Question for Camilla fans and feminists-

Isn't it a bad message for women everywhere to see a woman who has done nothing her entire life except"service" a rich and famous man, being rewarded for contributing to the break up of another woman's marriage? She seems to have brought a lot of pain and suffering to many people and to have contributed little in return, except to Charles.
Diana may have started out as a "trophy bride" but she was very young and grew into a great humanitarian. Camillia ia already older and there isn't any evidence of anything except her self indulgent interest in Charles. Isn't Camilla sending the message that if you sleep with the right man it is unncessary to do anything else to be rewarded?

on whether you consider being saddled with Charles as a "reward".

is funny on so many levels!

Thanks for my laugh of the evening....

:rofl:

bad word choice

how she runs her life.

I want to know why you think she is holding up her life as an example for young women everywhere. Where did she say that? Do you have a quote?

I also want to know what she did, specifically, to you? Did she kill your cat? Run over your dog? Come over and spill wine on your rug?

We get it. You HATE her. You'd probably jump for joy if she keeled over tomorrow. It makes me wonder: have you had a husband cheat on you or something? Are you projecting onto Camilla?

Whatever. I really don't get all the hatred for her. For God's sake, Diana herself, if she were still alive, would probably freaking want Charles to be happy. It's not like she hadn't gone on with her life herself (Dodi). Why do you care so much? If you are afraid your daughter will think "HEY! I can just do what Camilla did!" :eyes: then just teach your daughter differently. It's really not that hard.

All these judges of the lives of Camilla and Charles...my mother makes the very same kinds of comments about other members of our family and their marriages. My father left my mother many years ago, and my mom became a harshly judgmental RW born again Baptist, acting as judge and jury for the rest of humanity. She knows NOTHING of my life, because I don't want to here her pass her angry judgment on me as well.

None of us can climb inside the hearts and minds of others. We should not project our lives onto them. As the Bible says; Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Of course she is an example. She might be the freaking Queen. It isn't as though she was an ordinary person and no one is going to notice. Jeese. Like Diana or the Queen haven't set examples good or bad. Like Jackie Kennedy didn't. This is what happens when you are a public figure. I don't hate her. I hate her example and what she has done. And I reserve the right to an opinion. I am sorry you feel that I am not entitled to express it.
It is too bad the media can't focus on someone of merit.

She's pretty much tried to shun the spotlight for many years.

What makes you the expert on her entire life?

This kind of judgement passing just makes my skin crawl. It'd be different if she had done some horrible thing to people, if she had caused the deaths of thousands, or turned a blind eye while in a position to help people, etc.

But no, she carried on an affair with a man she obviously loves and she finally married him today.

Big whoop-e-dee-doo.

I wasn't aware we were still living in the time of Hester Prynne and her scarlet letter.

Of course you are entitled to express your hatred for the woman and I'm entitled to answer it.

BTW, I don't care for Yoko either and I don't think "love" means hurting others.

first six years she was married to Charles, when he wasn't seeing Camilla, aren't you?

This deification of Diana is baffling, too. I doubt she'd want to be so put up on a pedestal. She was human, too. She knew Charles was still in love with Camilla before they married.

Diana cheated on Charles, Charles cheated on Diana, Camilla cheated on her husband, for all we know HER husband cheated on Camilla.

:crazy:

There's enough blame to go around quite nicely, thankyouverymuch. I don't get why it's all heaped on Camilla. Is she a convenient target or something?

solace in a loveless marriage. Diana was an extemely innocent girl when she married Charles. As Diana stated, there were always "three people in her marriage'. It is a documented fact that Diana went to Camilla and asked her to leave her husband alone. Cammilla asked her what could she want.She said she was beautiful , wealthy and had wonderful children. Diana told her she wanted her husband to love her. Pathetic , really.
Camilla and Charles were very much older than Diana and had been engaged in this lifestyle for many years before Diana entered the picture.They knew what they were doing. Diana was the only one who didn't know what was going on.
I am also annoyed at this supposed "love story'. Charles obviously didn't "love" Camilla enough to step down in order to marry her as did his uncle David. It wasn't as though Charles was the only male.He had two brothers.He could have married Camilla if he wanted her.He obviously wanted to have his mistress and a wife too.

before the marriage.
Diana also claimed she got cold feet before the marriage, but her relatives told her it was too late to back down.
Something about her name already being on invitation cards and napkins and all.

She probably thought he was going to give Camilla up.

And I have no respect for women who get involved with or stay involved with another woman's husband. But it is all in the past. Everyone deserves forgiveness.

her pet cause is Osteoporosis and she is also working for the Bobby Van trust which helps victims of petty crime.

