Should Camilla attend the memorial service for Diana?

[TheTruth]

So you think it was that he was 'not allowed'? I have heard both that theory and that he dawdled and she was in love with APB whom she had been with (correct me if I'm wrong) 7 years. Both are certainly viable theories. I've always wondered, if it was the 'not allowed' then, why was he was allowed later. Surely whatever it was about her that gave her the 'not allowed' stamp...she still has those whatevers. My point is why was he allowed to marry her now after the divorces, but not allowed to marry her when she was a single lady. Surely it would have been less problematic, constitutionally?

When Charles was on military training, she married APB. But what I meant by 'allowed', is that Camilla had already had various love stories with men and couldn't be the woman Charles would marry. I don't think the RF was against this choice directly but he knew that it would be impossible and Camilla was now married and happy so he let her go. He find someone else (Diana) and like we all know, it turned out to be quite a disaster. The RF, with the death of Diana and all the damage caused, probably approved the marriage because what was the point having the future King without a wife and unhappy ? IMO only

 

[Thomas Parkman]

Good Lord! People! How much longer has this to go on. Let the dead bury the dead. Nothing is ever going to be changed because it cannot be!!! If there is to be a service, I repeat, let it be one of mercy, pardon and peace. Going on with the Diana/Camilla thing will never get anybody anywhere except keep you frozen into a past of what might have been. But will never be.

 

[hibou]

Good Lord! People! How much longer has this to go on. Let the dead bury the dead. Nothing is ever going to be changed because it cannot be!!! If there is to be a service, I repeat, let it be one of mercy, pardon and peace. Going on with the Diana/Camilla thing will never get anybody anywhere except keep you frozen into a past of what might have been. But will never be.

I have to agree with you Tomas Parkman. Enough is enough. Why don't we turn to prayers for the late Princess and for the welfare of her sons. JMO

 

[Duchess]

i agree. maybe we should end this discussion.

 

[bbb]

thank you thomas parkman!!! beautifully put. this tread has been going in circles for 30 pages "are we there yet" i wished pages ago it was over already. perhaps we could close at this point with the wonderful posts by thomas parkman and hibou and have a picture thread after the service. she's going, the princes want her there- period- end of paragraph.

i suggested the same thing 3 pages back duchess. she's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. not even showing up in sackcloth and ashes will make some people happy- so she should do what's best for her family that wants her there. it's not the first or last thing she's going to face hostility for, i expect her to be dignified and supportive, not front and center trying to grab the spotlight- she never has and certainly won't at this memorial.

 

[Elspeth]

I know the thread is getting repetitive, but we have new members joining every day who might want to post their opinions. It'd be a shame for someone to read the thread, think "that's an interesting topic, I've got something to add," join the forum, come along here ready to give us their two cents' worth, and be faced with a locked thread because the regular posters have decided that enough has been said. So if you can put up with it for another couple of weeks, legions of newbies might be eternally grateful!

 

[Duchess]

I know the thread is getting repetitive, but we have new members joining every day who might want to post their opinions. It'd be a shame for someone to read the thread, think "that's an interesting topic, I've got something to add," join the forum, come along here ready to give us their two cents' worth, and be faced with a locked thread because the regular posters have decided that enough has been said. So if you can put up with it for another couple of weeks, legions of newbies might be eternally grateful!

fair enough elspeth.

 

[surfrosa]

So you think it was that he was 'not allowed'? I have heard both that theory and that he dawdled and she was in love with APB whom she had been with (correct me if I'm wrong) 7 years. Both are certainly viable theories. I've always wondered, if it was the 'not allowed' then, why was he was allowed later. Surely whatever it was about her that gave her the 'not allowed' stamp...she still has those whatevers. My point is why was he allowed to marry her now after the divorces, but not allowed to marry her when she was a single lady. Surely it would have been less problematic, constitutionally?

The Queen Mother is why! She is Deceased Now. A Divorced Woman Caused Her Husband to be King and it is said she felt Divorced women should not be allowed to Marry men in the Family.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Including her daughter and granddaughter? No sorry, I don't buy that one.

 

[Skydragon]

The Queen Mother is why! She is Deceased Now. A Divorced Woman Caused Her Husband to be King and it is said she felt Divorced women should not be allowed in the Family.

Actually, along with many women from that era, she didn't believe that divorce should be allowed to happen, whatever the reason, nothing to do with the family.

Then again she came from the days that also allowed hanging and whipping school children. She also believed, IMO, that a woman was faithful to her husband, no matter how many lady friends he may have had.

