Duchess Camilla: The years during my affair were ‘a deeply unpleasant time’

Cheltenham day 2

Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, turns 70 years old in July (which is creeping up on us in a steady clip, right?). To mark the the start of Camilla’s septuagenarian years, she’s given an exclusive interview to the Daily Mail’s You Magazine, which you can read here. While I’m still a Diana-obsessive, I don’t hate Camilla at all. I think it’s perfectly possible to admire and respect Diana’s life and her memory and still think that Camilla seems like a fun, interesting person who is also more suited to Prince Charles than Diana ever was. But I do think there’s a fine line that Camilla has to acknowledge, which is that no one is ever going to find particularly sympathetic, especially not when she talks about how hard her life was when she was openly carrying on an affair with Charles while he was still married to Diana. Here are some highlights from the interview:

On her 200 royal events a year: “Sometimes you get up in the morning and think you can’t do it, and you just have to. The minute you stop it’s like a balloon, you run out of puff – you sort of collapse in a heap.”

Boosting trade, post-Brexit: “If you are a positive person, you can do so much more. People are either glass half-empty or glass half-full. I always think hopefully. You just have to get on with it. Being British!”

She misses her brother Mark Shand, who died in 2014: “Mark always wanted something. When I heard his voice on the phone saying, ‘Camillsy…’ I knew immediately he wanted something. But God, I miss him.”

She loves to read & she has a strong character: “For about a year, when we lived at Middlewick, I couldn’t really go anywhere. But the children came and went as normal – they just got on with it – and so did great friends. I would pass the time by reading a lot – more than I’d ever have been able to in a normal life. I thought, well, if I’m stuck here I might as well do something positive like read all the books I want to read, and try to learn to paint – though that wasn’t a huge success! – and after a while, life sort of went on. I don’t think I’m tough but I do think I’m quite a strong character. You have to be, but I think it also comes from my upbringing. We were brought up in a very happy family and I can’t whinge about my childhood because it was idyllic.”

The years when she was villainized for her affair with Charles: “It was horrid. It was a deeply unpleasant time and I wouldn’t want to put my worst enemy through it. I couldn’t have survived it without my family.’ Is she good at putting things that are difficult in a box and saying, ‘I’m moving on?’ ‘Most definitely, yes,’ she replies.

Her preparation for royal life: “Thank goodness I was brought up with the grounding of my parents, and taught manners. It sounds, especially in this day and age, sort of snobbish but we left school at 16, nobody went on to university unless you were a real brainbox. Instead, we went to Paris and Florence and learned about life and culture and how to behave with people, how to talk to people. This was very ingrained in my upbringing and if I hadn’t had that, I would have found royal life much more difficult.”

[From The Daily Mail]

In some ways, I do think that what you see is what you get with Camilla – she’s not a woman with a lot of mystery. She loves her kids, her horses, her dogs, her books and her husband. Her interior life is full of books and little self-doubt. She doesn’t go in for a lot of self-analysis. I don’t doubt that those years – the 1990s, basically – were difficult for her, when she was part of the crazy soap opera that was Charles and Diana’s marriage. But I still don’t have any sympathy for Camilla at all because… sh-t, she made the choice the bang Charles for years and she was part of the campaign to gaslight Diana. So, yeah, this interview probably didn’t help.

Prince Charles and Camilla arrive for a private audience at the Vatican

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

160 Responses to “Duchess Camilla: The years during my affair were ‘a deeply unpleasant time’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Victoria says:

    Manners enough not to sleep with a married man? I don’t feel bad for her. 😒

    • Nancito says:

      Boo effin’ hoo. Cry me a river.

    • Clare says:

      Yeah…no sympathy here. Charles is 100% responsible for his actions (as was Diana), but Camilla knowingly carried on an affair with a married man for several years. It was utterly utterly selfish, and sorry you can’t undo that.

    • minx says:

      The years during her affair were “horrid?” “deeply unpleasant?” And she had nothing to do with that? I’m not a prude, and I know marriages fall apart and there are grey areas; I know Diana certainly had her faults. But Charles and Camilla have to live with what they did.
      If Camilla thinks she sounds sympathetic here or worthy of pity, she must be crazy.

      • LAK says:

        She’s referencing a specific period after 1992 when she was outed by Diana and the public took to publicly bullying and abusing her. It got so bad that she didn’t leave her house for more than a year. It was as good as prison with better amenities.

      • Carmen says:

        I don’t blame Diana for outing her. What was Diana supposed to do? Play the resigned, submissive wife and say nothing? BS on that.

      • LAK says:

        Diana wasn’t being submissive privately. For starters she was in a long term love affair of her own. Her lover from that period can’t shut up about it.

      • Ennie says:

        I thought that Diana started carrying on affairs after she found out how deep was Camilla’s and Charles’ relationship.
        I understand that they had cooled off what they had and then went back, and that is when Diana went to “clarify” things with Camilla. After taht painful situation, she started trying to get back to Charles and find someone who cared for her or loved her, within the contriction of royal life.
        We Know how unlucky in love she continued to be.
        I have read how “discreet” rotalty was or still is to carry on with blatant affairs. Camilla’s husband knew and dis not care, as he had his own side women. I understand that Diana was a romantic that did not sign for that life, coming from a broken home herself. I think she tried to do as others did, carrying on with different men, but that was not for her, she was too in touch with her feelings,I think she was looking for real love while these more experienced people were so casual about it.

    • Lilly says:

      Right? I thought old-fashioned manners included no affairs with married people too.

      • Zondie says:

        +1

      • LAK says:

        Actually, old-fashioned manners for that set is do not be messy in public. Affairs are accepted, preferrably with married people, and they all have them. Diana simultaneously accepted and played by these rules in terms of her own affairs which included married men whilst rejecting her husband playing to the same rules.

      • imqrious2 says:

        LAK, not quite fair, as she did not have affairs until the marriage was completely broken. Charles, on the other hand, carried on his affairs with two women, emotionally AND physically throughout his relationship with Diana, before the engagement and after the marriage. He felt it was his birthright to have mistresses, as other kings/princes before him; the women in his life had no say in the matter.

