tiaraprin
Royal Highness
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,824
- City
- Near NY City
- Country
- United States
Surprised she would read a "banned book".
At least Diana took her share of the blame in the Panorma interview in 1995
They neither of them look in the best of health and so hopefully they won't have that much time together left in this world anyway
Charles is guarded in front of strangers (as most royals are), and only confides to his antiquated, sycophantic cronies like Fatty Soames
UH, if you have watched the Panorama interview (I have a copy), when Diana was asked if she was to blame for anything in the marriage she answered yes she would take half the blame, no more no less. She said she and Charles BOTH made mistakes.Originally posted by wymanda@Jun 2nd, 2004 - 12:12 am
At least Diana took her share of the blame in the Panorma interview in 1995
Did she really?? I thought it was one long "I'm so hard done by" whinge
I think relationships change as you mature. When you are younger it is important to be married and to have a ring on your finger and a piece of paper that says you are Mr and Mrs. But as you get older and espescially if you have been previously married or are widowed having that legal document or a ring on your finger doesn't matter as much. As you get older it is more about the companionship and friendship than trying to prove anything to the world. Lots of public figures enjoy very happy and successful relationships like the one Charles and Camilla are enjoying without feeling like they should be married. Jackie Kennedy had a very long relationship with her companion Maurice Templesman. Just because they are not married does not mean that they are any less committed than married couples. Maybe Charles and Camilla don't want to be married. Maybe Camilla isn't interested in being the next Princess of Wales or Duchess of Cornwall or whatever. Maybe she and Charles are very happy with things as they are.bluetortuga said:Charles could marry Camilla right now if he really wanted to. I don't think he wants to be married. He likes the convenience of this relationship. He gets to milk the cow for free; and she seems to like that too. To me she's nothing more than a glorified "good time girl". If she deserves any title, it should be either that or "The Royal Mistress".
While what has been done is no guide to morality I would point out the example of a previous Duke of Devonshire who lived, during the early 19th Century, in a menage a trois with his wife & mistress! His wife was an ancestor of Diana's, Lady Georgiana Spencer & his mistress Lady Elizabeth Foster. When his wife (the mother of his heir) died he married his mistress who became, as his wife had been, Duchess of Devonshire. At the passing of the Duke his heir treated his stepmother as his father had asked, despite her part in his mothers life.Reina said:Let us not forget taht Diana is the mother of the heirs to the throne, so it just would not be right to give Camilla the title Princess of Wales. Gosh Charles has made such a mess of things...compromisation of values all around...
Your opinion but not particularly productive!Ellie2 said:how about home wrecker
I am not easily chocked but think the sentence milk the cow for free terrible. It is not only is unjust for the two of them but it demeans all women.bluetortuga said:Charles could marry Camilla right now if he really wanted to. I don't think he wants to be married. He likes the convenience of this relationship. He gets to milk the cow for free; and she seems to like that too. To me she's nothing more than a glorified "good time girl". If she deserves any title, it should be either that or "The Royal Mistress".
I don't think that's any barrier to a second wife taking her husband's title. In the case of Diana and Camilla it's mostly emotion demanding that Camilla be given a different title, not legal necessity.Let us not forget taht Diana is the mother of the heirs to the throne, so it just would not be right to give Camilla the title Princess of Wales.
There has to be a home to wreck! A marriage where there is no love left and no respect ceases to be a home IMO.Reina said:I can't respect a person who would be a homewrecker either-man or woman. It is so evil.
And why not America instead of just middle America (better known as the Midwest)
wymanda said:There has to be a home to wreck! A marriage where there is no love left and no respect ceases to be a home IMO.
The reference to "middle america" was to illustrate the high moral ground taken by people from the colloquially named Bible Belt who seem to have to sit in judgement on everyone else.
I don't want to cause offence but it seems to me that if anyone in the world has an opinion that should be taken into account it should only be those of us who are HM's subjects or who are citizens of Commonwealth countries. IMO it is no business of anyone else in the world.
Realistically, in terms of real life and what actually happens with the Prince and Camilla and her titles should they marry, the opinions of most of us who are HM's subjects aren't relevant either. Unless there's a feeling that public opinion within the UK will be so massively opposed that it poses a danger for the continuation of the monarchy or somehow threatens the stability of the government or the church, I don't see public opinion being that big a deal. THey're not going to hold a referendum and decide what happens on the basis of a majority vote or anything. And it's not as though this was a marriage involving William, who's the real future of the monarchy. Camilla is beyond child-bearing age, and Charles is getting to an age where most people would start thinking about retirement; I think the Establishment will just try to marginalise him as much as possible and focus on William.I don't want to cause offence but it seems to me that if anyone in the world has an opinion that should be taken into account it should only be those of us who are HM's subjects or who are citizens of Commonwealth countries. IMO it is no business of anyone else in the world.