming to get where she is today.
I think the BP courtiers have to take some of the blame especially with regard to contact between Diana and Camilla prior to the wedding.
Of course the Camerons get on famously with Chuck and Camilla PB, they’re all posh toffs with everything in common.
As for Camilla, a big yawn from me towards a “semi-authorized” biography. Her checkered and sordid past is the one thing remotely interesting about the old gal. Whitewashing is par the course, but completely deluded. Realistically, she will never muster up anything more than a lackluster “fan” base, one committed to the idea of monarchy, no matter the cost or ethical bankruptcy of the real people holding court.
You can put frosting on dog poop but that doesn’t make it cake. She is awful.
“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. This must be true for the reverse, and Camilla.
When Charles becomes King I hope Australia will become a republic country.
Question, the Queens uncle Edward had to give up his throne because Simpson was a divorcee right? Camilla has been divorced to so how come Charles is not giving up the throne like his great uncle? otherwise what was the point for him to abdicate ?
Or was it Charles making sure he got what he wanted?
The PR reason for the abdication was that he was giving it all up for a divorcee.
The real reason was much worse. He was a terrible King who was careless with govt papers and would have sold us to the Nazis if given the chance.
The establishment pushed him to abdicate, but the public reason given, a pretty powerful one, was that he wa giving it all up for love.
The divorce issue was probably no 101 in a pile of reasons why the Establishment objected to her. However, it was an era in which it was important to the CoE. Wallis was divorced twice – both husband’s still living, making Edward her third husband.
By Charles and Camilla, divorce was the norm. If Charles could be allowed to divorce Diana – a then he he be allowed to marry a divorcee.
It would be hypocritical of the church to object to Camilla when Charles himself was divorced.
Further, people repeatedly gloss over the sole reason the CoE was established in the first place ; to allow for the King’s divorce though the process threw up other issues such as the King being his own pope rather than submit to the Bishop of Rome.
^^ This. I would LOVE to see an expose on what really happened with Edward VIII and what they had on the both of them to get him to abdicate.
Edward VIII and his peccadilloes were something else!
@Betti,
Go to youtube and key in “Edward VIII” and “Duke of Windsor” and there are documentaries posted there. You have to watch them with a critical eye and focus on the facts being presented because sometimes the narrators, pro and con, will state slanted things, like in one of the documentaries the narrator tries to explain away Edward passing on sensitive information to the Nazis.
Stanley Baldwin and the King’s other detractors had things on Edward like him being derelict in his duties, e.g., not reading his briefing papers and leaving them out in the open, but the way Baldwin got him to abdicate was more like a chess game. Also IMO Edward did not really want to be King especially in 1936. I think that he had second thoughts later on, after World War II ended and he experienced years of not being treated like a King/high ranking royal, but at the time he wanted out.
@aaa. Oh thanks. will do later at home.
i didn’t realize he was actually passing state secrets to the Nazi’s as King.
And i agree – he regretted abdicating and it started showing after he and Wallis got married as i think he was angling for some sort of supporting the new King role. He didn’t want to leave the family fold as it meant losing all the perks that came with it. Fortunately for us his brother was having none of it – if he had any sort of access to the throne he would have sold his brother to the Nazis for a shot of being King again. And this is the man that #NormalBill has become.
Betti, George VI did a nasty thing to his brother. Wallis was entitled to have an HRH when she married the Duke of Windsor–royal wives get all the titles. But he made a special edict and sent his brother a wedding present–Wallis would not get the HRH. Elizabeth the consort of George was said to loathe Wallis and probably was instrumental in this decision. It is only speculation about what Edward VIII would have done as King. At least unlike Charles he did not feel the need to have heirs and found a broodmare to have his children whilst carrying on with his married mistress. Edward was not totally isolated and visited his mother Queen Mary in England. ANd Edward was indeed besotted with Wallis which was a huge motive in his abdication.
@ Sandy. Edward VIII’s support of the Nazis is not ‘speculation’ its fact, he’s on record praising Hitler (told a journalist in 1940 that ‘it would be a tragic thing for the world if Hitler was overthrown’) and allegedly leaked Allied war plans for defending Belgium to the Nazis. He and Wallis were well known and open Nazi sympathizers even at the time.
What’s the need to have heirs got to do with Edward and Wallis? Edward actually wanted a family but its thought Wallis couldn’t have children (what is suspected from a botched abortion from her first marriage).