 

[surfrosa]

dressing like Diana?! you would rather that she goes around in a burlap sack and barefoot? as for attending events, it is her duty to attend certain engagements. if she avoided everything then we'd have a thread on her about that. (i'm going to get crucified for this but here goes) in a lot of ways camilla has carried herself in a far more dignified manner than diana ever did...she has put her best face forward in the storm of public criticisim when she could very easily have run in the opposite direction. for these reasons she has been an excellent example of devotion to duty and the POW and i think she makes a wonderful representative for the monarchy.

Well I disagree a bit. Diana was 19 and needed help at first. Camilla is doing well now but I ask you Why could she not have been the Princes Friend without Benefits. She would have been more respected. I agree Camilla is putting her best foot forward now but that will never cover up the facts that she should have told the Prince "NO" about being part of an affair. That would have been the high road. All I would also like to ask is when is the Royal Family, that is sappost to show us proper behavior, going to do so themselves? If they are not going to do the job totally then what makes them so different from us?

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well I disagree a bit. Diana was 19 and needed help at first. Camilla is doing well now but I ask you Why could she not have been the Princes Friend without Benefits. She would have been more respected. I agree Camilla is putting her best foot forward now but that will never cover up the facts that she should have told the Prince "NO" about being part of an affair. That would have been the high road.

The world has changed. If Charles was Edward VII, he could have had Diana as a wife, Camilla as a mistress and the world would have kept turning. But the hypocrisy of the public made things run differently. We want the RF to be these holier than thou people who never put a foot wrong but then we criticise them for not being human enough. They show a human side and they're not being royal enough. They honestly can't win. I don't think anyone concerned would have felt Charles keeping a mistress as King would have been a good idea. One, because of his position in the Church and Two, because things are different now. The opinion is, if he didn't love Diana, why was he with her? Why didn't he marry Camilla in the first place? In the changing times, the role of the Prince of Wales has changed and lives have gone through stormy patches to finally find a more modern role for him and his family.

All I would also like to ask is when is the Royal Family, that is sappost to show us proper behavior, going to do so themselves? If they are not going to do the job totally then what makes them so different from us?

Well what is proper behaviour? And why do you want them to show it? Is it so you can follow their example or use their example to shield your own misgivings? They do do the job totally, the job being public engagements and constitutional duties - their private lives are not jobs and can't be managed as such. And it's unfair to expect them to be.

 

[Skydragon]

Well I disagree a bit. Diana was 19 and needed help at first. Camilla is doing well now but I ask you Why could she not have been the Princes Friend without Benefits. She would have been more respected. I agree Camilla is putting her best foot forward now but that will never cover up the facts that she should have told the Prince "NO" about being part of an affair. That would have been the high road. All I would also like to ask is when is the Royal Family, that is sappost to show us proper behavior, going to do so themselves? If they are not going to do the job totally then what makes them so different from us?

The Princes friend without benefits, it sounds like a ministerial position. They were and are in love. Her steadfast and total support of Charles is bringing her the respect she so richly deserves, from the majority of people who can see past the blinkered responses to a 'story' they were told.

In one breath you revere Diana for being human, in the next you condemn Charles and the rest of the royal family..... for being human!

 

[surfrosa]

Well what is proper behaviour? And why do you want them to show it? Is it so you can follow their example or use their example to shield your own misgivings? They do do the job totally, the job being public engagements and constitutional duties - their private lives are not jobs and can't be managed as such. And it's unfair to expect them to be.

Propre behavior to me would to be the same in private as in public. To show they are human so people would know it once and for all and know we are all the same no matter rank. As for the Misgivings "No" I would like all humans of this world to realize that we are all the same no matter what and that The reasons we keep making bad mistakes in our lifes are because we DO NOT LEARN FROM THE PAST. It is wrong in my opinion to pick and choose when to say you want to change things but use the negative of the past to get there. Just go New or Stay Old. Mixing and Matching is not working. I agree they are doing the Jobs wonderfully. Their Constitutional Jobs are seperate. But the one thing we have learned here is things spill over from your private life, they CAN and Should being better managed if possible. How do we for sure know it can not be done? Hillary and Bill Clinton are managing!

 

[BeatrixFan]

Propre behavior to me would to be the same in private as in public.

Then I think you've set an impossible bar for the Royals to reach in their behaviour. How can they be all the same, no matter what rank and still be Royalty? That's an oxymoron - they're either the Royal Family or commoners, they can't be both.

How do we for sure know it can not be done? Hillary and Bill Clinton are managing!