I agree with you BB. I posted the same as you did yesterday. One of the things they've had to be careful about her charitable work is to make sure no one gets pissed off at her for trying to be like Diana. She will also get the title 'Princess of Wales' but has chosen to be called 'Duchess of Cornwall' So she's trying. No matter what she does, she'll still be a pariah to those who think it's their business to judge, even when it's not.

So I'm glad that he finally got the gal he truly loved!

Even Diana was not slated to be Queen when she was married to Charles.

obviously did not, although I think both tried to make the marriage work in the beginning. But Diana was no plaster saint. She had some real problems that she never managed to get under control. Charles certainly never had the kind of upbringing that would help him deal with Diana's very real emotional and physical problems. (Remember, this is the man whose mother NEVER hugged him as a child; she shook his hand.)

Diana is dead. Life goes on for those who are not dead. Charles has every right to marry again and his own choice this time.

Frankly, I don't consider marriage as a "reward." Their deep regard for each other has survived decades. If they wish to be married, I for one hope they will be happy. I don't understand the hatred toward Camilla. So she isn't pretty and nineteen. Neither is Charles.

I was stunned at their almost utter boredom and apathy throughout the ceremony, and afterward at the airport. For two people who waited so long to marry, I truly expected to see at least a little glee.

Maybe it's a British thing...

He is not a publically demonstrative person. I think they looked like a couple who had been together for a very long time.

Maybe they'll try harder next time.

why is her life my business? Or something upon which I am entitled to pass judgement? How do you know what her activities are?

I think it's a bad message for PEOPLE in general, not just women, to see, everywhere they look, the private life dramas of famous people on display for the entertainment and distraction of the hoi polloi. The only thing about all of this that interests me is the disturbing need in this culture to peer, pick and generally make miserable most famous people.

And I say this not as a fan of Camilla or a feminist, but as a fan of privacy and the right to privacy.

In addition to "entertainment and distraction", you could add the trend of cherry-picking celebrity misdeeds and acting as though this one little aspect of a public person's private life is responsible for the decline of civility, responsibility, common sense, and so on. It's as if finding a flaw in a celebrity and calling it a "bad example" somehow absolves the rest of us of responsibility for controlling our own behavior or raising our children properly...

I think the whole Charles-Camilla thing was overblown to the hilt.

I wouldn't use celebrity marriages as a foundation for marriage planning or counseling...

She has raised children. Only under patriarchal views of social worth is that considered nothing. What's more, you question her value as a human being but not Charles, who is a parasitic monarch who lives off the hard labor of the people of Britain. Give me a break.

But don't you know any and every good thing she might have done is completely invalidated by the fact that she carried on with Charles while he was married? And is now married to him?

:eyes:

I find nothing more ridiculous than that royal family. Lots of people have affairs. It's a bad thing to do, but it is also entirely common. If that family hadn't had so many hang ups, Charles could have married Camilla years ago instead of searching for a camera ready virgin.

Why do the Brits put up with all of this nonsense? Why not take the whole lot of them off the dole and put the money to some productive purpose?

So did my mother.And they managed to contribute to the larger world as well.

are not contributing. In my view, that reflects internalized sexism. If a woman's life work is to raise children and care for a house, she has done a great deal. I myself have no children, but I watch my sister and I've babysitted for those kids. I can tell you her job is much more demanding than my own.

contribute via PTA and other community activities. I believe all people have an obligation to contribute beyond their immediate families.We are all part of the greater community of man! I agree a stay at home mom has a very demanding job!:) Though I must admit neither Diana or Camilla had exactly the burdens of what we think of as a "stay at home " mom! Or, indeed, the burden's of a middle class working mom!

and I guess my ultimate reaction in terms of her life in particular is who the fuck cares? I just find it amazing that it is always women's lives and women's physical appearance that is fodder for media gossip.

that even a woman who is and not all that young and good looking can marry a Prince.
:evilgrin:
Seriously, those two have been at it for so long, I am happy they can finally be legally married. It's too bad he didn't marry her back when they met, everybody probably would be a lot happier that way.
But seems none of the Royals were allowed to marry someone they loved back then.

but, how is this anything but the trials and tribulations of spoiled rich people? "Nobility" no less, not common rich people. Who gives a shit?

in the car crash with was engaged to another woman when diana got involved with him.

i don't think she was any more of a great humanitarian than Charles is.

was only dating him to make some other Dr. guy jealous.
None of them were angels, obviously.

...I could care less about her, him or any other gazillionaire....

it's too limiting. and who you are attracted to and love is not something you have much control over.

whether people have to work or not in life is a whole other issue all together.

and Camilla has money of her own from her own family. she didn't need to sleep with Charles or anyone else in order not to have to work.

That empty-headed media slut drama queen was the worst possible example of how to be.