    • sienna says:

      Why does everyone seem to forget that this was an arranged marriage? Charles only proposed to Diana because he was getting-on in age and Prince Phillip kept pressuring him to hurry up and marry. He was in need of a wife and she was a titled virgin, it was a business arrangement. He was never going to be faithful, and she only had to be, until she provided and Heir and a Spare.

      Unfortunately, I think she forgot this was all business. When asked if they were marrying for love, Diana replied, “Of course.” “Whatever love means,” added the prince.

      He never loved her and never intended to be faithful… he did not feel that was part of their arrangement. Unfortunately, and she was too young and too in love with the idea of being a princess to turn and run the other way.

      • Cynical Ann says:

        Actually the pressure from Philip was to make up his mind-not to marry her per se. He always gets a bad rap for pressuring Charles to marry her but that was not at all what he meant.

      • shannon says:

        I don’t think Diana knew it was an arranged marriage, I think she was truly in love. She was nineteen when Charles was courting her and he was the Prince of Wales. This is on him.

      • PrincessK says:

        The only man Diana truly loved was Charles.

      • Cynical Ann says:

        @PrincessK-actually I think the man she loved was the Pakistani heart surgeon that wouldn’t marry her.

    • NtSoSclBtrfly says:

      Those are some tasteless quotes. Poor, poor Camilla. Meh.

      • imqrious2 says:

        As Nancito said: “Boo effin’ hoo” for Camilla. She literally made her bed (although considering her background, I’m sure the maid does it for her).

    • Ella says:

      Camilla’s not complaining about “the years during her affair.” She’s specifically complaining about press intrusion and the public backlash after the affair was made public. I’m not defending the affair itself (although, let’s face it, the marriage was a disaster and there were affairs on both sides), but she suffered a lot more than Charles did.

  2. LAK says:

    She did wrong. No ifs or buts about that.

    However, the level of public bullying she suffered to extent that she couldn’t leave her house for more than a year was a low point for our society. And by bullying i mean verbal abuse and people throwing food at her. One such incident actually made the news.

    Murderers are better treated. They are put in a proper prison and their human rights respected or else they sue.

    • Maria F. says:

      i agree. Of course it was wrong, but let’s not forget we are all human and adultery happens daily with ‘regular’ people and they get to keep living their lives.

      I still believe that she would have not gotten the amount of hate and critic if she would have been a long legged, blond, 25 year old. People could just not understand that Charles loved a regular woman which led to this witch hunt.

      • LAK says:

        I agree. People were affronted by the details AND the reversal of the fairytale trope. Prince Charming is supposed to fall for the beautiful princess, not the earthy, plain woman.

      • MissMarierose says:

        I totally agree. There were a lot of digs at her looks during that time. As if it were completely inconceivable that someone could want her over the “beautiful” Diana.
        It was a sad commentary on lookism in our society.

    • LadyMTL says:

      ITA. A part of me says, hey, you made you bed…you knew what you were doing when you carried on an affair with PC. That said, the level of vitriol and hatred thrown her way was off the charts crazy, you’d have thought she had tried to murder the Queen or something.

      • Chrissy says:

        Did she give one thought to how these comments are affecting Diana’s children, never mind any Diana fans, especially during this the 20th anniversary year of her death? Why dredge all this up again after she’s been grudgingly accepted? I think she should save the “woe is me” scenario for either her shrink or her priest. SMH

      • Ella says:

        She gets along very well with Diana’s children. I think they understand pretty well that their parents’ marriage was miserable, and they seem happy that their father is now happy.

    • Sixer says:

      I think she should not give interviews about it.

      I think the injustice for her was the press (and Diana) narrative was that it was only her from the moment of the engagement onwards and the affair went on without a break from the moment of the engagement onwards.

      She took ALL the shit when it should have been shared out.

      • Natalie S says:

        Right, for me Charles had the most responsibility because he was the one who took vows. I believe he emotionally cheated on Diana and was disrespectful to her from day one.
        He was only courteous if she stayed in the role he assigned her.

        He was the one who should have been pelted with a bread roll (I don’t care if it’s not polite. Sometimes a person deserves a bread roll pelted at them).

        I think she and Charles should stop talking about it. It’s okay to feel shame for something and not seek for people to understand. It’s distasteful that twenty to thirty years later she’s still dragging all this out because she wants people to know how she felt. Total self-absorption or guilty conscience.

      • minx says:

        She should zip it.

      • LAK says:

        I agree that she shouldn’t have spoken about it, but it is the elephant in the room. Everyone has had their say except her. I sincerely don’t think she’s asking for sympathy or emotionally unburdening herself for plus points. She’s saying it was a hideous time and that is that.

        I have sympathy because i don’t believe she was treated fairly in those years, and especially because she wasn’t the only mistress at any given point of Charles’s life. If Diana had any grievances, she should have excoriated Charles. He was the one who was unfaithful and with several women, some as longstanding as Camilla.

      • Sixer says:

        I think all sides behaved badly and I’m the monogamous type myself since polyamory always seems to end up with someone getting hurt and who gets hurt usually reflects power relations within relationships. Charles was the one with the power so I see him as the guiltiest. That said, it’s not as though the artistos and their informal swinging isn’t well known and that Diana pretended she wasn’t aware how her own set rolled doesn’t reflect well on her either.

        But the facts are these: the Camilla Charles affair wasn’t a constant thing that ran from the time of the Charles Diana engagement right up to after her death and the Charles Camilla marriage. Charles had several affairs long before the official Wales separation and at least one (Kanga) as long running and serious as any of the Camilla interludes.

        I dislike this being airbrushed from history so that Camilla plays the role of witch all alone. This is not how it went at all. That doesn’t mean I condone her having an affair with a married Charles that caused distress to Diana. Because of course I don’t.

        I think it’s best left in the past now. And it’s not as though anybody’s mind is going to be changed if Camilla speaks about it. She’s better off just getting on with being a reasonably successful royal.

      • LAK says:

        Sixer: That’s exactly how i feel about this saga, and you explain it perfectly.

      • bluhare says:

        Actually I don’t think any of it was our business. It was their personal lives and for the most part did not affect their public roles at all. But Diana was not content to suffer in silence so she put it out for everyone’s consumption. And she was wildly successful, as shown by everyone arguing about it more than 20 years later.

