PDA

View Full Version : Accepting Duchess Camilla


"Topaz"
Apr 7th, 2005, 04:31 PM
http://img.slate.msn.com/media/1/123125/123085/2112606/2116363/050406_Camilla-charles-TN.jpg

It seems there's a problem there for many, including the Queen. To the masses, one point that emerges more often than not is: "oh, she's not as pretty as Diana". Hmmm... what are the real concerns of:

- the royal family?
- the Church of England?
- the population at large?

How do these concerns square off with Charles' love?

Now, although it's none of your business and doesn't make any difference, deep down do you approve of Camilla?

SelesFan70
Apr 7th, 2005, 04:44 PM
If he loves her and she loves him...who cares what she looks like? People are so shallow! :sad:

Fantastic
Apr 7th, 2005, 04:57 PM
She's considered "damanged goods" by the Monarchy, if you know what I mean. I assume the Queen is a traditionalist, and so she probably doesn't view Camilla as being Royal material. Her status as a divorcee and her affair with Charles while he was married to Diana probably adds to the dislike, or at least discontentment.

Speaking for myself, I don't really care if she wants to marry Charles or not. However, I personally think that the British public aren't looking forward to Charles as King, with or without Camilla. The problem is not just her.

Wigglytuff
Apr 7th, 2005, 05:31 PM
It seems there's a problem there for many, including the Queen. To the masses, one point that emerges more often than not is: "oh, she's not as pretty as Diana". Hmmm... what are the real concerns of:

- the royal family?
- the Church of England?
- the population at large?

How do these concerns square off with Charles' love?

Now, although it's none of your business and doesn't make any difference, deep down do you approve of Camilla?

i think its not that its all about looks. (if i were the prince himself would have been sent to exile when he turned 18).

its for a lot of people, that Camilla does not appear have the spunk, compassion and style that Princess Diana had.

also, regardless whether its reasonable or not (and i am not saying that it is) it feels like some people feel that camilla is are least partly responsible for the death of the Princess

"Topaz"
Apr 7th, 2005, 09:49 PM
Poor rich Charles! Oh well, read this:
Poor Prince Charles can't catch a break. He had to postpone his wedding day to accommodate a funeral 900 miles away; devotees of his deceased ex-wife are threatening to picket the nuptials; and wedding memorabilia is selling poorly—apparently, his future subjects don't want to dry their dishes on a towel bearing the likeness of his bride-to-be, Camilla Parker Bowles. His family and fellow royals won't even do him the honor of inventing decent excuses to skip the ceremony—his father refused to cancel a trip to Germany (Germany!); Sweden's crown princess is otherwise engaged opening an IKEA store in Japan—and his mother dashed his dreams of serving an organic feast at the reception.

Charles is an easy and usually deserving target. He's the squarest man in the world, a rich, underemployed old fogy who has dressed and acted like the 56-year-old he is for the last 40 years. But after a lifetime of feckless world travel, dilettantism, and endless chukkas of polo, he's finally coming good. Despite enduring years of unforgivably cruel jokes at the expense of the woman he loves, Charles is about to do something a Frenchman would never consider: He's going to marry his mistress.
Click here for the rest of it. (http://www.slate.com/id/2116364/?GT1=6334)

raquel
Apr 7th, 2005, 10:10 PM
I think a lot of people here just loved Diana. And in an interview Diana gave here on TV she said that Camilla was always part of Charles's life when he was married to Diana and Camilla was the woman he had an affair with. Diana ended up feeling depressed, anorexic and suicidal due to the situation she was in and Charles's affair with Camilla was one of the reasons she felt that way.

So far the reaction here has been apathetic to say the least. No one really cares. Charles and Camilla could have got married privately but Charles decided to make it a huge public event and is now annoyed that the British people are getting too excited about it. It's become a bit of a running joke now with the Queen not going, the dates being delayed, the venue not being allowed, the title fiasco about whether Camilla will be Queen or not - one disaster after another. The fact the Queen is not going speaks volumes about what she really thinks about it. I am not much of a Royalist but I think the Queen is always pretty dignified and a smart woman and she knows the public aren't too bothered and is not going to get involved in the media circus if she doesn't need to.

I will be watching though to see what she wears though ;)

PaulieM
Apr 7th, 2005, 10:14 PM
for me it has nothing to do with diana. i disapprove of camilla and charles because i disapprove of anyone that commits adultary. just my personal feelings.

