I don't understand the animosity regarding Charles and Camilla.

And I can't believe I actually started a thread on this, so low is it on my own personal radar, but I'm really quite perplexed at the hostility.

Here's the way I see it: back in the early 70s, he and Camilla fell in love. But Camilla wasn't a "good choice" for wife for him (and bearer of royal children and future Queen) as decreed by Charles' mother. Charles, however, loved Camilla and vice versa. He wouldn't or couldn't stand up to his mother, Camilla got tired of waiting and married another guy, and then Diana came along, was considered a good, safe choice and he was pressured into marrying her.

I don't think Charles was EVER in love with her. I really don't think that makes him a bad guy, except in the sense that he should have stood up to his mother years before, but water under the bridge, as they say....

So they get married, they have two boys, they have a horribly distant/acrimonious marriage (as would be expected if everyone really knew the circumstances). They divorce, she is tragically killed in a car accident (I cried so much and that surprised me, as I don't normally get into "celebrities," but it was so sudden and shocking and I felt she was really headed for great things in her life re: charitable work, etc and had alreaady done so much good).

So. Now Camilla is long divorced, they are free to resume their relationship openly.

They've been in love ALL THESE YEARS. 30 plus years. That's nothing to sneeze at. It has to be pretty solid to last that long, and through all that!

Now they are getting married. Big whoop. Personally, I've never seen him smile so much as I have in recent pictures of them together. And so what if she's not a fashion plate, who the hell cares? How superficial, to criticize her hair and clothing. She's not Diana, never tried to be, never will be. And I have to say, I respect her for just being herself and not trying to be anyone else. Charles and Camilla seem to have far more in common than he and Diana ever had, good for them.

This just seems like a personal matter between adults. Therefore, not mine to criticize. There aren't any minor children involved, and I'm pretty sure William and Harry like seeing their dad happy. I realize the British have a bit more of a stake, since the whole question of Queen comes up, but really who cares about that? Isn't monarchy a rather outdated thing anyway? And wasn't it the silly pressures of monarchy that led to Charles marrying the wrong woman in the first place?

Give 'em a break, I say. Leave them alone. I hope they're happy.

No, I'm kidding. I can't fathom the animosity either. Just let them get married and shut up about it, I say to the busybodies and the monarchist cranks.

great phrase, LOL!

there might not be so much animosity.

As it is, few people can see a public celebration as appropriate for people who may have belonged together all along, but who hurt a lot of people who got in the way for a very long period of time.

I see QE2 as the true "bad guy" in this whole thing, and bigger than her, the stupid pressures of monarchy, which are artificial anyway.

I mean, Diana herself said she KNEW Charles wasn't in love with her from the beginning. Even before the wedding, she knew. And he knew she knew.

I don't see how Charles and Camilla are having a big public celebration. Sure they could sneak off somewhere, but even then, the press would hound them and follow them constantly.

I don't know, I just don't see the big deal. People marry the wrong person ALL the time, they divorce and re-marry, but they don't have all this hatred flung at them for their looks and their clothing, etc.

awwww :(

He needs the formal approval of either the monarch or parliament. It's the law.

expatriated the constitution, he is no longer a British subject. I don't know, but he is adamant about it.

and haven't been since the 1940's

We are Canadian citizens.

The Queen is the head of state, and represented in Canada by a Governor-General.

and why are people doing htis. just so stupid. yup, and no ones business

Royalty of all kinds suck.

I think we all put our pants on one leg at a time and what makes them so special besides accident of birth, but it's the comments like "she looks like a horse" that I'm talking about (unless you were being tongue in cheek). I mean, who cares what she looks like? HE loves her. And last time I checked, he was no GQ model himself.

I'm really immature.

Just when I'd concluded that we in the states were the most fucked up "advanced" western nation.

How do they tolerate the huge disconnect between the way life is actually lived in their society and the medieval standards they expect from (or allow from) the monarchy?

Everyone with a working brain understood that the "fairytale romance" leading up to the marriage with Diana was a lie. WHat happened later was the practically inevitable result of the collision of modern life with fairytales--it always ends badly for the fairytale believers. Anybody remember the movie Darling with Julie Christie and Dirk Bogarde? In a very important sense the actual collison which killed Diana restored the fairytale and rescued her myth from the accelerating sordor of her fucked up life. (Don't get me wrong I'd much prefer her to still be alive and the reality of her tabloid fodder life to go on demolishing the vestiges of the fairytale right to the bitter end.)

...THEY are in charge and THEY tell US how it is going to be.

Subjects of a monarchy having a complete lack of any say in what goes on is the quintessence of a monarchy.

Modern monarchies are merely for pagentry and show, with the actual affairs of state being conducted by democratically elected leaders. But the "show" parts that have been retained are still monarchies, i.e., autocratic top-down ruler-ship based on 'royal bloodline'.

"His Majesty does not care what the peasants and the rabble think of Her Royal Highness-to be." Do people think that the subjects of Henry VIII were vocal and activist about his wives and their fates?

I'd rather worry about those sins and shortcomings which effect real people (like the sins and shortcomings of this administration) and I can't bring myself to care much about such personal problems of those who had the "misfortune" of being born into unspeakable privilege. I wish the monarchy would fade into oblivion, but oh well. As far as Charles and Camilla go, I figure good luck, happy trails, whatever, I guess. I certainly don't wish them ill will just for loving each other.

I'm just happy they won't be procreating! Their children would be somethin' else. :evilgrin:


Camilla is so damn UGLY!!!!, but then Charles is no Romeo either. I think they deserve each other.

I really couldn't care less if they get married, but he was a HORRIBLE husband to Diana and cheated on her. Shame on him. Shame on her (Camilla). I think that's where the hostility comes from. If he didn't love Diana he should never have married her.

And she cheated on him, too. Lest we forget.

I'm not holding anyone up as less to blame here. (Although I reserve my special grudge for QE2 and the monarchical system in general.)