      • Elaine says:

        I think Charles and Camilla and their PR have agreed to this ‘one-lover, one-mistress’ story because it makes it seem more like a Grand Romance. Rather than the sordid bed-hopping it actually was.

        Charles, married, multiple mistresses. Camilla, married, (unsure of how many lovers?). Diana, married, lovers. Andrew Parker-Bowles, married, sooo many many lovers.

        Gross.

        JMVHO (Just my very humble opinion).

      • Ella says:

        She never has given interviews about it. But people have obviously been asking her the same questions for years, and I think it’s reasonable to address them honestly.

        @Elaine: I think the fact that Charles and Camilla were friends before and after they initially dated, carried on an affair during his marriage, moved heaven and earth to marry (needing as they did the approval of the government, the queen and the church) after Diana’s death, and have stayed together since, suggests that they do have, if not a “grand romance,” at least an enduring one. And there’s no indication that Camilla had other affairs.

    • Carrie says:

      I agree with you, except for remembering that she taunted Diana from the beginning, including being at her wedding. One of Diana’s first most painful memories was walking down the aisle and spotting Camilla in the crowd, if memory serves from reading Morton’s book. Then when Diana confronted Camilla and Charles at a party downstairs years later and Camilla was so cavalierly cruel to Diana about her own husband…

      No tears for Camilla here.

      • LAK says:

        Morton’s book is not balanced in any way. Diana was in a very dark place when she had Andrew Morton ghost write it for her. She was out for revenge and Diana was awful and cruel when she lashed out.

        She told many tales in that book that were outright untruths at worst and or exaggerations at best to paint herself as the cruelly wronged victim of Charles and the royals.

        To be clear, i’m not suggesting that Charles and Camilla weren’t at fault, but Diana was no shrinking violent and was always happy to embellish a tale to cast herself as a victim for public sympathy.

        Regarding that wedding story, it’s always incredible to me that she focused on Camilla at the wedding, yet ignored mistress no 2 who was also at the wedding. Everything thrown at Camilla is equally true of mistress no 2. Yet, Diana was fine with no 2 and actually befriended her knowing her history with Charles and the ongoing affair.

      • PrincessK says:

        Me too, Camilla Shand is an arch manipulator.

      • Carrie says:

        LAK, thanks for the info. How do you know parts of that book were untrue? I’ve never heard that. Also about a second mistress. Genuinely would love to read about these things you mentioned because it’s brand new news to me.

        With respect, my opinion stands. Imo, regardless of what place Diana was in for the Morton book, it was that book which finally made the royal family listen to her and grant her freedom. She was in a bad place and had to use Morton for a book precisely because of how Charles treated her and no small contributions from Camilla, again imo.

        Perhaps Diana was ok with mistress #2 (never heard of this person) because that one didn’t taunt Diana and respected her marriage to some degree. I have no idea. Never heard of a #2. I remember those years. Camilla was written up in press and it was known. There had to be a reason for that vs. a second mistress never hitting mainstream print. I don’t know.

  3. aj says:

    “we left school at 16, nobody went on to university unless you were a real brainbox. Instead, we went to Paris and Florence and learned about life and culture and how to behave with people, how to talk to people”

    I’m curious about this; they went to paris and florence and did what? Had jobs? Went to manners classes? And lived with whom during that time?

    (Rme @ playing the victim even though she was the mistress and they treated diana like sh-t)

    • LaLa says:

      She probably went to some sort of “Finishing School”, which is a boarding school for girls where they are taught some basic protocol, how to entertain guests, how to have a good conversation. It was common for women to do that until a couple generations ago.

    • LAK says:

      What Lala said.

      Both Diana and Camilla went to Finishing school.

      • vava says:

        Too bad Kate didn’t…..

      • Ella says:

        You want Kate to go to “finishing school?” That’s ridiculously outmoded. Far better to just engage with people naturally. Who wants yet another cookie-cutter aristocrat?

    • grumpy says:

      In Florence I think she probably lived in the house owned by her family which her grandmother or great-grandmother (don’t remember which) was able to acquire as a result of being the mistress of King Edward 7th. She visited it recently as part of an Italian tour with Charles.

  4. NeoCleo says:

    She should just keep mum about that time in her life–it’s not a good look for her.

    • Justjj says:

      Agree.

    • Luca76 says:

      Yup I’m against slut shaming entirely but she shouldn’t by any means rehash that topic.

    • Nancito says:

      Absolutely, she has sadly misjudged popular opinion if she thinks that anyone feels that she was hard done by.

      • Ella says:

        I think she was hard done by. She copped a lot more flak personally than Charles did, and the hysterical Diana fandom of the 90’s had a dark side. I don’t approve of extra-marital affairs under any circumstances, but I also think the intensity of the public hatred for “the other woman” was ridiculous.

        It was a long time ago, and she’s entitled to answer a journalist’s questions honestly if she so chooses.

    • Carrie says:

      I think this is preparation for when the Queen is no longer the Queen. They’re trying to warm up the public. I have given up caring about Camilla or Charles. He’ll be King and they need to just handle that and keep Camilla quiet. I don’t care about her or what she feels or thinks.

      • PrincessK says:

        Camilla said that she never wanted to marry Charles….yeah right! She is still saying she does not want to be Queen…yeah right!

      • Ella says:

        She’s not going to be queen, she’s going to be “Princess Consort.”

        Nobody wants to be queen. Not even the current queen wanted to be the queen.

  5. JEM says:

    Charles: Oh. God. I’ll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be much easier!
    Camilla: (laughing) What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers?
    (Both laugh)
    Camilla: Oh, You’re going to come back as a pair of knickers.
    Charles: Or, God forbid a Tampax. Just my luck! (Laughs)
    Camilla: You are a complete idiot (Laughs) Oh, what a wonderful idea.
    Charles: My luck to be chucked down the lavatory and go on and on forever swirling round on the top, never going down.
    Camilla: (Laughing) Oh, Darling!
    Charles: Until the next one comes through.
    Camilla: Oh, perhaps you could come back as a box.
    Charles: What sort of box?
    Camilla: A box of Tampax, so you could just keep going.
    Charles: That’s true.