CondiLicious
Apr 7th, 2005, 10:23 PM
I don't like Prince Charles and I hope he never becomes King. And I don't give a rats-arse about Camilla.

alexusjonesfan
Apr 8th, 2005, 01:29 AM
it's great for entertainment. It's good he married Diana first though, the monarchy'd be in the toilet much sooner if the future heirs hadn't come out with the benefit of the Spencer looks :o

Andy T
Apr 8th, 2005, 07:17 AM
Some interesting names feature on the guest list for the blessing ceremony to be held at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle.

Europe's royals are conspicuous by the absence. The list contains no reigning monarchs from Europe whatsoever and only one from elsewhere: The King of Bahrain. Otherwise, exiled royals The King and Queen of the Hellenes Prince Radu of Hohenzollern and Her Royal Highness Princess Margarita of Romania and Crown Prince and Princess Alexander of Yugoslavia, minor royals Prince and Princess Constantijn of The Netherlands, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia and Prince Turki Al-Faisal and Her Highness Princess Nouf bint Fahad, Saudi Arabia pad out the list. The Crown Prince and Princess of Norway are the only senior reps from reigning European royal families on the list.

The celebs list is a bit more interesting. Notable guests include Joanna "Patsy" Lumley, Joan Rivers and Prunella Scales (aka Sybil in Fawlty Towers). Sting and Kenneth Branagh will also attend.

Captain.Canada
Apr 8th, 2005, 07:54 AM
People make mistakes. Doesn't mean they can't become King and Queen of England.

Sevenseas
Apr 8th, 2005, 11:06 AM
...deep down do you approve of Camilla?


Indisputably, I don’t/never will approve her. She can never be compared to Diana from any aspect. :(

Joan Rivers
Apr 8th, 2005, 11:51 AM
The celebs list is a bit more interesting. Notable guests include Joanna "Patsy" Lumley, Joan Rivers and Prunella Scales (aka Sybil in Fawlty Towers). Sting and Kenneth Branagh will also attend.
Thanks, doll. Yes I will be attending - by popular demand!

Sting's going? I thought he had cancelled all engagements for a tantric sex session. They've been going at it since January!

I hope Patsy is bringing champagne because she's my kinda broad. God knows I will need a drink if I have to tell Camilla with a straight face, that she looks great!

Fat Frog
Apr 8th, 2005, 02:06 PM
It seems most of the replys here are against the wedding. Personally i've never warmed to Charles or Camilla but recently i've begun to feel a little bit sorry for them. I do think they were both very much victims of circumstance. People in a way blame Camilla for Diana's death but if you look at it Charles should've never married Diana in the first place and i'd put the fact that he did down to royal pressure. I'm actually glad to see that he finally put head to that pressure and is following his heart. I think the fact that the Queen is putting public opinion before her own son speaks volumes of the kind of woman i've always thought she is..a cold-hearted, archaic old bitch.
Even though i've never liked them i do wish Charles and Camilla a life-time of happiness..as they say in Ireland..There, but for the grace of God, go I

lilly
Apr 8th, 2005, 02:15 PM
it's great for entertainment. It's good he married Diana first though, the monarchy'd be in the toilet much sooner if the future heirs hadn't come out with the benefit of the Spencer looks :oaaah, you understand my only reason to watch it closely on saturday: Wills :drool:

I really don't understand why they didn't just do a little chapel on an unknown date, but I guess it speaks for Charles he wants it to be all public, telling the world this is the woman he loves.

Andy T
Apr 8th, 2005, 02:32 PM
Thanks, doll. Yes I will be attending - by popular demand!

Sting's going? I thought he had cancelled all engagements for a tantric sex session. They've been going at it since January!

I hope Patsy is bringing champagne because she's my kinda broad. God knows I will need a drink if I have to tell Camilla with a straight face, that she looks great!

I hope you'll make the most of the occasion to gather loads of material and spill all the beans in an upcoming show Joan. Go easy on Patsy's champers - we don't want you to miss anything!!!!

Monica_Rules
Apr 8th, 2005, 03:13 PM
If they love each other why can they not get married?

I'm not a royalist at all but the days of Charles as king will be :vomit:

In these days of divorces galore surely there would be a time when a king to be would get married again! Look at Henry the 8th he married 6 times

Andy T
Apr 8th, 2005, 03:26 PM
If they love each other why can they not get married?

I'm not a royalist at all but the days of Charles as king will be :vomit:

In these days of divorces galore surely there would be a time when a king to be would get married again! Look at Henry the 8th he married 6 times

I bet wales is thrilled that she's not going to use the title Princess of Wales, Monica_Rules. I originate from Cornwall and the Cornish are livid that she wants to be called Duchess of Cornwall!!!!