Hell, I like seeing some less than attractive people on the covers of magazines for once. Tired of all these airbrushed carved out of cream cheese perfect lookin' fools.

were still involved. If he didn't love Diana he shouldn't have married her. Had he not married her, she would still be alive.

I don't mind average looking people either, average looks is MOST of the world, but COME ON! THAT is NOT average looking. THAT is downright UGLY. Plain and simply, UGLY. Camilla is no prize. Have you ever seen her not made up??? OMG. It's frightening!

Seriously. I honestly, completely don't get it. Explain it to me. What difference does it make what she looks like? Is there some requirement for looks when marrying a member of the royal family? Isn't all that matters is that HE thinks she's beautiful? And have you SEEN the rest of the royal family? They aren't exactly known for their looks, save Andrew.

And as for Diana cheating, cheating is still cheating. Or is it not wrong as long as your spouse cheated first?

I'm not saying I blame her, but how can you only hold Charles up for criticsm on that point? Diana knew he didn't love her before they married. She knew Camilla had his heart. She wanted the fairy tale.

Charles made Diana's life a living hell because of that hag. He should never have married Diana if he didn't love her.

Her looks....damn she's ugly. It's just an opinion. She's one of the ugliest people I've ever seen. That's all. I DON'T CARE. I can't help but compare her to Diana and OMG, the comparison is startling.

If he loves Camilla, PLEASE, marry her, but keep her off MY TV screen...I cringe every time I see her.

Diana was a beautiful person and I get the impression Camilla is not, she had an affair with a married man.

She knew Charles was in love with Camilla before they married, she had at least one of her affairs within the first six years she and Charles were married (when he and Camilla agreed NOT to see each other).

So it's ok as long as you are physically beautiful? Ok, I got it now.

Or was it that she was very young, felt very pressured, and was naive enough to think that the love might come later?

she had an affair before Charles and Camilla got back together. he may still have been in love with Camilla, but they didn't see each other for the first six years of their marriage. in that time Diana had two affairs.

Before his marriage to Diana. That Camilla helped "pick" Diana as someone easy to manage. He did wear cufflinks from Camilla on his wedding day.

A lot of pain could have been avoided if he'd actually married the woman he loved in the first place. Or at least asked her to wait. No that she bothered.

Charles marry her. So what was the point of waiting around, exactly?

And later on, Diana cheated on Charles (while they were still married). Now, one could argue she was justified in it, but they BOTH did.

And Diana KNEW about Camilla before they married.

I just don't see any ONE person as more to blame than anyone else.

If C and C had been allowed to marry in the first place, none of this would have happened.

But Charles might have lost his cushy "job." And Camilla was just as happy being his mistress.

"Forget you mummy" but he was raised his entire life with the idea in mind that he was being trained to be the king.

And that's where I blame the entire monarchical system and the unhealthy, dysfunctional ways of thinking it engenders.

Charles could have married Camilla in the first place if he'd wanted to do so. She was quite acceptable.

But he spent years bed-hopping, unable to make up his mind and actually do his duty and marry. He is quite a playboy.

Eventually he settled on Diana, in order to provide an heir to the throne.

She was put through a meat-grinder, and had a short unhappy life.

Charles sleeps with others still...Camilla is aware of it.

He will continue to do so. As he told Diana, 'I'm not going to be the only Prince of Wales in history without a mistress.'

So probably, will Camilla.

This is not a nice family from Pleasantville.

So there is animosity because of the way Diana was treated. Diana made an enormous difference to the image of the 'Royals'. You'll note Blair doesn't use the phrase 'New Britain' anymore.

She was young, friendly, outgoing, and had 2 good-looking kids.

Charles and Camilla return the Royal's image to old looking dumpy frumps.

There is a republican movement in the UK that wants to remove the Royals. They couldn't get anywhere while the Queen Mum was alive, as she was very popular.

Had Charles and Diana remained together, they still wouldn't have had a chance.

But Charles has handed them plenty of ammunition, and this latest fiasco may well end up sinking the Royal family. If so, it affects many nations around the world.

He isn't just some temporary Hollywood celebrity...he's the heir to the British throne, and the future head of state in many nations.

So yes, his messes matter, and yes, the animosity is strong because of it.

Mummy didn't approve, and Camilla wasn't a virgin. One of the reasons his choice fell on Diana eventually was that she was about the ONLY virgin with the right pedigree to be found.

And mummy wouldn't have minded. She was after him to marry, and produce heirs, for years.

Camilla was a perfectly acceptable choice at the time.

Camilla was NOT a perfectly acceptable choice and QE2 made that VERY clear. Camilla was NOT a virgin. Mummy did NOT approve. Charles knew it, Camilla knew it.

And 'mummy' said nothing of the sort.

my understanding of the Queen's opposition to Charles' wish to marry Camilla comes from the "respectable" UK press (Guardian, BBC, et cetera).

So I'll appreciate it if you stop accusing me of it, as you have twice down below.

Link? Source? For this assertion that mummy said nothing of the sort?

Prove it, in other words. I learned that she DID object and in no uncertain terms, from maintsream British press. Several years ago, too. It's no secret. Where have you been?

I find that hard to believe, to be quite honest.

And Charles didn't "decide" on Diana, that was decided FOR him. He was in love with Camilla, but it was made very clear to him (and thus to her) that he was not allowed to marry her.

in many countries that he visits, including Canada. We are all aware of it. Many articles have been published about it here.

Charles did indeed decide on Diana, and the only one with any input would have been Camilla.

I wish you guys would get over this 'off with their heads' view of monarchy.

This is Elizabeth II, not Elizabeth I...the Tower of London is a tourist attraction.

But as for the first part, where are these articles? In tabloids? You'll forgive me if I take those with a huge shakerful of salt. Again, you cannot prove this assertion that he has mistresses.

tabloids. We have newspapers and magazines. We find your tabloids hilarious, but hardly factual

And no one cares what you believe.