Additionally, as an American whose ancestors fought to get rid of royal parasites, I give a shit what they do. Not.

Such hostility!

So it makes no difference to me what messages Camilla sends.

and selfishness and shallowness to say on television that he NEVER loved Diana. What sort of thing is that to say about the mother of your kids and them having to hear it on national tv? Camilla is, according to a future subject from Cornwall, a trollop. So is Charles. Diana is dead and her story is over but this is about deportment in government and I think they are both trollops. Period.

Poor kids. What a thing to have as your step mother the woman who drove your mother nuts. I would hate it, I wish those boys well. The other two? Fuck em.

Your little dogs are just beautiful. I grew up with a dachshund. :hi:

their mother "that ridiculous creature", too! They saw firsthand how much pain and emotional anguish that selfish bitch caused their mother and now to have her as a stepmother, ugh! No wonder the word is that the boys privately can't stand her or the marriage.

OTOH, it's no one else's business but theirs, anyone who gets hyper wrought up over it needs to get a life and leave them alone to live theirs.

don't fall for the "hater" propaganda. I think it's sad that these folks were separated for so long in life, and it's really inspiring that they still love each other after all this time. That is so romantic. Diana is dead, so let it go. Camilla isn't sending a message, she's living her life.

And you have a serious disconnect going on in your post about social class. The main purpose of a "career" is to earn money. Rich people, who don't need money, are protecting assets by running their companies and estates, while others work just as a hobby, and many if not most don't work at all. The whole middle and upper middle class career drive comes from knowing you are going to have to work and thus trying to actually end up doing something you enjoy. Rich folks don't face this dilemna, so Camilla would probably look at you with a blank stare if you posed this question to her.

their own choices were to blame. I'm sick of hearing things like "after years of heartbreak", etc. (that was actually the USA Today headline about it!). THEY are the ones who chose not to marry when they initially could have and SHE is the one who chose to marry Andrew Parker Bowles knowing how Charles still felt and what her true feelings were. If they had married thirty years ago they could have saved a lot of people, especially their spouses, a lot of pain and grief. THEY are the ones who made that choice.

duty, honor country and all that, Charles could not marry camilla in 1979, duty forbade it.

Why?

Doesn't it send a bad message to women for one to attack another for the choices she has made in life? Isn't life hard enough for women without attacking each other for not being good enough in some way?

Judege her for her behavior, but don't make this a feminist issue because it is not.

my feminist sensibilities get a little rankled when the woman is attacked simply for the way she looks. I don't care if you attack her for being adulterous, self-absorbed, royal or whatever. Those *behaviors* are choices people make and can change, and mean more than artificual and superficial things like "beauty".

However, I do also believe that for some people (not saying you cause I don't know), their dislike of her stems from the physical appearances of those involved, whether consciously or not. The beautiful fair Dianna turned over for the ugly Camilla. Shocker.

No one is perfect, and we could all be judged pretty harshly for many things. Some things are worthy of that judgment, particularly how we treat others. So while I think it's wholly appropriate to attack one as wealthy as she for little to no charitable work if true, I think it's sexist and superficial to merely call her names based on her physical appearance.

I don't know if you did this, and I'm not saying you did. But I've seen plenty of posters from otherwise progressive individuals who still seem to think that it's ok to judge a woman by her appearance. THAT is what bothers me.

..the first time he asked her like 30+ years ago because of the antiquated, sexist laws that says Charles had to marry a virgin. That is why he ended up with someone like Diana in the first place.

Maybe if the laws of marriage weren't so anal, he would have married Camilla 30 some years ago instead of some Fairy Virginal Princess that he picked simply to satisify everyone else except himself.

I adored Diana because of what she became after the divorce. But she was never Charles' true love - which was always Camilla. I'm so happy these 2 finally got married

given up the throne just like his uncle Edward the VIII. Charles has two brothes who could have stepped in. He didn't love her enough. I do agree, he shouldn't have married Diana. It was cruel to her and eventually the children, but hey , he got what he wanted and tha's what counts! He has the throne, and the children and will be King eventually.True love Psst. Listen to their phone tape! We should celebrate his getting to be Camilla's tampon, the way he always wanted to be? Diana was right. He isn't fit to be King.

Camilla's "past" was not scandalous for the 2nd half of the 20th century. But he wimped out & Camilla lost no time in finding a rich hubby. She would have been happy to continue as royal mistress but Diana was not up to living a lie, having a bit of discreet fun on the side & making smiling public appearances with her husband.

Who knows if he'll ever be king. Who knows how long the House of Windsor will last. UK friends of mine have said that the old Queen Mother was long considered the only worthwhile member of the family.

do those 2 getting married. Think of how productive your time could be spent! Seriously, I'm happy for them. Personally I have other things to do than to listen to their taped phone conversations. Why he made the choice 30 years ago that he made is beyond me, but I know there was alot of bullshit on both ends as to why he took the path he did.