    • Elaine says:

      #NevahForget

      😉

    • PrincessK says:

      A wonderful example of how Camilla managed to hook weak Charles by fawning over him, hanging on his every word, and agreeing with everything he did, and repeatedly telling him how wonderful he was all the time. A very cunning woman, an arch manipulator.

  6. Mel M says:

    Is there a little bit of Kate shade in there? She went to university and still seems to not have gotten the hang of royal life.

    I used to think she was terrible but have become a small fan over the years. At least she hit the ground running after getting the ring and she still works all of the time.

    • Anitas says:

      I’m convinced it’s just a clever PR tactic, to make her more palatable to the Queen and the public. Charles apparently insists on her being titled queen when he takes over, and with her reputation she has to hit the ground running if they want this to happen.

    • Carrie says:

      If you see shade, then there is shade.

  7. JustJen says:

    I’ve despised her from the get-go and this did not help her at all in my eyes. The “Camilla years” is another reason I don’t feel the least bit sorry for Charles as he is shut out of life with his grandchildren. They can do a million works for charity and they’re still trolls in pretty clothes to me.

    • Badoosh2678 says:

      Yep

    • Cynical Ann says:

      You do know that Diana cheated too, right?

      • Melanie says:

        people seem to get amnesia about diana’s affairs with married men.

      • Carrie says:

        Print sources after they separated wrote that Diana didn’t have affairs until after she knew Charles didn’t care about her. She admitted this in that tv interview as well. I’m not saying she’s faultless. But she didn’t go into this marriage fully cognizant of the situation. The manipulation and how they used her was cruel and selfish. She believed Charles loved her. He didn’t. She was naive, they took advantage of that.

    • PrincessK says:

      Yes, I am sure it would turn Williams stomach to have Camilla’s paws all over Diana’s grandchildren, no wonder Charles sees little of them.

  8. scylla74 says:

    I always find it sort of amusing but also slightly disturbing how some people are so invested in the whole “who fucks who”…

    Of course I get that most times affairs are shitty and there is a also hurt to deal with… but it should be with the people who are actually involved in this. So that friends and family takes sides and may side-eye people I get.
    Outsiders DO NOT KNOW what it really looks like in any other relationship. Normally two happy people do not cheat.

    This whole public shaming for nearly 30 decades is actually sort of selfserving (to make oneself look good? get the anger out over ones one hurt?…) I really do not get what good comes out to bring this up again and again and again and again.

    • Desi says:

      I think people feel like they have to keep dredging this up because Charles has been working discreetly behind the scenes for years to ensure that Camilla is made queen if and when he takes the throne.

      His very well-oiled PR machine regularly trots out this “See? She ain’t so bad after all” media campaign to soften up the British people toward the idea, because he is adamant that’s what’s going to happen. Regardless of whether she wants it – by most accounts, she does not.

      But it’s not about her. Charles wants his Queen “Fuck You, Mummy” Camilla so bad he can taste it.

      That they’re choosing to press this with the 20th anniversary of Diana’s death coming up makes them either breathtakingly clueless, or gaping assholes. Taking into account past behavior and the basic personalities of everyone involved, I lean more toward the latter.

      You can’t really publicly shame someone who’s incapable of feeling shame in the first place. Frankly, Charles should count himself lucky that his kids will even tolerate being in the same room with that woman, and quit while he’s ahead.

      • LAK says:

        I wager the kids are alright with this because they are great friends with people who enabled this affair.

        Further, Anmer Hall is one of the houses used by Charles and Camilla for their trysts. At the time the house was occupied by the aforementioned friends and their kids. One of these kids is godparent to George.

    • Deeanna says:

      It was the gaslighting of Diana that really bothered me. And the part where Camilla was “chumming up” to Diana during the engagement, giving her “advice” on how to deal with Charles. And later in the marriage, when Camilla was hostessing dinner parties in Diana and Charles’ house! And this woman now claims that she was raised to have “good manners”??

      The story of Camilla is well known and was well known at the time. She was a side piece who kept her place as Mistress #1 by being “always available” – which apparently was pretty easy since her own husband was busy, busy, busy with his own unceasing infidelities. She bolstered Charles in his belief that he was an “intellectual” – much smarter than your average Royal, with simply wonderful ideas – and offered him unending sympathy for his lot in life, his “bad marriage”, etc.

      These two deserved each other. And may Diana rest in peace.

      Camilla should have kept her mouth shut.

      Indeed, this interview was likely a result of an attempt by “Charles’ people” to work on the continued rehabilitation of their images.

  9. Beth says:

    I’ve never cheated or been a mistress, and never ever would. But, she’s definitely not the first, last,or only person who ever did. I have no pity for cheaters .
    It must have been hard seeing her first love who she still felt for with someone else. Since Princess Diana was one of the most famous, loved,and adored people in the world, that must have been tough to see

    • LAK says:

      Charles was not the love of her life. Her husband Andrew was the love of her life. Charles was merely a daliance and a distraction as she pursued Andrew. Unfortunately for her, Andrew was an unrepentant philanderer who was never faithful to her.

      Here is the rub, if Diana hadn’t outed her affair with Charles, it’s highly likely that she would have remained married to Andrew because affairs aside, they remained committed to each other.

      Further, if she was the love of Charles’s life, it took him 30yrs to make a decision because he was in a love triangle with Camilla and mistress no 2 throughout the 70s and most of the 80s. And managed to date other women additionally to the 2 mistresses. He proposed to 2 ladies, one of them several times and was turned down on the grounds of ever present mistresses.

      In terms of his marriage, everything thrown at Camilla was equally true of mistress no 2. No 2 was as involved and as interested in finding a bride for Charles and carried on the affair after he married Diana.

      They have discovered a contentment and love in old age, but the idea that they are true love’s thwarted dream is a PR fiction. And lucky for them the other 2 participants in this saga are dead and can’t contradict this version of events.