It's not your country

Well, then, why don't you just go on with your vicious hatred of them both, I doubt they really give a shit what YOU believe.

You STILL have not proven he has mistresses and if your papers are not tabloids, cough up links to the articles or admit you cannot prove it.

over a subject you've repeatedly admitted you know nothing about?

You don't live in a Commonwealth country.

So to you it doesn't matter.

It does to others.

Go enjoy your tabloids.

In fact, if you read my OP, you'll see I know the history of Charles, Diana, et al pretty well. And I DON'T READ TABLOIDS.

So that's all you've got? It shouldn't matter to me? Sorry, but there are generally not any off-limit topics on DU. I'm speaking ON DU, not as a member of any particular country. I don't know if you noticed the world getting smaller, but many news items ARE international in nature, and this one is. It's been discussed on DU with a lot of viciousness especially for Camilla and I was expressing my view as to why they should just be left alone in this matter.

I can't even figure out where you are coming from, your posts are so incoherent.

None of which bear any closer relation to the truth than the tabloids.

It has to do with royal duty and privilege, and their legal effects on member countries.

Your romantic views don't come into it.

You can do that by elaborating, clarifying, which you seem to have something against.

First of all, I've never read a SINGLE book on the Charles/Diana stuff. So much for that, eh?

I have read MAINSTREAM BRITISH PRESS sources. Lots of them over the years. THAT'S how I get my information.

Now....YOU have never told me how you get the following information:

1. Charles still has mistresses, in fact has one in every country he visits.

2. QE2 said it would be fine that he married Camilla, and she gave this permission back in the 70s.

3. So apparently Charles decided NOT to marry the woman he loved, but a woman he DIDN'T love, so as to cheat on her and make everyone's life hell.

Do I have your theories straight here? And I ask again, because I have a lot of patience, what are your sources for this information?

...it pisses me off that anybody would care about these inbred losers enough to even remember their names.

Bush is your head of state, and you have your own problems.

Other countries have the monarch as their head of state. So it matters to others.

They are not heads of state. Last I checked, the UK had a democratically elected parliament and ministers.

They are heads of tabloid pages, fashion magazines and other mindless bullshit.

And the very idea that they are entitled to all that wealth and fame simply by birth repulses me. :puke:

...not only of the UK but also of the Commonwealth nations.

They carry no real power is my point. Maple compared them to Bush, who is a source of my problems; the royalty isn't a source of anybody's problems, but rather a consequence of the problem called "I don't have a life so I'm going to follow what these rich dumb people in England are doing."

And yes, they do indeed have power.

And yes indeed, it matters to other people.

Americans aren't the only people on the planet you know.

"Americans aren't the only people on the planet you know."

That is such a cheapo way out of a debate. I DESPISE royalty for the same reason I despise all state-sponsored gossip a-la Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, Jen&Ben etc.

What power do they have???

Whose lives will be affected by whehter the Donkey marries the Horse or some other animal?

Please.

as your head of state, no one cares if you hate them or not.

They are not Hollywood stars for 'fans' to like or dislike, they have Royal Prerogative.

They are, in law, Britain.

Except for you, who seem pretty peeved off that I "hate them"; except, let me correct you -- I don't hate them, I pity them. When I think about them, which is very seldom. What I was addressing isn't them, but the interest in Royalty which I encounter every time I wait in line at the supermarket.

And again, no one cares what you think about them. It doesn't affect you. It does others.

I'm speaking about the interest in them. And the whole idea of the institution of royalty which is IMO barbaric.

It affects me about as much as it does anybody else.

You have not cited a single example of how it affects others, except for abstractions such as "they are Britain".

It is also plainly obvious that Bush affects those "others" much more than the British royalty. Because of Bush, 87 UK soldiers are now dead. How many has the Queen killed?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

so drop the bullshit. It's an incredibly weak and cowardly way to debate, to bring in the national origin of your oponent as a way to strengthen your point.

Which, by the way, has only been parroting "it is their head of state" without any indication of how exactly that manifests and why exactly people should be interested in it.

your ignorance is your own.

Also, your own problem. Not mine

...and substanceless, no wonder I've remained "ignorant".

We don't care what you think about it.

I simply came on here to answer the original question as to why there was animosity to Charles and Camilla.

For some reason, having a citizen of a country affected by it, simply explain the animosity, seemed to set you off on some long harangue.

Perhaps it ruined your tabloid romance and prejudices, but that's hardly my problem.

Okay man. You win.

you are not Canadian? Or British?

Why Maple can have an opinion, but no one else, is beyond me. But of course Maple has Super Secret Access to all of Charles' secrets, like his mistress in every country and how Mummy actually DID say he could marry Camilla, but he decided to marry someone he DIDN'T love in order to cheat on her, make everyone's life hell, etc etc.

:crazy:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

meant to reply to Maple.

"Arrogance"...that's rich. You ought to do something about that plank in your eye.

You asserted that Charles has a mistress in every country he visits and that QE2 said it would be fine for him to marry Camilla back in the 70s.

You STILL have not provided any sources for this information. I'm guessing this is my seventh request for you to substantiate your claims and now you are reduced to limp insults.

You haven't listed one.

Instead you've come back with this national-chauvinistic garbage worthy of the lowliest Texas cowboy.

and the authority of the UK's unwritten constitution is, in theory, vested in the monarch, and governmental authority flows from the monarch. Hence the Royal Assent to bills of Parliament and so on...most of it is tradition, yes, but there IS power there, even if it's generally not seen.

Well then, the source of interest in British royalty isn't that power. So any power they may or may not have is a moot point.

The interest is pure unadulterated GOSSIP.

but America isn't the world. For Brits, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and people in ALL THE OTHER Commonwealth nations, the interest goes a bit further than that.

...that proportionally as many Americans are interested in the lives of royalty as are citizens of the Commonwealth.