Hopefully Prince William will not face the same pressures when he picks a wife (and potential future queen). Personally, I think virgin wives to be highly overrated!

I almost never post on ANYTHING but politics. I wanted something different!

This is not a feminist issue to rise up arms against. They basically live in a world that personally I know I can't comprehend and for whatever reason they ended up not getting married the first time around.

What I hate is the amount of disgusting posts against her because of her looks. Diana was a trophy wife and ultimately Charles realized that trophy wives needs lots of maintenence in order to keep them happy. Camilla is hope that the rest of the world can one day find their prince and get married!

I don't think calling her a "trophy wife" is any better than mocking Camilla's looks! Discriminating against someone because they are good looking is equally as bad as making judgments on people for being unattractive. And how do you know how much"maintenance" Camilla, or anyone else requires?
It irritates me that people make "blond jokes' and assume good looking women are "stupid" or that they are "trophy wives". That is also insulting to women.

Camilla has done nothing to me. Camilla has not wasted my tax dollars on a stupid and poorly planned war. She is not threatening the air I breath and the water I drink. Camilla is not appointing ultra-conservative judges who want to turn women into brood mares. Camilla is also not trying to tear down the U.S. Constitution. She also has not advocated violence against those who disagree with her.

Although I certainly do not believe that Charles and Camilla treated Diana fairly, I suspect that Diana had her own share of flaws like every other person on the planet. I wonder if many people would feel differently about this marriage and relationship if Diana was the one who looked like a horse and Camilla was the pretty one. Would many people still be so sympathetic to Diana or would they be more sympathetic to Charles?

Unfortunately, look-ism is still a major issue for feminists. Too many people still judge women more harshly for their physical appearance than they judge men. Women, for example, not suppose to age. Too many women (as well as many men) feel shame and anxiety over the natural process of aging. This is one reason some posters may be sensitive about posts ridiculing Camilla's appearance.


I am definitely not worried about Camilla sending the wrong message to women because most adult women are not naive little children. I suspect that most men and women know at least one couple whose marriage ended in divorce because of adultery. By the time I was eighteen-years-old, I knew at least three couples whose marriage ended in divorce because one spouse had cheated on the other spouse. In one of these cases, the "innocent" spouse ended up losing her middle-class lifestyle and ending up struggling to support herself and her daughter with a minimum-wage job. This was one struggle that Diana was lucky enough not to have to endure. Indeed, I suspect that the realization that life is not fair is why many liberals favor providing some sort of safety net for people who face hard times.

Look, these two have obviously been in love for a long time. Yeah, they both made some pretty stupid mistakes throughout all that time. For some reason, the fates have decided to make it possible for the rules to be changed and they can be together.

I think that's the be-all and end-all of it.

Let's wish them the best and leave it at that.

because his father told him to. Camilla and Charles were in love long before Diana but he had to marry Diana. it is sad for both to have been so miserable with one another, never really having loved one another. They had two beautiful boys so not all was lost.

Given that I can't pick up a newspaper without reading about how some actress in her 30s or 40s is "too old" for lead roles, or how a CEO, politician, or writer in his 50s, 60s, or 70s has just taken a bride 15 to 30 years his junior, I'm all for people close to the same age getting married. So she's not arm candy and doesn't wear Versace and flirt with the press. GOOD.

:thumbsup: He loves her, she loves him. So be it. I'm tired of levels of attractiveness being brought up.

are public figures. If you cannot make commentary and ridicule on C/C, then the same needs to apply to B/P. no other way to do it. You cannot give slack to one and not the other. No more chimp, no more stepford/what is wrong with her face/big ass remarks.
Also, Bar is off limits and everyone else too. Either we are in one accord on all or all bets are off. Someone said, "You don't know ____ about her life, deeds, etc."

We don't know the same beyond generalities about B/P either but we trash them and their families constantly. Its damned hypocritcal to say that some heads of state of off limits when we go to town on others.

Just an observation. :)

It was a poster on another thread, about Ann Coulter, who brought my attention to the fact that discussing levels of attractiveness could hurt people who may happen to look like the individual being discussed. I never thought about that before. Since then I've tried to stay out of commenting on a person's outward appearance. Their actions are fair game. :D

on both sides of the Atlantic.

I suppose if this were the 18th century, we'd be arguing about whether it was nice to call King George's mistresses "ugly German goosies." I say if the Windsors can't bear the insults of the rabble, they should abdicate. Off with their heads. Quit living off the public dole. Start living productive lives.

Otherwise, let the freakshow go on!