      • Beth says:

        They fell in love in the early 70’s. Charles didn’t want to settle down and get married, so she moved on and married her husband. Charles and Camilla started their affair because they were still in love. The love of your life isn’t always the first person you marry

      • LAK says:

        According to all biographers of that set, not only was Camilla in love with Andrew, but she was also desperate to marry him. Charles was a distraction in the Andrew-Camilla drama. When Andrew finally proposed, Camilla married him. She wasn’t holding out for Charles nor was she interested in him beyond a fling.

        Charles started up with mistress no 2 a mere 3months after he had begun his affair with Camilla in the 70s. His affair with mistress no 2 ran parallel with his affair with Camilla throughout the 70s and 80s. He later declared that mistress no 2 was the only woman who ever understood him.

      • Carrie says:

        LAK, you’ve given me a bright spot to see in this mess. The thought that Camilla lost the true love of her life due to Diana calling her out is worth a lot in healing. Good for Diana.

        Now I don’t want to hear from this shrew ever again. The royal family needs to put her away or keep her silent.

      • Cynical Ann says:

        @Carrie-jeez, you act as though you were the person Charles wronged. The “shrew” has been a huge asset to the BRF.

      • Erinn says:

        @Carrie
        Not sure how much moral high-ground Diana had calling Camilla out for cheating when she too had an affair from 1986-1991.

      • Carrie says:

        @Cynical Ann – My opinions are based on witnessing the fall out for Diana and her two children. The public reaction to Diana’s death is same I’d wager.

  10. JaneDoesWork says:

    She makes it sound as if the fallout from their affair is something that happened TO her. You initiated it, you pompous twat. Then peasants deigned to call you out on it and it was quite difficult. Give me a break. You know who I bet it was more difficult for? Diana and her sons. Grow a brain.

    • Maria says:

      Exactly. The lady had a choice. She could have stopped the affair, and don’t forget she had a rival during those years, Lady Kanga Tryon. So it wasn’t like she was the love of Charles’s life.
      I will give her credit for the work she does and that she makes Charles happy. But that’s it.

    • graymatters says:

      Diana was the one who publicized the affair, though. I’m sure she was just lashing out in her hurt and confusion, but the press interest in the breakdown of her marriage and Camilla’s role was all on Di.

      • Desi says:

        The press already smelled blood in the water when Camilla and her husband separated a full year before all the infamous recordings and interviews came out. With Camilla finally “free,” (ha) Charles desperately wanted a divorce. The “family” wasn’t budging, but they did see it was probably inevitable, and so set about to control the narrative. Which, like so many things about Diana, exploded spectacularly in their faces.

        Diana very much believed – and there’s actually some pretty compelling evidence she was right – that British secret services had been enlisted to publicly pin the breakdown of the marriage on her. What happened next was very much a “Oh, yeah? Well, we’ll see about that” move on Diana’s part, and I can’t really blame her for it.

  11. What's Inside says:

    They are complicit in the death of another through years of joint bad behavior and collusion. What goes around, comes around.

  12. Dr Snark says:

    Does anyone have a suggestion for a good book on the Charles-Diana-Camilla story? Not white-washed Royal approved BS, but also not something that’s entirely false?

    • LAK says:

      I’m not sure there is a definitive book on the subject. There is alot of information erased from the narrative of the official books, even those hostile to one or the other participant which suits the royal narrative.

      Thankfully there are many people on CB who lived through this saga in the 80s and 90s and we remember some of the erased detail and recognise the PR fiction that is this triangle.

      It takes reading different books, newscuttings, videos to piece together anything close to the truth.

      2 books to avoid at all costs, Andrew Morton and Penny Junor.

      • lallyvee says:

        Sally Bedell Smith’s book, Prince Charles, which is out right now goes into the affair.

      • LAK says:

        Lallyvee: I haven’t read that one. Thanks for the reminder. I have it in a pile ready to read. My friend read it and said Charles doesn’t come out well.

    • Dr Snark says:

      Thank you both!

    • PrincessK says:

      I would recommend The Diana Chronicles by Tina Brown. A thoroughly researched and balanced account. I really appreciated reading her perspective on the sad saga.

  13. Bitsy says:

    My dad cheated with his secretary for all my parents marriage and is now married to her. The secretary was married twice during their long affair. At first, when he tried bringing her around, no one would deal with them together. Friends and family were rude towards her and ignored her at social events. So my father began his own campaign and started slowly acclimating everyone by talking about how sweet she was, her good deeds, and how smart she is… didn’t work. But i learned something important. It truly takes two to tango. Anyone who is complicit in an affair, even the bystanders who allow the spouse to bring the mistress around them at social events and such, is self -serving and lacks morals period. I’m sure Camilla is intelligent and fun, but she and Charles have shown us who they are and we should believe them.

  14. A says:

    I met Camilla once and while I understand that public events must get tiring, she was pretty miserable. Charles was far more friendly and engaging with people.

  15. kyle says:

    Is that hat in the top photo made out of Kermit the Frog?

  16. Lightpurple says:

    Stepping aside from all the Charles & Diana stuff – Hey, Princess Nagini, Camilla read the “no veils near the Pope!” protocol memo. That’s how it is done so you don’t get the “what the hell does that idiot have on her head & didn’t she get my “NO VEILS” memo? Is she deliberately insulting me?” facial expression

    • Katie says:

      Michelle Obama and Laura Bush wore black veils when meeting the Pope. So did Diana and the Queen, and Camilla at a different meeting. It is protocol. Royals can also wear white and these days some skip the head covering when it’s a slightly more informal meeting, but politicians or their wives almost always wear a black veil or headscarf.

      • LAK says:

        Only a select group of reigning Catholic Queens and Princesses and or women married to a Catholic Sovereign can wear white to meet the Pope. It’s called ‘Privilege du Blanc’ . Everyone else wears black. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilège_du_blanc

        That said, it’s at the discretion of the sitting Pope, and in recent times Pope Francis has allowed certain high profile women to wear to wear their own preferred colours eg Queen Elizabeth in 2014 and Camilla in 2017. There is a thought that he has relaxed the rules around this dress code though white remains privileged to the select group of Queens and Princesses, and most women continue to wear black and cover their heads.