Just like as many Brits are interested in who the latest Hollywood star is banging as Americans.

The PM is just a politician. The Queen is head of state.

The monarch remains, while PMs come and go

The power of the state is vested in the Queen. Not Blair.

And it's important to other countries.

We're supposed to care about your Bush problem, but apparently you are unable to fathom anything that matters to others.

"We're supposed to care about your Bush problem, but apparently you are unable to fathom anything that matters to others."?!?!?!?!

When was the last time the Queen declared war? Cut taxes? Changed popular laws??

You well know that the source of interest in British royalty is not political. It is GOSSIP.

but it's not to others.

The Queen could chuck the UK government and Blair out.

Perhaps you could use such a power in the US for Bush.

...if it weren't given to an airhead privileged since birth.

Oh, and if it weren't FICTION for all practical purposes.

On Edit: oh, and besides, if you think that British Royalty is any less popular with American consumers of afternoon soaps than it is with their British equivalents, you're mistaken.

It's just not the kind you imagine, given your knowledge about them is from tabloids.

Of course Americans take an interest in celebrity. That's why you have Hollywood. You have no royal family

It's just that this goes beyond some current 'starlet' and her clothing.

How is it real?

And drop this "you" shyte. I don't identify with any nationality. I live here now. I wasn't born here. My opinions are mine, not some collective humming.

And a complete listing of royal prerogatives

Learning some British history, and a knowledge of the Commonwealth might be useful as well.

Rather than gaining all your knowledge from supermarket claptrap.

You claim that the popular interest in royalty stems from their political power.

Where is it?

When was the last time anything that the royalty did had a material manifestation anywhere???

I don't care about ceremonial bullshit such as "royal prerogatives". It's no different from any fucking flag-waving and other jingoism.

claims on THIS thread that Charles STILL has other mistresses. In ALL the countries he visits, no less.

What, are you one of them and pissed off he is remarrying Camilla and not you?

That's all I can figure.

Legitimate royal websites...listing all duties and powers.

Legal ones...not some airy-fairy romantic rubbish.

I'm hardly required to explain it to you. You are the ones having difficulties understanding it, not me.

I tried to explain it to you, but apparently you can't be bothered to listen.

Your problem

Thus the burden of proof is on YOU. I am not going to do your work, googling for this stuff for you.

If you are so sure of your assertions, BACK THEM UP. It's as simple as that. And if it's a simple google search away, then you shouldn't have any problem, should you?

Personally I think you painted yourself in a corner with all this stuff and CAN'T come up with any substantiation. Don't blame me for that, that's your problem.

I was asking you about real-world powers, explained through examples of their manifestations.

Aristotle: "That which manifests itself exists; that which does not manifest itself does not exist.".

I support the right to burn the American flag. Likewise, if I were a Brit I'd support the right to spit on all those ceremonial royal powers. It's a rag, all of it.

Dissolution of Parliament. Royal assent to Acts of Parliament. Appointment of Governors-General of Commonwealth realms. Governor of the Church of England. And so on. You seem to be a bit too stuck on the idea that everyone else is woefully ignorant and in need of education (which attitude, may I say, is not so different from the stereotypical "ugly American" view of people from the USA).

From Wikipedia, where you can cut and paste at will, emphasis mine:

The monarch continues to hold a variety of political powers, although they are rarely used by the monarch personally, including making and declaring war, making treaties, granting Royal Assent to bills passed by Parliament, appointing and removing Ministers (including the Prime Minister), pardoning prisoners, authorizing currency and commanding the Armed Forces. In theory, practically the entire institution of British government exists solely at the monarch's pleasure. For the most part, however, the monarch's powers are "reserve powers," nominally used in emergency situations. In normal political life, the monarch usually assents to the reasonable requests of his or her government, and of Parliament. So while many actions are done in His or Her Majesty's name, they originate in the democratic government of the United Kingdom.

By convention, the monarch dissolves Parliament and issues a writ for new elections at the request of the Prime Minister. However it is an open question as to whether the monarch must always grant such a dissolution. Another possible situation is if no party gains a majority in Parliament. The monarch would by convention offer the post of Prime Minister to the head of the party most likely to form a government, but it is possible that this may not be the party with the most seats.

The monarch must formally assent to all Acts of Parliament before they can become law. Royal Assent is given in Norman French by a representative of the monarch: the formal phrases used are le roy (or la reine) le veult meaning "yes" ("the king/queen wills it"), and le roy/la reine s'avisera meaning "no" ("the king/queen will consider it"). The last time royal assent was withheld was by Queen Anne in 1708. As well, on bills directly affecting a monarchical prerogative power (i.e. to make war, dissolve parliament, appoint ministers, etc.) the monarch must consent to the debate thereof in Parliament.

In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II, acting under the instructions of the government, refused to signify her consent to the reading of the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which sought to shift the power to order a military strike on Iraq from executive to parliamentary control, but this may have been to avoid a political fall-out resulting from the fact that some of the governments of her realms supported the war (e.g. the UK and Australia), but others did not (e.g. Canada and New Zealand).

Although there is a popular consensus in support of the continuing existence of the monarchy, there is a wide belief that this would rapidly change were the monarch to exercise power in opposition to the democratically elected government in anything other than an emergency situation.

Hm. Well, seems to me that there's not an awful lot of "real" power there, IMO.

I think that most of us would be thrilled if the only problem with Bush was that he was cheating on Laura. Instead, he has managed to screw up in almost every way possible. I agree that not all of his mistakes will affect people in other countries. However, some of mistakes, such as the war with Iraq, will have lasting consequences.

While I have read the rest of your posts and understand what you are saying about the importance of the royal family, I do not think that the other posters are necessarily dismissing the importance of events in other country. We do realize that people in other nations have their own problems and that these problems are very important.

However, many of us have a hard time understanding the fuss over this marriage because many posters tend to separate personal from professional lives. Although we snicker at the Republican hypocrites who blasted Clinton's affairs while having affairs of their own, we do not generally favor allowing the government to intrude into our bedrooms.

