Jump to content
IGNORED

Charles and Camilla


QuiverFullofBooks

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, viii said:

I freaking love Camilla. She would be great to sit down and have a drink with. 

She deeply hurt a young Diana by sleeping with Charles. Camilla  didn't seem to care at all about Diana's feelings or the boys. She cheated on her own husband as well, outward, blatantly, in public. I guess they had some sort of arrangement, but really, she totally lacked any class.

Quote

“They were kissing passionately as they danced — on and on they went, kissing each other, French kissing, dance after dance. Andrew Parker Bowles wasn’t quite sure how to react — he sat there smiling and saying to people: ‘HRH is very fond of my wife. And she appears very fond of him.’ He seemed not uncomfortable with what was going on, but other people were, especially the older ones. Some were embarrassed and shocked because the whole thing was so blatant.”

What is "royal" about that? This is someone you "freaking love"? 

 

9 hours ago, SoSoNosy said:

She has definitely seemed to be good for him.  

Like Meghan's been for Harry.

Camilla did stuff that's far worse than anything Meghan has ever done. It just goes to show that it really helps to be white in these situations. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Move Along 1
  • Downvote 4
  • Confused 1
  • Bless Your Heart 1
  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sableduck said:

I really believe that if Charles had been married to anyone less beloved than Diana, his marriage to Camilla would be considered a beautiful story of true life overcoming all odds, even the approval of a stodgy, old fashioned Royal family. 
 

The Diana stans tilt the narrative. Yes , she was younger and more innocent. But both of them really needed a some-one impartial to advise them. Not push them into an unequal  union. Charles went into marriage with a "well she's good enough, ticks all the boxes. " while Diana thought it was a love match. Both were quickly disillusioned by the fickle press machine. 

 

3 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

She deeply hurt a young Diana by sleeping with Charles. Camilla  didn't seem to care at all about Diana's feelings or the boys. She cheated on her own husband as well, outward, blatantly, in public. I guess they had some sort of arrangement, but really, she totally lacked any class.

 

Guess you missed the whole "Diana screwing all and sundry" . And by that time Diana wasn't a fainting virgin. The palace made sure that a sufficient coterie of smart, handsome young Guard officers were available for her harem.   

  • Upvote 4
  • Fuck You 1
  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve just realised …

What will the words of the nursery rhyme be for my (if we are lucky enough to have them) Grandchildren?!

Pussy cat, Pussy cat, where have you been? I’ve been up to London to visit the Queen.

I guess the words could be changed. Or they could be about Camilla now.

We have an artwork with my younger son’s name with this nursery rhyme. It’s still hanging in his empty room - even though he moved out of home long ago. If he has kids I hope he treasures it - his Godmother had it painted for him when she was living in London.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Charles and Diana cheated on their marriage left and right. And it wasn’t Camilla’s job to honor the Wales marriage - it was Charles’. So much attention goes on the other woman when it should be directed at the husband. 

Also, people grow and change. Its been over thirty years since the divorce. It’s time to stop holding people’s behaviour against them when there is clear evidence of change. 

Edited by viii
  • Upvote 16
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Camilla did stuff that's far worse than anything Meghan has ever done. It just goes to show that it really helps to be white in these situations. 

Everything doesn't have to come back to Harry and Meghan.  They have their own thread and beating the dead horse in other threads has gotten old.  Please stop.  (Spoken as a help meet.)

 

2 hours ago, viii said:

Also, people grow and change. Its been over thirty years since the divorce. It’s time to stop holding people’s behaviour against them when there is clear evidence of change. 

Charles made a mistake marrying Diana.  That's been thoroughly rectified and as far as the public can see he has a solid marriage with Camilla.  There is nothing he can do to change the past.  I've kind of always thought if Diana had lived and gone on to a life with someone like Dodi the world might have an entirely different impression of her.  

  • Upvote 18
  • Thank You 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They said “Her Majesty” at the Ascension Council and I was like “who?” and they meant Camilla! It kind of blew my mind for a minute.  She really eyed Charles when they got to the part about surrendering the Crown Estates; back before the Sovereign Grant, he thought that the way to stop arguing about the Civil List would be to keep the Crown Estates instead.