  17. Zaratustra says:

    Camillsy,

    your affair with Prince Charles did destroy his marriage and ultimately his ex-wife Diana. Charles’ and Diana’s boys had to grow up with a tortured mother during your affair and without a mother some time later as a consequence of your and Charlsy’s behaviour.

    A bit more respect would be appropriate.

  18. reverie says:

    Ok hold up now. I actually love their story.

    Camilla and Charles knew each other nearly their entire lives. Prior to either of their marriages they fell in love, and they fell madly in love. Despite this she was not considered wife material for the Prince… which is classic and has been since the dawn of royalty. Queen Elizabeth wanted him to marry a Spencer at some point in his life and Charles delayed it as much as he could by refusing to marry until he was 30. Being quite young at the time and not up for the fight, they split.

    Camilla soon married Parker-Bowls and when Charles heard of their engagement he wrote a letter to his beloved godfather Lord Mountbatten saying that he hoped the pain would subside one day. When Mountbatten was assassinated by the IRA in 1979 Camilla was there for Charles and she was the one that he turned to. Their romance was rekindled at that point.

    Camilla’s husband knew about it and was fine with it, as he had his own lover on the side. Charles went on to marry a Spencer like his mother had always wanted… Lady Diana. Let that sink in a minute to get an idea of what Camilla and Charles were up against in terms of being in love and considered incompatible. Clearly infidelity was rife among the upper class and who could hardly blame them.

    As time went on… all these marriages… fell apart and all of these affairs came together as they should have been from the start. Camilla and Parker Bowls divorced, he married his long term lover, Charles and Diana divorced, Camilla and Charles finally married. As it should have been 30 years ago had the royal family and upper classes let go of trying to hang on to ancient ideas concerning marriage.

    I dont blame either one of them… I dont think either one of them did wrong. I am happy that they found each other and lived their lives as best they could given the circumstances. I would never want to take away their happiness for the sake of saying what they did was morally wrong. When marriage is for diplomacy and relations and money and property and titles… where exactly is there room for morality?

    And yeah. I bet it was a deeply unpleasant time for her when it hit the news and suddenly she was a villain. How would it feel if everything that had been RIGHT for you your entire life but was withheld from you was being labelled as WRONG and that you were evil for pursuing it?

    • Natalie S says:

      “Queen Elizabeth wanted him to marry a Spencer at some point in his life”

      I’ve never heard that before. Where did you read that?

      • reverie says:

        @Natalie S

        I can’t pinpoint one place I read it, its rather common knowledge. If you read up on the marriages that were taking place amongst the upper class in the 1970’s, or even about Charles bachelorhood, Im sure it will be mentioned.

      • Natalie S says:

        I’ve read every major biography of Charles and Diana including those written in the eighties and nineties. That’s why I was so surprised. I’ve also read biographies on Elizabeth and Philip.

        The closest I can think of to what you said is Andrew and Diana used to play together as children and there was casual thinking about the two of them.

    • Joannie says:

      Great comment!

    • MissMarierose says:

      “When marriage is for diplomacy and relations and money and property and titles… where exactly is there room for morality?”

      Interesting question and one I bet most people haven’t ever considered.

      • Carrie says:

        I think people are well aware of marrying for titles etc. There are a lot of Jane Austen fans in the world. This aristocracy lifestyle isn’t news.

        For me it’s that Charles courted her as if, and she believed, he genuinely loved her. An arrangement is one thing. But to feign a connection based on emotions as a ruse to use someone and then treat that person cruelly when you’re done… that’s pretty twisted. Diana’s accomplishments despite this treatment were remarkable. She was remarkable.

  19. Zondie says:

    When Diana said she had serious doubts before the marriage and confided these feelings to her sisters, they responded “bad luck Duchess, your face is already on the tea towels.” I always thought that was very harsh of her sisters. What kind of family drops the ball like that when a member is in over their head and calling for help?

    • LAK says:

      People don’t like to acknowledge the Spencer family’s complicity in this disaster.

    • bluhare says:

      What LAK said. No one remembers the Spencers were as dysfunctional as they come and out for recognition too.

      • Darla says:

        Oh, some of us remember, but we are in the minority. I think Diana was very poorly served by her family. She and Charles should never have married. He should not have asked her so soon and she should not have said yes at all. But he did, and she did, and the rest is history. They ended up being miserable together, but I think that was inevitable.

        I can’t accept that Diana seriously believed that confronting Charles and Camilla at that party would have the effect of him returning to her with his tail between his legs. It was far too late for that. By then the marriage was well and truly over. Diana had had a five year affair with Hewitt, and there had also been others by then, I understand. By then I think divorce was inevitable because Diana wouldn’t play the game all the others in their set played. Not only that, she decided to play nasty and vindictive games of her own. What happened was very sad for all concerned. They should have been able to divorce as soon as it was obvious that the rot had set in and couldn’t be cured. If that had happened, Diana might have found someone suitable to marry and might have gone on to have a happy marriage.

        I was ecstatic when I heard Charles and Camilla were getting married. They are clearly blissfully happy together and they complement each other perfectly.

      • suze says:

        Really, where were her parents in this scenario? That’s right, off drinking and having affairs of their own.

        The two oldest girls managed to establish stable lives, but Diana and Charles lived out the crazy Spencer instability on public stages.

      • Carrie says:

        I remember it. Diana didn’t know the depth of this. Her family dynamic is proof enough which is really sad. Few treated her well, in the end. Even in death, her brother put her away on an island isolated and away from the public. Bizarre how her siblings claimed to love her, to lay claims on managing her estate, given how they treated her in life.

    • Zaratustra says:

      Think Game of Thrones!

      Marrying your daughter to the heir to the throne / to the king is worth more than your happiness. That is what the Spencer family was thinking.

  20. Cynical Ann says:

    Some of you are carrying on as if he cheated on you. What so many of you overlook is that in these circles, infidelity was the norm. As LAK said, Andrew Parker Bowles was a notorious philanderer, and Charles too was having other affairs. Diana herself had affairs and stalked married men. I don’t get the vitriol towards Camilla.

    • bluhare says:

      I think she’s a symbol of The Other Woman who can wreck your marriage.

      • Cynical Ann says:

        Two to tango. And again-she herself was The Other Woman multiple times herself. And it wasn’t the affair that wrecked their marriage. They were totally ill suited for each other.