The monarchy in England is only a figurehead, anyway, it's not like they have any real power.

So they want to get married, so what?

And compared to the kinds of abuses of power I see here in my country, Charles and Camilla getting married is NOTHING.

That's the thing. Their personal lives ARE their profession.

I don't care. I say leave them to it.

Diana was a royal brood mare--nothing more. She had the right pedigree--father was an Earl--to be considered "royal", hence her style HRH while married. But Charles was never 'in love' with her; he was fulfilling his duty to his country by providing a legitimate male heir for the crown.

He now can finally marry the woman he loves--something his great uncle had to abdicate in order to do. Camilla is beyond childbearing age, therefore, William and Henry don't have to contend with other legitimate heirs through Charles and Camilla's union. The one who is going to be under the fiercest scrutiny is going to be William when it comes time for him to marry.

I think that it's wonderful that at long last, Charles can finally be with his true love. I wish him all happiness with Camilla--we all deserve to be happy and with our one true loves. Nothing is worse than being forced to remain in a loveless, acrimonious marriage for appearances sake. This isn't his great, great, great grandmama's time. (Victoria r)

in which to marry Camilla, and didn't do so.

And he is not faithful to her either.

I find that claim to be ludicrous, and until you back it up, I will continue to.

MAPLE! That's why she won't come clean! :evilgrin:

And Edward was *likely* forced into abdication because of his love of all things German, which wasn't a good thing considering the times. Simpson was just a convenient excuse.

his way to finally marrying his true love he conned a much younger woman into a sham marriage as a cover, rather than simply being honest and abdicating.

What a creepy inbred cretin Charles "I want to be your tampon" Windsor is. What kind of f*cked up man says that to a woman in order to be romantic? As for Camilla, well, she played the role of home wrecker, whether it was her fault or not.

Yes, it's a matter between adults, but Charles is also a bloody future king of England. His behavior was and is crass, at best, and very unsuitable for a King.

"I want to be soaked in your menses."

You're right. Who the fuck says "I want to be your tampon"?

Oh, now you've done it! You've broken my heart!!! :cry:

Isn't it funny that the :sarcasm: smilie looks like this? :evilgrin:

:7

Playtex. :D

:puke::D

:rofl: that's just too much! I'm in tears from laughing so hard!:rofl:

When did he say that? How do you know that?

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

But that's pretty kinky. I like!

between Camilla and Charles that were revealed a few years ago. Can't recall if the actual recordings were made public, or if the text was published in a book, but it was definitely some actual telephonic pillow talk between the two of them. It just speaks volumes about Charles, IMO.

As for what he said to Camilla, WHAT DO YOU CARE?????? So you wouldn't have found that romantic, so what? You aren't Camilla. You aren't Charles.

Camilla, home wrecker? Look, I see EVERYONE here to blame. Mummy wouldn't LET Charles marry Camilla, the one he loved. Camilla knew it, got tired of waiting around, got married.

You can't just STOP your feelings for someone. They went on loving each other.

Diana knew about Camilla before she even married Charles. Charles knew Diana knew.

Charles cheated on Diana with Camilla, Camilla cheated on HER husband (now ex) with Charles, and DIANA cheated on Charles with a couple of lovers!

Who is blameless in all this?

No one, absolutely no one. I say leave them alone, who cares? Charles doesn't control the government of England, so who cares? He'll be a figurehead King, if he ever gets the chance. Then poor William with have to deal with all the silly pressures and rules about who he can and cannot marry.

And let's hope the one he is allowed to is also the one he loves. :eyes:

It's all so crazy. And to point the finger at any one or two people in this is also crazy.

And I'm well aware that compared to English kings of past centuries, Charles is a well-behaved little dauphin. But that was then and this is now; we're supposed to be a little more evolved now, are we not? Especially considering the preternatural standards that the Windors set *for themselves* as regards public behavior.

And as to WHY I CARE?????? (and there's no need to shout): I don't really care, I'm just answering the freakin' question with my considered opinion, okay? And I feel perfectly at ease pointing the finger at the two of them and them alone. They're people with larger-than-life responsibilities, and they should be held to a standard appropriate to that. I happen to feel the same way about Bill Clinton, even though I admire him as President a great deal.

And by the way, Dianna didn't do any cheating until well after it became clear what her role was to be in the royal family. Charles drove her to it; I think that's pretty obvious, and for you to lay blame at her feet is disingenuous, at best.

My God, she wasn't a child, she knew cheating was wrong. So why let her off the hook?

She knew Charles didn't love her, she knew he loved Camilla, and she knew that BEFORE they were married. She wanted a fairy tale, she didn't get it. She cheated, and she cheated (physically) before he did. In the first six years.

There's more than enough blame to go around and I don't get letting her off the hook.

The queen and her brood, along with the nobility, are an anachronism long overdue to be pensioned off to chase foxes and interbreed themselves into extinction.

Well put!

social issues, like marriage, divorce, treatment of children, etc., and how people view them. I have to keep going back to Diana and also to Camilla's husband. How did Charles treat Diana and did she deserve it? How did Camilla treat her husband and did he deserve it? DId they hurt their children and extended family through the affair and also that horrible publicity? I really wish Charles and Camilla would have married each other long before they ever married other people. Did they hurt a lot of people who were closest to them.

I think they should get married; if only they had years ago.

I know that's easy to forget and people tend not to bring it up now because of her death, but she admitted to at least two lovers. Granted, some might say "who can blame her?"

But my point is, NO ONE is blameless in all this. Mummy is to blame, Charles is to blame, Camilla, Diana KNEW he didn't love her before she married him!, the whole monarchical system is to blame, etc.

Everyone was wrong. So. Let bygones be bygones. I find the criticism of her hair, looks, and clothing to be beyond tacky. They are in love and have been in love all this time, so let them get married and who cares.