  • Upvote 4
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, viii said:

And it wasn’t Camilla’s job to honor the Wales marriage - it was Charles’. So much attention goes on the other woman when it should be directed at the husband. 

It's not about "responsibility." Of course it wasn't Camilla's responsibility.

It's about character.  Camilla showed extremely poor character.  It takes a true lack of class to do something like this: 

Quote

“They were kissing passionately as they danced — on and on they went, kissing each other, French kissing, dance after dance. Andrew Parker Bowles wasn’t quite sure how to react — he sat there smiling and saying to people: ‘HRH is very fond of my wife. And she appears very fond of him.’ He seemed not uncomfortable with what was going on, but other people were, especially the older ones. Some were embarrassed and shocked because the whole thing was so blatant.”

 

 

Quote

Guess you missed the whole "Diana screwing all and sundry" . And by that time Diana wasn't a fainting virgin. The palace made sure that a sufficient coterie of smart, handsome young Guard officers were available for her harem.   

Sounds like Diana deserved it!   Slut-shaming the dead is the way to go.

And you're right--she was already 24 and had had sex at least twice with Charles. So she wouldn't mind if he cheated. Once you've had sex a few times, you don't care if your husband cheats. That's your point, I suppose.

 

But back to Meghan, who is doing stuff WAY worse than adultery:

20 hours ago, SoSoNosy said:

She grabbed my attention when she showed up at Westminster Abbey wrapped from head to foot in bright green; she also knew exactly where every single camera was, and made a point of smiling directly into each one.

Like I said, it helps to be Caucasian in these situations.  You get a free pass for nearly everything.

Cheating with another woman's husband is fine. Wearing green and smiling (while mixed race) is terrible! 

Edited by Jackie3
  • Upvote 1
  • Move Along 5
  • Downvote 3
  • Eyeroll 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

Charles made a mistake marrying Diana.  That's been thoroughly rectified and as far as the public can see he has a solid marriage with Camilla.

How has it been "rectified"?  Rectified means something is corrected or made right. Diana was miserable during her life, and now she's dead. Her sons were terribly hurt by the whole thing. It really wasn't rectified at all. Just Charles got what he wanted at last.

Camilla showed herself to be a classless character with few morals.  We have no idea if she's changed or not.  

Now that she's Queen consort, people "freaking love" her. She hardly got a mention on this thread before.

  • Upvote 1
  • Move Along 4
  • Fuck You 1
  • Downvote 4
  • Eyeroll 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

The marriage of Charles and Diana was promoted as a beautiful story (I read the papers at the time.). But it wasn't. It was all a facade. So whether the public considers a marriage to be "beautiful" is really, really unrelated to the reality.

No shit, Sherlock! 😉

Edited by prayawaythefundie
  • Upvote 6
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The green dress, cape, hat, shoes, gloves was discussed here at the time.  They had already announced they were leaving the UK, there was family tension, and it was a solemn affair (I don't remember what ceremony it was, right now).  Everybody else was dressed in more muted clothes.  That's all.  We can start ignoring that at any time now.

  • Upvote 2
  • Bless Your Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like that since the ring was bought, William was able to give it to Kate as her engagement ring as it wasn't royal jewelry. The nice thing is that since Harry's children are now the grandchildren of the King, they're now Prince and Princess, and any future children will be Prince or Princess.

Edited by ADoyle90815
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Begs the question: if they were going to be a Prince and Prince pretty soon anyway why did the Sussexes make such a production number out of it?   Plus they refused the Royal title that was rightfully his and then made it sound as if the Family snubbed them.  

  • Upvote 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Begs the question: if they were going to be a Prince and Prince pretty soon anyway why did the Sussexes make such a production number out of it?   Plus they refused the Royal title that was rightfully his and then made it sound as if the Family snubbed them.  

 

Same hate, different year. 

download-4.jpg.c257d8fdab00604ff0be2016c1c9507a.jpg

It's a shame you don't have any anger for the rapists or adulterers in the royal family. All your hate is focused on someone who dares to "make such a production."