@Betti,
IIRC Edward passed on information to the Nazis both while he was King and after the abdication. I’m very sure that he did it after he abdicated which led to him being shipped off to the Bahamas, but I’m pretty sure, but not 100%, that there were one or more incidents while he was King.
@Sandy,
Edward VIII screwed over his brother George VI by getting his family/the Crown to agree to giving him a generous annual income by claiming that he had no money when he had in fact squirreled away a fortune from his Duchy of Cornwall earnings.
There were definitely hard feelings towards Edward and Wallis, and IMO spite played a role is some decisions, but there were valid reasons as well. One of the valid reasons for not giving Wallis HRH status was because it was questioned whether or not the marriage would last. IMO it probably could have been bestowed a couple of decades later, at that time the current Queen was on the throne, but I think by then the hard feelings were even harder because Edward’s abdication was blamed for George VI’s early death. Another factor was the Queen’s opposition to divorce, obviously her position has softened since then but once upon a time the Queen Elizabeth II was staunchly opposed to divorce.
Betti, since Edward VIII abdicated it is still speculation on what he would have done.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. I think George VI should have let Wallis have the HRH. The Queen later on relented and let Wallis and Edward be buried together even though Wallis was not an HRH
Queen Elizabeth II’s in-laws were actually married to Nazis. She apparently did ot think her Uncle a traitor since she invited him to the UK along with Wallis to a ceremony honoring the late Queen Mary.
Why Edward and Wallis did not have children is all speculation
My point is that Edward as the eldest was expected to marry the suitable girl and have heirs. His name was linked with various aristos and European princesses. He chose not to marry and have it all (the heirs. the mistress, and the wife).
There is speculation that Edward was sterile as well.
I don’t recall Edward being linked to non-married women, I am not saying he never had a relationship with single women, but he was known for having relationships with married women, Wallis was not the first.
The writing was on the wall about Edward long before Simpson came onto the scene, though he was far from being the only European royal with Nazi leanings (if you remember, after the execution of Tsar Nicholas II, they were pretty terrified of Communism). Edward didn’t marry a suitable girl because of some noble choice to not marry and “have it all”, rather, he was a total womanizer and constantly carried on relationships with ‘inappropriate’ (ie married) women.
I saw a documentary on Wallis and Edward. After a series of involvements with married mistresses (Freda Dudley Ward, etc.) he became totally besotted with Wallis. And even though she would treat him like dirt, he became totally infatuated. I think that was when the writing was on the wall, he was not going to give her up and he wanted to marry her. It was an odd relationship but apparently this was the woman he wanted and he moved heaven and earth to marry her.
So you’ve seen 1 documentary on the subject?
Edward’s Nazi leanings are pretty well known at this point (and as mentioned above, he wasn’t the only European monarch to feel that way). And I thought it was pretty well known that his abdication was done in a way that he could save face. There was certainly a reason for all of that bad blood between him and Bertie.
Bridget NO need to be patronizing. I saw more than one documentary. Edward VIII wanted to marry Wallis it was not a cover for his political leanings. I read many books so please don’t skew what I said in my posts.
Because Charles has been divorced too? And social norms have advanced in the last hundred odd years? I’m just guessing *cough*
It’s because times have changed in terms of divorce and also Charles does not have any other living wives.
Charles and Camilla really skeeve me out as a couple although I can tolerate them (barely) as individuals. What amuses me is the reason people give for disliking the Cambridges is the reason I dislike the Wales: disconnect between the reality and the PR narrative.
There is almost always a disconnect between reality and PR narrative. If there wasn’t, you wouldn’t need PR.
If she is married to the King, she should be a Queen.
Ugh! No wonder Prince William is an ass to his father. Maybe he is just trying to distance himself from the dysfunction in his family. I admit I’m a Diana sympathizer. She did what she had to do to survive that mess of a marriage. She was so young, got thrown to the wolves with little support, and her husband was a jerk with a hideous side piece the whole time. Far from Prince Charming. This book will not be on my reading list.
William being an ass to his father is only something that’s been ‘reported’ about in the past 4/5 years – since he married Katie Bucket. They were all very close with William respecting and turning to Charles for advice. It was Charles to talked him into staying at Uni by getting him to change course.
In my opinion his attitude toward his father started changing after 2007 when he got back with Bucket. She and her family are a negative influence over him and have alienated him from the rest of the RF family for their own ends. Controlling him means controlling the kids and access to the throne when he ascends. They bring out the worst in his personality by pandering to his ego and insecurities. Its a very dysfunctional dynamic.