If the monarchy is as irrelevant as so many claim it is, then why not TREAT them as irrelevant? Why all the hoopla?

(Not all of this was aimed at you, barb.)

involved. BIG difference. Diana loved her husband and he treated her like shit.

Read what someone else wrote on this thread. In some interviews filmed on videotape, she admitted at least one of her lovers were in the first six years of their marriage, when Charles and Camilla were NOT seeing each other (agreed not to).

Of course, she was being emotionally neglected. So do you still hold Diana blameless?

I don't get all this. EVERYONE had a part in that whole big mess. Everyone. Except the kids, of course.

So why the hatefulness to Charles and Camilla? Is it on BEHALF of Diana? Who's to say she wouldn't be happy for them? Remember she had moved on with her life, as well, having serious boyfriends (most notably, Dodi, whom she died with).

This had to be horrible for the kids involved (HORRIBLE!) seeing these stories all over the papers and news. And then I think Charles and Camilla were so selfish, like you don't do that to your kids, you know? Those poor kids. I guess I wish people would get divorced first before having affairs. I hope they stay married to each other and have no more affairs.



"So. Let bygones be bygones"

Yes!

from supermarket tabloids.

They are not remotely accurate.

And Americans have some kind of outdated view of the monarchy anyway....the 'off with their heads' or 'the queen is not amused' image that was never true to begin with.

It's like you lost all contact with the mother country in 1776, and still haven't caught up with the changes in the rest of the world.

Which is why people regard Americans as 'isolated'

Not all. I'm American, for instance, and I actually have some vague idea of what I'm talking about on this subject...

I don't ever TOUCH tabloids and all that self-righteous stuff coming from you is rich, considering you are the one making completely unsbustantiated claims that Charles has a mistress in every country he visits.

:eyes:

It is anachronistic and against all human rights, and should be abolished in all countries immediately. As bad as America can be, at least we don't have a "house of lords". How offensive!


But Chuck and Camilla are no better or worse than any of the other inbred "royal" scumbags sucking off the teat of taxpayer largesse.

I think it's great that he's marrying someone his own age instead of going for someone who's practically in the next generation down.

(That was the universal sentiment of my water aerobics class--ages about 35 to over 70--this morning.)

Which is why they couldn't get married in church (partly, because their relationship contributed to the end of their marriages). They're selfish people who don't give a danm about anyone else. Besides, he's off his head. Nobody likes him here (UK) Hey, you don't have to live in the same country as these halfwits!

But I don't get all the animosity about them getting married. Who cares??? She's divorced, his ex-wife is deceased. There are no minor children involved and they won't have children.

Like I said to someone above, if you think of the monarchy as irrelevant, why not treat them as irrelevant?

We could give you Bush and Cheney for Charles and Camilla.

In half a heartbeat.

Was he involved with Camilla while married to Diana? Since you live there, you should know. I thought Diana had said he was involved with Camilla and that was why she had her affairs? Is that true or not?

Pair of ugly dogs.

Camilla is so ugly she could walk into a prison full of hard-core cons unarmed and walk out without a scratch.


:evilfrown:

:rofl: I couldn't agree more. The woman is paper bag material!

Thanks for the answer. Do you live in the UK?

:evilfrown:

Yes, Charles and Camilla had an affair, but by all accounts, including the Princess of Wales', Diana cheated (at least physically) first with her riding instructor and her bodyguard.

First, second, it doesn't matter, right? ironic, isn't it, that the best thing that could happen to Diana's reputation was a cement pillar in Paris? You think she'd be as popular today if she was married to Dodi al Fayed?

Charles and Camilla were not seeing each other. Now you could argue that she was emotionally neglected and thus her affair. But you could also argue that Charles was never in love with Diana, was always in love with Camilla and thus HIS affair.

You could also argue that......see what I mean? NO ONE is blameless in this whole mess that went on. No one except the kids.

But Diana seems to get a pass because she was attractive, she is deceased, or both.

for over 30 years. May they fade into pampered obscurity together...

This is a major "who cares" event in the world. I am baffled that anyone gives a darn, either positive or negative.
The Professor

I don't get all the "oh she's so ugly" stuff either. The only one her looks should matter to are her and Charles. And both of them seem happy, so who cares what she looks like? Or wears?

:shrug:

I didn't read your whole post carefully enough, and i was referencing more the title. My fault. I think i do actually get some of the disgust, since they are a royal family from a country that isn't really a monarchy. So, it's all a sham. The whole royal bloodline stuff is kind of silly. It's all so irrelevant and many americans are more disgusted than angry that OTHER AMERICANS care.

I don't think it's the two of them. I think it's the attention paid by fellow countrymen that should know better that aggravates some people.
The Professor

into the woodwork. If Charlie wants to do something redeeming, he will abdicate in favour of his son, William but I doubt he has the smarts to do that. He is disliked by the British and they are not happy with all the crap about the wedding there.

Charles-Camilla wedding hardly happy ending

After all, he worked hard to repair his public image in the years after the failure of his marriage to Diana, the late Princess of Wales. And he waited a respectable period of time, almost a decade, since Diana's death in a Paris car crash to announce that he would tie the knot with Camilla Parker Bowles, the woman Di blamed for breaking up the marriage.

But not enough time, apparently, to bring the public onside.

"What he didn't expect here is the lingering affection throughout the Commonwealth for Diana," says Ninian Mellamphy, a retired University of Western Ontario English professor who's a keen observer of the antics of the British monarchy.

snip

Public opinion polls also suggest few Britons are interested in the wedding, and the majority of them don't even plan to watch the blessing on television.

more

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/04/03/981212-cp.html

I guess I'm not alone.

and most Britons aren't even interested in the wedding, and Charles and Camilla probably don't like all the media attention, what's the problem? Sounds like everyone wins. Yet, the press STILL hound them, it's STILL a big story (it seems) and people STILL talk about it and make fun of her.