Edited by Jackie3
  • Move Along 1
  • Fuck You 3
  • Downvote 9
  • WTF 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jackie3 Please take all talk about Andrew to his thread.  Your disruption of current threads has reached it's limit.  Any further disruption by dragging up your pet points from other topics will get warnings. 

Edited by Coconut Flan
  • Upvote 5
  • Thank You 17
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Begs the question: if they were going to be a Prince and Prince pretty soon anyway why did the Sussexes make such a production number out of it?   Plus they refused the Royal title that was rightfully his and then made it sound as if the Family snubbed them.  

Tom Bower’s book says that Meghan found out that Archie’s title would be Harry’s subsidiary title, Earl of Dumbarton, and she said that she didn’t want her son to have a title with “dumb” in it.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Tom Bower’s book says that Meghan found out that Archie’s title would be Harry’s subsidiary title, Earl of Dumbarton, and she said that she didn’t want her son to have a title with “dumb” in it.

She/they were also going on about Archie wouldn't have protection because he wasn't a prince.  Since the child wouldn't be going out by himself, he'd have the protection of the parents (if they'd stayed working royals).  Being a Prince has nothing to do with the security, but they were trying to link it and knowing he'd be technically a prince when the queen died and she was in her nineties, it did seem making a mountain out of nothing.

  • Upvote 11
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know she's just a miserable troll, but Jesus Christ is it offensive to invoke the Little Rock Nine because someone asked a valid question about the Sussexes' concerns about titles. 

Way to do your best to try to undermine future valid claims of racism. 

Edited by nausicaa
  • Upvote 16
  • I Agree 4
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

@Jackie3 Please take all talk about Andrew to his thread.  You're disruption of current threads has reached it's limit.  Any further disruption by dragging up your pet points from other topics will get warnings. 

Warn away!

As a moderator, it's your job to call our racism (my "pet point"). You aren't doing your job.

  • Fuck You 2
  • Downvote 9
  • Eyeroll 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

Warn away!

As a moderator, it's your job to call our racism (my "pet point"). You aren't doing your job.

This has nothing to do with racism and you know it.  I'm mixed race the same as Meghan.  This is about you doing everything you can to derail discussion, hijack topics, and beat the same dead horses in inappropriate places, and in general cause disruption.  

Any further discussion will be handled by PM, warnings, or in community discussion.  

Edited by Coconut Flan
  • Upvote 6
  • Thank You 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the last time because this is getting really boring: Archie and Lilibet not being born a prince and princess had absolutely nothing to do with racism. It simply followed an old rule as they were not the monarch‘s grandchildren at the time (they are now). An exception was made for the then Cambridge kids (now Wales kids) because it would have been weird to have a future king who wasn‘t born a prince.

This would have been known to Harry all along. If he didn‘t explain it to Meghan, that‘s his fault. 

Edited by prayawaythefundie
  • Upvote 21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George would have been a prince, but his siblings wouldn't have.  The Queen at the time just went for equity within that family unit.  

  • Upvote 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some discussion amongst Royal watchers, that perhaps the Royal family interpreted the 1917 Letters Patent, as well as those issued in 2012 prior to Prince George's birth, as meaning that Archie and Lili are not entitled to status as Prince and Princess.  Jane Barr of From Berkshire to Buckingham on IG lays out the case for how this could work.  She is an attorney, though in the US, not the UK, and has been covering Catherine and the Royals for many years now.  This could account for Meghan's confusing conversation with Oprah about how her kids were denied Prince/Princess etc.

Additionally, the Royal Family's website has been updated to reflect the new order of succession and their new titles, yet Harry and Meghan's children remain listed as Master Archie and Miss Lilibet.  

https://fromberkshiretobuckingham.substack.com/p/why-i-think-archie-and-lily-are-not 

  • Upvote 3
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

 

Same hate, different year. 

download-4.jpg.c257d8fdab00604ff0be2016c1c9507a.jpg

It's a shame you don't have any anger for the rapists or adulterers in the royal family. All your hate is focused on someone who dares to "make such a production."

You do realize that Meghan Markle would likely take offense to being compared to Elizabeth Eckford?



 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • samurai_sarah locked, unlocked and locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.