Somewhat off topic but I love the ‘Keeping Up Appearances’ reference. One of the best shows ever! “It’s pronounced BOUQUET.”
Charles and his consorting whatever should step aside in favour of Hyacinth Bucket, the only true Queen.
In Williams defence, I think he figured out the palace machinations as he grew older. The PR redemption of Camilla at the expense of his mothers memory must be particularly galling. And I’m sure one of the reasons he defers so heavily to the Middletons is 1) for fear of being his father – the cold distant husband who brings a third party into the fish bowl and abandons her to the palace machinery and 2) a longing to belong to an actual family rather than the emotionally impotent crown business unit he was born into.
Diana was far from perfect, but she did go into the marriage sincerely believing it would be a real marriage. The hurt must have been tremenndous when she realized what a farce it was. I don’t excuse her wrong choices, I just feel for her.
I’m not sure Diana went into the marriage believing it would be real. Remember she knew Camilla was a constant presence and she had feelings of backing out before the wedding, however I think Diana hoped, once married, she could get Charles to forget Camilla.
I can’t believe that. She was somewhat naive, but it’s not like she grew up in a cult, completely shielded from the real world. I was a decade younger than her when they got married, and even I understood enough about how those kinds of marriages work to know this wasn’t some great love story. She was actually living it, having been raised around these sorts of people. If she had no clue then frankly I think the bigger issue would be that Charles married a woman lacking the mental capacity to be part of that contract.
It would have been supremely unusual for Charles not to have mistresses. Given how blunt he could be publicly about love and marriage, I doubt he privately made some big show of pledging their marriage would be the exception to the rule.
Camilla wasn’t the only mistress, and Diana didn’t actually mind some of the others, so the idea that she was shocked and grief stricken by his affairs isn’t really right. She was friendly with a couple of the women she knew he was sleeping with, but she hated a select few, and Camilla the most.
They both behaved in the standard way really, Charles had mistresses, Diana had affairs after she had children. If Charles had just stuck with women Diana didn’t find objectionable, and Diana had been more discreet, they could well have still been together today, doing the separate lives thing like many aristo’s their age.
Isn’t Penny Junor a sycophant?
Penny Junor is definitely pro-Charles and I don’t consider her a biographer/journalist par excellence, but she is not above calling Charles out or citing his short-comings.
Diana takes the heat. Charles is treated with kid gloves in her books And Camilla is absolved of breaking up the Wales marriage.
Yes Junor believes Charles is a stubborn and naive individual.
I thought the majority of the British population still don’t want Camilla as Queen. Is that changing? And what’s Kate Bucket?
Junor used her biographies of William and Harry to have a go at Diana. Charles got off unscathed and Camilla was absolved of all blame. Among other “tid bits” she said Diana was a bad mother, sent Camilla death threats, had Borderline Personality Disorder (never diagnosed by professionals but Junor gives her diagnosis -LOL), among other things.
@Sandy,
I agree that Penny Junor is harshest towards Diana but in my first comment in this string I was addressing whether or not Junor is a sycophant.
IMO, with or without Camilla, I don’t think that Charles and Diana would have had a lasting, functional marriage, they were just too different. Although I will add that for a period of time, it appeared that they had a loving relationship and could even get along with each other, perhaps not for extended periods, but long enough.
I personally waffle on how much, if any, blame Camilla should shoulder in breaking up Charles and Diana’s marriage, but I would not discount Penny Junor’s assessment of things because she absolved Camilla, IMO it’s not an invalid point of view.
ETA:
This comment is in response to Sandy’s first comment in this string.
Citresse: Kate Bucket is Kate’s new nickname as coined by Sixer. It’s a reference to the shameless social climbing character, Hyacinth Bucket, in a British sitcom, ‘Keeping up appearances’, who had a pathological need to show that she had arrived whilst also perpetually social climbing.
She insisted her name be pronounced ‘Bouquet’ instead of ‘Bucket’ to show her refined status/origins.
It’s a very funny sitcom, and I recommend you watch an episode on youtube.
aaa, I think Camilla is the elephant in the room that some want to ignore as destroying the marriage. And say oh well it would not have worked out anyway. I strongly disagree. How much better a chance it would have been had Camilla butted out and Diana and Charles could have worked on their marriage without outside interference. Camilla also had her own agenda.