:shrug:

and so they are not turfed by the British. They use it when they want to exactly like any celebrity. Charles has used the media when it suited his purpose as has the Queen and others. To pity Charles for the negative coverage is to pity bush when he gets the same.

One irony here is that it was Queen Elizabeth II who opened up their private life for the media to promote the monarchy. 'Be careful what you ask for you just might get it and it ends up as you wished.'

I just say if you want the monarchy to be irrelevant, treat them as if they are irrelevant. Don't buy the tabloids, don't buy the books, don't watch the TV specials on them.

:evilgrin:

For being so progressive, some liberal women seem to take quite a bit of glee in calling a woman ugly. And there's not even any political beef with her! :crazy:

I didn't express how I felt about the monarchy as a whole. I don't buy tabloids but do pay attention to history as anyone who wants to be informed would do especially when one's country can be affected by the monarchy.

When you said the media HOUNDS him, that infers unfairness on their part which, in turn, leads one to believe you feel sorry for him.

The media does hound them, come on, but I didn't say they *always* hated it. They need the media as much as the media needs them.

I just wonder what would happen if they woke up one day and no one was paying attention?

C & C.

and I don't care now. Infact I'm disgusted with myself that I even know what year those two were married. However, it was crammed down my throat by the media and the royal watchers. So it was rather hard to forget as much as I may have wanted to!

If I have to have an opinion on the whole matter, I'll agree with Bouncy Ball and say "give 'em a break, I say. Leave them alone. I hope they're happy."

somewhere, I'm sure.

I don't give a fuck about Charles and Camilla.

he agreed to it, but it was still pretty much arranged.

Arranged marriages sometimes have to have arrangements. Diana went into it thinking it would be a regular marriage like people who aren't future kings have. She was naive.

I'm happy for Charles and Camilla. If they'd been allowed to marry way back when, a lot of hurt could have been avoided.

And I have to say I'm really bothered by all the "ugly" comments about Camilla. Makes me wonder what she personally did to some people. I don't even like it when the looks of people I politically oppose are made fun of, but because I politically oppose them, I overlook it.

But I don't even have any political beef with Camilla, so the comments about her have me scratching my head even harder. I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, and I'm NOT saying I think she is beautiful. I'm just saying it's disturbing to see women tearing up other women over their looks. I thought I left that behind in high school. :shrug:

own animosity:

To my eyes, the royal family with the complicity of Camilla selected Diana precisely because she was young and naive and deferential, believing she'd just do as she was told and would tolerate whatever they dished out at her. And part of that included carrying on with Camilla while in a sham marriage.

Now nothing against sham marriages entered into with informed consent - but I don't think that was the case here. And to the contrary I think it was QUITE cruel to do that to Diana, especially given the very characteristics for which she was selected.

On a different scale I've seen similar things played out in ordinary life - controlling older men selecting deferential young women with no real power of their own, making them easy to control.

So I don't rally care if Charles and Camilla marry - it's not really my business anyway. But I think they're extraordinarily creepy people who richly deserve each other.

From what I have read (from mainstream British sources), she was quite disappointed to not have the approval of "Mummy," knew she wouldn't be the one anyway, got tired of waiting around, and got married herself (before Charles did).

Then she and Charles decided NOT to see each other the first six years of his marriage to Diana. They didn't decide on the number of years, but they both mutually felt it would be for the best if they did NOT see each other for an indefinite period of time once he was married to Diana. That lasted six years. In that time, Diana proceeded to have an affair or two of her own.

Personally, I don't think ANYONE is blameless in all this, not even Diana. She wanted the fairy tale. She knew before she married Charles that he was not in love with her, but with Camilla. But what I am bothered with is that she gets a pass for cheating because she was physically attractive (see a post above where someone said that very thing) and/or because she is now deceased.

I'm no champion or defender of ANYONE in this whole scenario, least of all "Mummy." And I think the whole monarchy system leads to some VERY unhealthy, dysfunctional dynamics, as we've seen.

But like you said, whether they marry now or not is really none of our business. They are both divorced, there are no minor children and they will not have children.

I will say the nasty comments about Camilla's looks bother me quite a bit. It seems so crass and juvenile. Who cares how she looks or dresses?

Don't ask where I heard it - I don't recall. But on the whole I'm a skepitical sort and don't take as truth everything I hear.

And I don't think Diana is blameless - but I can chalk up a whole lot to be being young and naive, and in Diana's case having been raised by some real cold fish. My impression of her home life as a youth is that she was desperate for affection and approval and living in a family in which neither was offered.

I give Diana a pass for cheating because she was ill used in a sham marriage from the get go, without her consent, and without any real power of her own. Seeking love in that way is about the least of what I'd excuse. That Diana seemed to generally care for people in a way none of the royals ever have further excuses a lot for me. I remember when she physically touched a man with AIDS in a hpspital and what that meant to a lot of people.

Part of the tragic beauty of the whole sordid mess, IMO, is that Diana was the most vulnerable and powerless figure in it, but she made a power of her own. That, to my thinking, is the real fairy tale value of the whole story - in more of a Hansel & Gretel way than Cinderella.

Of Charles I can only say he should have known better. He was older, he was wiser, and he knew the deal. He should have just abdicated and lived honorably. But - as we agree - it's his business who he marries now.

"My impression of her home life as a youth is that she was desperate for affection and approval and living in a family in which neither was offered."

Actually that was also my impression of CHARLES' home life, as well.

I don't give anyone any more of a pass than anyone else. I think (and this is just my opinion) that it would be hypocritical. I mean, no matter how young she was, she still knew cheating was wrong, right? She still knew he loved Camilla before the wedding, right?

There are enough wrongs to go around. That's all I'm saying. Plus, it's all water under the bridge now.

but I think the similarity ends with the two of them. Charles was like a fish in water, Diana suffered and became deferential and malleable.