      • Zaratustra says:

        @ Cynical Ann

        Diana was played in the beginning. She got into her own only a few years after Prince Harry’s birth. But before that she was an insecure and lonely adolescent (her development age was younger than her age in years). Prince Charles did chose her because he thought that she wouldn’t interfere with his life and love affairs and he thought that he could control her because she was so “young” / not worldly. Same for Camilla.
        Her Spencer family did let down Diana. They didn’t provide the support which was required for this young lady. They just enjoyed the idea of being related to the Royal Family.

        In the beginning Diana was a victim of their machinations.
        Later she gave back as good as she “got hit” speaking metaphorically. Because what else was she supposed to do? Just swallow everything stuffed into her throat – speaking metaphorically. Push a person hard enough then at some point they will lash out in retaliation.

  21. Suze says:

    The hysteria over a 30 year old affair that didn’t affect anyone on here personally speaks to the brilliant narrative Diana wrought. She would have been a fabulous PR person for sure.

    I admired Diana at the time and still do, but having lived through her heyday, I can tell you she wasn’t nearly as wronged as some of you believe. Charles had two mistresses, and who knows how many more casual flings, throughout the marriage. Camilla bears the brunt of the blame for all that unhappiness for some reason.

    Yes. She did a bad thing. So did Charles. And so did Diana. It was a mess. I would stack them up in order of blame as Charles, Camilla and then Diana, but the vitriol still, to this day, that gets hurled Camillas way is amazing.

    • bluhare says:

      Hear hear, Suze!!

    • Elaine says:

      The argument “It doesn’t affect you, why are you sooo hysterical?!” can be made about anyone we gossip about it. Angelina and Brad. Burt and Loni.

      Heck, if my Grandma could use the internet she might have a few things to say about Liz and Richard and their relationship (even the Pope condemned them!)

      So we care. People care! 30 years or 30 minutes, doesn’t matter. It may not matter to you, but that’s your right. Its a (free) internet message board. Walk away. No need to insult those who care about the sanctity of marriage 😉

      • suze says:

        It’s the thirty years that makes me shrug. I understand that people care about gossip, believe me. I’m here too.

        But don’t blame me if you feel insulted over ancient history! Geez, all this high minded morality is suddenly being bandied about when we spend most of our time here talking about people engaging in “immoral” activities.

        My point was that Diana wasn’t exactly all about the sanctity of marriage, either. None of that set are all that focused on it – they are different from you in that regard. And that Diana brilliantly got the media narrative on her side, so much so that to this day there are people vehemently defending her virtue on the internet.

      • Carrie says:

        Suze and others who judge Diana supporters – we’re not deluded. We’re standing up for Diana because she’s dead and not here to do it for herself. This is a discussion site and we’ve got different opinions which is fine with me. Why isn’t it fine with you?

      • nan says:

        Elaine, the affair didn’t affect anyone?? REALLY ??? It broke 2 marriages and left children broken hearted. .

      • Suze says:

        No one said you were deluded. I said that Diana’s power to build a media arc that makes people hysterical 30 years on is amazing.

        Stop taking this so personally.

    • tigerlily says:

      Agreed. I too wonder about people who are so invested in this how many years later. Grow up. Get a life of your own.

    • Zaratustra says:

      Charles’ faulty behaviour towards Diana does in no way excuse Camilla’s deeds.
      Camilla suggested that Charles should marry Diana because Camilla believed that Diana wouldn’t threatend her affair with Charles. She picked an easy victim like any bully.

      And there was more. Don’t get me started on Chucky and his bride.

  22. mayamae says:

    Are there really no comments other than the affair? That was the least of what she said, IMO. She doesn’t seem glass half full at all. Sure she does way more than her share of appearances, but publically complaining that the burden is almost unbearable smacks of martyrdom.

    Don’t get me started on the spin that raising spoiled rich kids to skip college so they can jet about Europe learning “manners” – utter rubbish.

    And how about that dearly departed brother who always called her because he wanted something from her?

    • LAK says:

      I don’t think she’s spinning or PR-ing her lack of education.

      University was free to all who could pass the necessary entrance exams, and the anecdotal belief was that you had to be pretty clever to do that. The wealth of your parents didn’t come into it.

      Otherwise, if you were poor, you finished your statutory education and went straight to work. For the rich kids, like Camilla, le grand tour beckoned. That was the expectation.

      She’s also not saying that women of her generation were educated to make good marriages. That was why they were still attending finishing school to learn manners when rest of the UK was waking up to education = success in life.

      Diana (and Camilla and Fergie) leaving school with nary an O level between them wasn’t as catastrophic for them as say poorer people since the only future expectation was a good marriage and nothing more.

    • Zaratustra says:

      @ mayamae

      It is true that many well-off families would sponsor one or two “cultural” gap years after graduation initially for their sons and later for their daughters. You have to remember that the “cultural” gap years of these kids do likely include mixing with rich business people and politicians in foreign countries. It is not the case that these kids ever worked anywhere during that “cultural” gap year. Basically it is similar to the concept of a “grand tour of Europe” which boys would usually do after graduating from high school / college / university.

      On a side note: When Camilla described that in her time nobody went to university unless they were a brainbox … then Camilla does expose something. Namely that the filthy rich aristo upper class didn’t even bother to educate their children because even if they were dimwits they would get a good job / position due to their parents’ wealth and influence/connections.
      And Camilla just confirmed that. She confirmed that she is from an ueber-entitled over-spoilt bratsky family who never bothered with education. And she sounds as if she were proud of that. No shame at all. No regard for today’s youth who try to get an education. Practically she confirmed that in her youth Britain was governed by an aristocracy / oligarchy / plutocracy. Because when you belonged into that group your career was guaranteed without regard of your actual qualifications.
      And she has no shame about it. She has no regard for today’s youth who desparately try to get an education and who are burdened by student debt. Because with a twinkle in her eye she says that in her time nobody bothered to get an education because people from her group got the good jobs anyway. Peasants may try but never succeed.

      These words of Camilla do reveal who she truly is and what kind of society Britain truly is. Spread the word.