@Sandy,
I see what you’re saying but many people feel that the responsibility for the success or failure of a marriage lies with the two people who are married, they don’t just feel that way about Charles and Diana but marriages in general. And of course there are those who feel that a third party can and should be held responsible for their role in marital discord/dissolution.
I am in the “they would not have worked out anyway” camp, but I acknowledge Camilla being in the picture added to the problems, however I also think that Charles and Camilla’s relationship was a convenient and simplistic foil to blame Charles and Diana’s marital problems upon.
I think that Camilla was a problem in Charles and Diana’s marriage, but I think that Diana retconned Camilla into being THE problem in her marriage. I may be wrong about this but of all the whinging Diana did on the Squidgey tapes, I don’t think Camilla was discussed. By the late 80s/early 90s, Charles and Diana’s inner circle and some in the media knew that they were living separate lives, they knew about Camilla, Kanga, Hewitt and Gilbey, and to me I think Diana telling “her true story” was her way of making sure that she was not tarnished if and when it became public that she and Charles were living separate lives including having lovers.
aaa, I think you underestimate Camilla. She also saw off Lady Kanga Tryon. I think she undermined Diana every step of the way. I disagree totally with giving her free passes by saying it would not have worked anyway. That is giving Camilla Free Passes. Big TIme. I notice that Camilla got almost all of what Diana had. And not by being nice. Camilla was no “simplistic” foil. She caused much damage. I think you must agree with much of JUnor’s philosophy.
I cannot stand the way Junor trashes Diana unmercifully in her zest to please Charles and Camilla. She also has an axe to grind about Diana. It sickens me that she is writing another poison pen about Diana
Wow, this is certainly a hot topic. People, don’t attack the other posters. GEEZ
Everything I have ever read about Camilla before and during Charles marriage to Princess Di said Camilla and the Queen picked Diana for Charles to marry, knowing he was carrying on with Camilla and would continue to do so. All of this behind Diana’s back so she went into a marriage thinking Charles really loved her, but in actuality it was all very calculated and she was just an unwitting pawn – who also happened to have a fragile personality and easily manipulated. I see Charles, Camilla and the Queen all as devious and cruel. I have no respect for any of them. They played with a young woman’s life and it nearly destroyed Diana. She ended up finding her voice and the courage to divorce the Prince and leave the royal life with them kicking and screaming for the sake of the royal name. Shame on them all for using a human being like that for their own benefit.
EXACTLY!!!
Which was a completely usual thing for women in their position to do, something that has been done throughout history to very, very many other young women. I don’t see anything about them holding a gun to Charles’ head, btw.
It really did end up being a clash between the past (in which the monarchy is necessarily mired) and the present. Unlike her predecessors, Diana was able to break free to a large extent.
Monarchy rests on using other people for their own benefit. That is what it IS, period. Of course it was rotten, but Diana was not a totally naive wide-eyed college student or waitress. She was raised to exactly this. Then she found she couldn’t handle it.
You can slather lipstick all over a pig, and it still goes “oink”.
LOL……………..
that reminds me of a political cartoon of Sarah Palin back in the day when she was the VP Candidate.
The original Triangle Of Doom here. Here we are, decades later, still hashing it out!
Never, I will never accept that horsefaced adulterous murdering consort as a Queen- go ahead, GB try- but you put that woman on a Queen’s throne, you probably kill your monarchy. I certainly will stop giving a shit.
Perhaps Charles was able to change the minds of some British citizens, but the problem is that Diana was a global figure, and most sympathetic and beloved. (Her touch with AIDS changed the way we even look at gay people). If Charles and Camilla’s plot succeeds, the image of the monarchy will be tarnished abroad, and their diplomatic reach diminished. This is inexorable, as there are few who pity Charles enough to listen to his excuses anyway…
Eh, she’s alright. She’s a good sport. She fits well into this monstrous family, wears grand jewels like nobody’s business, and most important, is smart and mature enough to always appear to be in good humor and engaged in her public appearances. Also, she got her dogs from a shelter, which always scores major points with me.
So if we could go back to the original question of will we be buying into the re-imagining of Parker-Bowles? The answer is NO! Not interested in ever seeing her as Queen.
I seem to remember that when Camilla and Charles first met, she said something like, “Hey, my great-great-grandmother was your great-great-grandfather’s mistress. Want to re-live history?”