My understanding is that she found out he still loved Camilla just days before the wedding - her sister (?) famously said "Well it's too late now - your face is on the tea towels."

Again, if she was a more self possessed or secure person I'd look at it differently. But she was selected for this role precisely because she wasn't those things but in fact was quite the opposite,.

I think by the time she had an affair it was quite evident to her that she was not in a marriage in any sense but legally - she pretty much lived apart from Charles and they had little to do with one another. So, IMO, he had pretty much already abandoned the marriage.

If they were in any way equals in stature or power or options, I'd hold them equally cuplable. But in my eyes she was the victim of fraud and an abuse of power.

All that said, I'm with you that the marriage now is their business, and I also feel their physical appearance is immaterial.

Fuck 'em. They're blood sucking parasites on the backs of society!

a) Diana left a hand-written note saying Charles was plotting to kill her in a car accident. The inquest (many years too late) has not been completed yet. Disrespectful to marry before it has concluded.

b) The boy's don't like her. (according to reports, citing Harry's friends, as Harry is apparently most unhappy since he is stuck at Highgrove with them)

c) Charles is already the most unpopular royal, this doesn't help, and actually hinders the monarchy. (how unpopular you ask? well, the palace is lining the route with supporters to quell the protesters)

d) The majority of Brits do not want her as they're Queen, Princess consort, HRH or any other title they want to give her. He should make clear he's NOT going to be King before marrying her.

e) There are reports that Chuckie was funding her living expenses, and doesn't want to dip into his personal wealth anymore,so if he marries her, the taxpayers foot the bill. This is how the anti-charles crowd in Britain see it, anyhow.

f) Charles is a spoiled brat, ignoring his subjects who don't want this. Again, he should make clear he is stepping aside if he wants their approval. This demonstrates further, that he feels no accountability to his subjects, who keep him in his lavish lifestyle.

Personally, as a Canadian, I would rather see King William on my currency than tampon-charlie.

Seriously. I can see getting wrapped around the handle about it if he had any real power, but he doesn't.

Meanwhile we have REAL abuses of power going on in the US. So you'll excuse me if the furor over who Charles marries and when just doesn't register as much on the radar of someone watching one political party make a total power grab in her country.

As far as keeping him in his lavish lifestyle, paying taxes to fund that family WOULD piss me off. What is to be done about it? Cut 'em off.

We're not all apathetic! Some of us even have disdain for georgie, the boy king. :evilgrin:

Bouncyball, your point is irrelevant, actually. It is his SUBJECTS that matter, this is a monarchy we're talking about. Not to mention the Commonwealth. He is a representative as future King. To go against the majority of their wishes isn't just disrespectful, it's damaging to the very institution and puts it in jeopardy.

They depend on the the people for more than funding, they keep their traditions alive. They do not want to be represented by either Charlie or Camilla. That's the bottom line. Their opinions matter.

I never knew Canadians could feel such disdain for a leader. I thought WE had the market cornered on the idiot boy President.

My first reaction was, oh "Damn". On further reflection, I don't give a crap really and hope they are happy. I don't think Charles wanted Diana dead (at the time they were even getting along) though I never completely have bought that it was just an accident.

And honestly, I think if Diana was alive she would wish him well. She was capable of that. I would hope she would have found real love by now, but that wasn't her destiny. But the way to achieve that isn't to hold on to infinite bitterness. And mom will always be dead no matter who Daddy marries.

Hopefully, by the time he would be king, the monarchy will be done. It's another century and really, kings and queens are an absurd concept. Truly.

but it's also a bit of sham pity. I feel sorry for Charles, because I think the Queen ruined him, in the same way that Victoria ruined Edward - by keeping him waiting for his moment in the sun for far too long. She hung him out to dry, and instead, he rotted. By all accounts, neither she nor Philip were particularly good parents.

Camilla made the cardinal mistake of falling in love with someone she was not going to be permitted to marry. From all I can glean on the subject, they're genuinely devoted to one another. It's a pity they weren't allowed to marry and retire quietly, but Charles was reared in that bizarre, archaic mindset that he, and only he, could become King. I agree, he should have abdicated and married Camilla rather than allow himself to be essentially seduced into a marriage that apparently worked for about three days and damaged another person in the process.

At this point, I truly believe the best for all concerned would be for William to become King when the Queen becomes too elderly to continue. He seems relatively level-headed, and he's certainly far more popular than his father.

And I'm one of those rare birds that actually thinks monarchy can serve a useful function - continuity. Who else in the government has been privy to the most secret and important business of the government since the 1950s?

Oh, and I hate all the references to how "ugly" Camilla is, too. I see that as entirely irrelevant and extremely misogynistic and hurtful. She looks a perfectly normal middle-aged lady to me. I'd like to know how many of those bashing her looks constantly are willing to have every tabloid and website in creation publish THEIR picture and critical analysis of every one of THEIR feature flaws. It's mean-spirited and childish. Besides, he's ugly, too. ;-) Ugly should marry ugly.

Since my ancestors fought a little war to get rid of royal parasites, I can't say I'm all that interested in them, but I don't hate Camilla. Diana was absolutely loathesome.

The only TV I watch anymore is The Simpsons and The Daily Show.

I don't even know the channel number for CNN; I had to hunt for it to watch the Royal Wedding. God, it's awful . I can't stand that ticker crawl for one thing. And who was the idiot commenting on the statue of Queen Victoria, that didn't know what an orb and scepter are??

But I endured the CNN crap to see the wedding. Charles is clearly devoted to her, and I found it touching.

True love obviously survived in one of the most dysfunctional families ever.

I wish them long life and happiness.

Look at what we Americans are saddled with right now. I'll take the Windsors ANYTIME over "41" and "43" and their wives and kids and grandchildren and all of the fucking Bush Dynasty.

I agree...Charles and Camilla are happy. Let them be.

Too bad there were all the constraints keeping them apart. I think it's nice they can finally be together. This is like the fairytale ending.