  23. Deeanna says:

    “Charles and Camilla: Portrait of a Love Affair” by Gyles Bandreath is one of the best and most well documented books written about the affair. The author is a member of their “set” and knows many of the people involved. He thoroughly examines the backgrounds, family members, and friends of all three in the triangle. He also repeats every piece of gossip ever known about each of the three and then some.

    As LAK wrote above, Camilla was in love with Andrew Parker-Bowles and had been for years. The early affair with Charles was a fling on her part, designed to make Andrew jealous, not a case of “they fell madly in love”. The letter Charles wrote to his uncle about her engagement was just another “poor, poor pitiful me” expression – something Charles did all the time. And the relationship between Charles and Camilla was “rekindled” long before Mountbatten’s death.

    As for the Queen “wanting Charles to marry a Spencer”, I’ve never seen that in any of the many books I’ve read on this subject. The Queen did have a lady-in-waiting who was a relative of Diana’s – it might have been her maternal grandmother if I recall correctly. In any case, this woman was at one time promoting “a Spencer” – actually Diana’s older sister.

    Diana was not known to have had any affairs until well after Harry was born.

    • LAK says:

      I think the above poster means Queen Elizabeth the Queen mother rather than HM Queen Elizabeth. 2 different Elizabeths. And the Lady-in-Waiting of your comment is Lady Ruth Fermoy, Diana’s maternal grandmother. Between these 2 ladies, they thought a Spencer girl was the best choice for Charles, and as you say, Sarah over Diana.

      Simultaneously, Uncle Dickie Mountbatten was promoting the idea of his own grand-daughter, Amanda. He had succeeded in marrying his nephew Philip to HM, why not try again with another direct relation to really weld his bloodline to the British throne.

    • suze says:

      Lady Fermoy, Diana’s grandmother, and the Queen Mother, set about furthering the relationship. That is in Tina Brown’s book.

  24. Jessica says:

    For God’s sake he and Dianna had an awful marriage, and they were both rampantently unfathfil. Camilla seems like a lot of fun, and they appear to be a good match. *yes I am American*

  25. KiddVicious says:

    I love that so many here know the Royal back-stories. In the US it was mostly fluff pieces through People magazine and all about Diana.

  26. robyn says:

    Camilla, ugh, I can’t stand the woman … she interfered with a marriage and had no business doing it. No sympathy for her since, unlike Diana, she’s still alive, enjoying wealth and able to wear those hats that make her look so utterly ridiculous.

    • Cynical Ann says:

      She didn’t kill Diana. Diana made poor choices-who she was dating, not wearing a seatbelt-that has nothing to do with Camilla.

      • robyn says:

        Camilla didn’t kill Diana but she made some poor choices herself, especially getting involved with a man married to a young and vulnerable girl who thought she met Prince Charming but instead found an ugly toad.

    • nan says:

      Dear Robyn, you are spot on!

  27. Nicole Savannah, GA says:

    Didn’t Charles and Diana meet 12 times before their marriage? Is that ‘in love’?

  28. Christa says:

    Charles and Camilla were the adults in this scenario. I place most blame on Charles who knew what he was doing and imo took advantage of an emotionally unstable 19 year old. Later, faults on all sides. But initially, totally exploitative move. Camilla made choices as well…

  29. HappyMom says:

    Wow-the anger over Camilla is crazy!

  30. Maria says:

    I can”t understand why she is even bringing it up. it was a long time ago, and those who didn”t live through it might not even know the whole story. Stupid of her to dredge it up and to play the victim.

    • nan says:

      She is bringing it up, so she can get some kind of closure and rest of mind for messing around with a married man when she was also married. She is going to suffer mentally about this for the rest of her life, and when she dies I hope she burns in hell for ever, if there is a Heaven and Hell.

  31. diane Paszkiewicz says:

    No sympathy what so ever. She best to keep quiet if she does not want to loose her already popular vote. This is a worn out topic to which if they ( Charles and Camilla) want any popular vote on their side to put a plug in it right now

  32. Zaratustra says:

    The Queen is “defender of the faith and head of the (anglican) church” by definition of her royal office.

    Prince Charles will become “defender of the faith and head of the (anglican) church” when he ascends to the throne.

    One of the vital elements of the Angelican is holy matrimony. And Charles did violate holy matrimony. And I don’t mean that that violation consisted in that divorce. The violation began right before they got married: Charles never intended to try to make his marriage (to Diana) work the way it should be tried (allowing for some variations). He never intended to try a decent marriage. He never tried to lead a decent marriage. According to this one should call Charles a religious bigot at least. Nevertheless he will one day be “defender of the faith and head of the anglican church”. Gross violation of a holy sacrament and then you become head of the Anglican Church.
    What do religious people think about that? How do they feel about that?

    There you see: if you are born into the “right” family then you get everything even when you totally suck at everything. If you are not born into the “right” family: bad luck and no fairness nor justice.

    Sacraments in the Anglican Church:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_sacraments

    I am not a religious person. But the hypocrisy of this does strike me as despicable.

    • grumpy says:

      The Anglican church was created in order that a man who married his deceased brother’s wife could divorce her in order to marry his mistress who was the sister of a woman he had already had two children with. He had two of his wives executed and married one woman only to reject her immediately because he found her ugly.

      There is absolutely no hypocrisy whatsoever, if anything it is going back to the roots of the Church of England.

  33. Maria says:

    Did she honestly think that messing up with a married Prince of Wales was going to be easy?
    She is delusional.

  34. lala says:

    So let’s get this straight:

    A 30 year old man marries a 19 year old, gets her pregnant, has 2 kids with her , and all that time he cheats on her with his long standing mistress.. and we’re supposed to feel bad about the mistress?
    Oh, and here’s the kicker, he on benefits – i.e. the public pays his expenses and his family’s expenses and now, his former mistress expenses. And he gets paid to be the future leader of the church.

    I would not open my mouth if I were them. They have a sweet gig and they got away with it so at least they shouldn’t wave their hypocrisy and entitlement in our faces.

  35. Oliviajoy says:

    Yeah, Im sure those years were hard on his WIFE too. She has some nerve discussing this now while its almost the 20th anniversary of Diana’s death.