I wonder if anyone’s going to ask William and Harry their opinion about whether Camilla should be Queen.
And there’s absolutely no reason that Camilla should be Queen (or Queen Consort) just because she’s married to a King. There have been several instances in history where it didn’t happen. What they’ve got is pretty much a morganatic marriage anyway.
Emily, Diana said she loved Charles. And the King having mistresses was still wrong. George VI and George V did not cheat on their wives. Charles named Camilla which was a no no by previous royal males who had mistresses. HE forced the divorce of the PBs and got confronted by her angry father. I think he became obligated and had to whitewash the sordidness by spin doctors. I think Charles loves himself first and foremost.
Sandy, Charles did not force the PB divorce. It’s well known that Andrew PB wasn’t a faithful husband from day one. That marriage wasn’t the faithful bed, except for dastardly Camilla, that you wish it to be.
Andrew and Camilla were both having affairs in their marriage and happy to maintain that status quo forever.
By naming Camilla publicly, it was Diana who forced the PB divorce because they couldn’t maintain their status quo marriage.
And Andrew married his then mistress exactly 3mths after the divorce from Camilla was finalised. And he went on to cheat on that marriage too.
Camilla’s dad confronted Charles because of the public shaming of Camilla and the public were not kind to her. She was physically assaulted, no father wants to see their daughter treated that way, and all that was blamed on Charles when really it was Diana who orchestrated it by naming Camilla rather than all the other mistresses that Charles had OR calling out her own husband, whose sole responsibility their marriage should have been. To this day people still bitch about Camilla and absolve Charles when it’s established beyond reasonable doubt that a cheating partner doesn’t cheat if the marriage is solid.
What’s interesting to me is how their relationship shows how wildly times have changed, but with an undercurrent that calls back to the past.
The prince or king nearly always mistresses. In England, he was supposed to be somewhat discreet about it, but he was still supposed to sleep around. Throughout Europe, the prince and king almost always ended up with a “favorite” — a woman who was with him for decades and who influenced politics heavily. This woman was often hated and blamed for her influence (NOT for merely being a mistress, that was expected), but it was probably the most powerful position any woman could aspire to.
A queen or a princess who married a prince was supposed to not care, and often, she didn’t. It’s not like she married for love. Of course, she didn’t have the freedom to have affairs herself.
Charles and those who pushed him to marry Diana (and it was a political decision) seem to have been under the impression it was still 1750. They knew Charles loved another woman, but seem not to have understood why it mattered. What did love have to do with the marriage of the male heir to the throne? But once she woke up (after having married a man she didn’t love either), Diana realized that being a princess wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. She didn’t love her husband and he didn’t love her, but they were stuck. I think Charles and Diana ended up with an arrangement where they would ignore each other’s affairs, which sent various conservative elements into a tizzy. The precedent was that she’d ignore his affairs, but not vice versa; they were breaking the rules.
Then they broke the rules again by divorcing. Then Charles broke the rules AGAIN, and in a major way, by marrying the woman who had been his mistress. He married for love and not for politics. That’s what we dream princes and kings do, but it is not what they do. And to break with this precedent is to say that a central tenet of monarchy is wrong. It’s to say that even heirs to the throne should marry for love, not politics, when marrying for politics was one of the things that kept monarchies going for centuries.
Now there’s Prince William, who was allowed to choose his wife on his own, and generally people have approved of that fact even if they don’t approve his choice. But I think he also expected to be able to choose everything on his own and just live the life of an ultra-rich brat with no responsibilities. It will be interesting to see how this ends up shaking out.
+ 1000!!!
Applause! Applause! Applause!
Well, I think a great way to deal with this situation is for the monarch to be king or queen, and the spouse be prince or princess. That’s what is the current situation with Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, why not continue it? So we’d have King Charles and Princess Camilla, and later on (maybe) King William and Princess Catherine. Makes perfect sense.
I like Camilla. I think she comes across as sincere, down to earth and fun loving. I think she and Charles are truly meant to be together.
I also like Diana. I think it’s heartbreaking that she isn’t here. She deserved to be happy too.
I like Charles. I think he has made mistakes but haven’t we all? (Though our mistakes may be less or more serious than his mistakes – point is we are all flawed). I hope he has a long, happy life with Camilla.
All three involved – Camilla, Diana and Charles – are/were good people, who made mistakes but deserve/deserved to be happy.
And I already have the perfect title … “They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?”. … What? …. Title has already been used? Well damn!