Well, I'd say Charles and Camilla were too. And their situations aren't really that different. Is it a case of you believe the Clintons are managing because you didn't like Monica whereas Charles and Camilla aren't because you liked Diana?

 

[sirhon11234]

Well its a bit different didn't Monica tell the press that she had an affair with the president before Bill admited it. Which imo was a very stupid thing to do she had a high paying job at the white house which she blew off. Camilla kept quiet it was Charles and then Diana who outed her to the public.

 

[Hendrik-Jan77]

I have a question:

Does anyone know what time the Memorial Service begins and what time the BBC coverage starts?
I've tried to look it up, but I can't find this information anywhere...

 

[BeatrixFan]

Either way, there was a third person in the relationships of public figures. But it's interesting because, in the same way that the private life of Mrs Clinton shouldn't affect her bid for Presidency, it shouldn't affect Charles or Camilla's public roles as heir to the throne and consort to the heir to the throne.

 

[Skydragon]

Propre behavior to me would to be the same in private as in public. To show they are human so people would know it once and for all and know we are all the same no matter rank.....
How do we for sure know it can not be done? Hillary and Bill Clinton are managing!

You can't have it baoth ways, they are either godlike, as you seem to want from them or they are human, with all the faults that may entail!
The Clintons are managing what, he may have had an affair or three, but she obviously loves him as she hasn't gone slumming around has she?

 

[Skydragon]

Well its a bit different didn't Monica tell the press that she had an affair with the president before Bill admited it.

No, she was outed by a 'friend' who gave the information to the press. He denied it, his emphatic and oft repeated 'I have never had sexual relations with that woman', is still shown on TV.

 

[Olishka]

I personally don't see anything "wrong" with Camilla's attending the service, but I believe that should she decide to go it would spawn a lot of press attention centred on the issue being discussed here, and would detract from the overall goal of the service, which is to remember the positive, "people's princess" aspects of Diana's life, and not her failed marriage to Charles. Goodness knows we've all heard enough about that to last us a dozen lifetimes.

 

[BeatrixFan]

It's rather like J. Edgar Hoover. Director of the FBI, widely respected, called a great man and executed his duties with excellence - and in his private time, he wore a house-dress and flowery hat. His private life had no impact on his professional life and that rule should apply here. Camilla has a profession, a public role which she's paid to execute. If she let's her personal life get in the way of carrying that role out, then she isn't doing her job properly and then we can criticise. But she isn't, by going to this memorial service, she is doing her job without letting her private life interfere and thats what we pay for and thats what we should expect.

 

[surfrosa]

Then I think you've set an impossible bar for the Royals to reach in their behaviour. How can they be all the same, no matter what rank and still be Royalty? That's an oxymoron - they're either the Royal Family or commoners, they can't be both.

WE are all commonors the only thing that seperates us is us.

Well, I'd say Charles and Camilla were too. And their situations aren't really that different. Is it a case of you believe the Clintons are managing because you didn't like Monica whereas Charles and Camilla aren't because you liked Diana?

Did Like Monica

 

[BeatrixFan]

WE are all commonors the only thing that seperates us is us.

But we're not. The Royal Family aren't commoners.

 

[surfrosa]

I have a question:

Does anyone know what time the Memorial Service begins and what time the BBC coverage starts?
I've tried to look it up, but I can't find this information anywhere...

Look Uner the thread Diana, Princes of Wales. There was a posting today. Some say CNN but Defonately BBC.

 

[surfrosa]

But we're not. The Royal Family aren't commoners.

Okay but that begs the questioin why act like the rest of us.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, you're not really being clear. Do you want them to act like commoners or not?

 

[surfrosa]

Either way, there was a third person in the relationships of public figures. But it's interesting because, in the same way that the private life of Mrs Clinton shouldn't affect her bid for Presidency, it shouldn't affect Charles or Camilla's public roles as heir to the throne and consort to the heir to the throne.

It should not but it does

 

[BeatrixFan]

Why does it?

 

[surfrosa]

It's rather like J. Edgar Hoover. Director of the FBI, widely respected, called a great man and executed his duties with excellence - and in his private time, he wore a house-dress and flowery hat. His private life had no impact on his professional life and that rule should apply here. Camilla has a profession, a public role which she's paid to execute. If she let's her personal life get in the way of carrying that role out, then she isn't doing her job properly and then we can criticise. But she isn't, by going to this memorial service, she is doing her job without letting her private life interfere and thats what we pay for and thats what we should expect.

I have already stated I think she should go, show her respects and do her duty.

Why does it?

Humans do not learn from their past

Well, you're not really being clear. Do you want them to act like commoners or not?

Asked and Answered