Wigglytuff
Apr 8th, 2005, 04:26 PM
It seems most of the replys here are against the wedding. Personally i've never warmed to Charles or Camilla but recently i've begun to feel a little bit sorry for them. I do think they were both very much victims of circumstance. People in a way blame Camilla for Diana's death but if you look at it Charles should've never married Diana in the first place and i'd put the fact that he did down to royal pressure. I'm actually glad to see that he finally put head to that pressure and is following his heart. I think the fact that the Queen is putting public opinion before her own son speaks volumes of the kind of woman i've always thought she is..a cold-hearted, archaic old bitch.
Even though i've never liked them i do wish Charles and Camilla a life-time of happiness..as they say in Ireland..There, but for the grace of God, go I

its true everyone does deserve to be happy, but when they engaged in extramarital affairs its NOT a being a victim of circumstance its making the choice to lie to people you say you love and to ruin other peoples lives. thats a CHOICE. thats not about being a victim. yes that was years ago but for me, thats not something that is easy to forgive.

saki
Apr 8th, 2005, 04:56 PM
It was Diana that I didn't approve of. She was dumb, attention-seeking, a bad wife, a poor mother and, more than anything, a really bad wife for a Royal and Charles in particular.

Charles & Camilla are obviously in love, they have been for a long, long, time and I hope to have a love that strong for someone when I'm their age.

Fat Frog
Apr 8th, 2005, 07:10 PM
its true everyone does deserve to be happy, but when they engaged in extramarital affairs its NOT a being a victim of circumstance its making the choice to lie to people you say you love and to ruin other peoples lives. thats a CHOICE. thats not about being a victim. yes that was years ago but for me, thats not something that is easy to forgive.

Of course affairs are wrong but the circumstance i'm talking about was Charles being pressured into marrying Diana when it was Camilla he was in love with. The royal family never approved of Camilla and why i'm glad is that he finally said fuck it to them i'm marrying her anyway. The royal family and their codology about duty, appearence, cermony, etc.. is a load of bullsh1t. Charles turning his back on that (in a kind of way) shows him as a better man than i thought he was. You also have to remember that they both are legally free to marry now..why shouldn't they.

PaulieM
Apr 8th, 2005, 07:54 PM
Of course affairs are wrong but the circumstance i'm talking about was Charles being pressured into marrying Diana when it was Camilla he was in love with. The royal family never approved of Camilla and why i'm glad is that he finally said fuck it to them i'm marrying her anyway. The royal family and their codology about duty, appearence, cermony, etc.. is a load of bullsh1t. Charles turning his back on that (in a kind of way) shows him as a better man than i thought he was. You also have to remember that they both are legally free to marry now..why shouldn't they.
i understand your point but i'm on the same side as jigglypuff. i completely disapprove of adultary. as someone who's been in a family that has been affected by it, i don't believe the excuses people make for it, one person's selfishness really does hurt a lot of people. i understand he was under pressure to marry diana but i still don't see that as an excuse. sure i don't know what his situation was like but i like to think that if you really love someone you should be willing to stand up to them from the beginning, not marry soeone else and hurt tons of people in the long run. when you marry someone you make the decision to be with them and only them, he should have said goodbye to his relationship with camilla at that point in time. why shouldn't they marry? because in the past people in his situation haven't been allowed to, it was something that came with the job of being a royal and i think it's unfair that the rules were essentially changed specifically for him. but again this is all just my opinion.

Nicoleke
Apr 8th, 2005, 08:18 PM
I don' t like Camilla. I'm against that wedding, OK, he loves her, she loves him but why a wedding is necessary?
She's ugly, and totally not friendly. Luckily, they did not have children together, I think they have look like monkeys or pigs lol.

kiwifan
Apr 8th, 2005, 09:27 PM
It seems most of the replys here are against the wedding. Personally i've never warmed to Charles or Camilla but recently i've begun to feel a little bit sorry for them. I do think they were both very much victims of circumstance. People in a way blame Camilla for Diana's death but if you look at it Charles should've never married Diana in the first place and i'd put the fact that he did down to royal pressure. I'm actually glad to see that he finally put head to that pressure and is following his heart. I think the fact that the Queen is putting public opinion before her own son speaks volumes of the kind of woman i've always thought she is..a cold-hearted, archaic old bitch.
Even though i've never liked them i do wish Charles and Camilla a life-time of happiness..as they say in Ireland..There, but for the grace of God, go I

Great post. :yeah:

Mrs. Peel
Apr 8th, 2005, 09:58 PM
aaah, you understand my only reason to watch it closely on saturday: Wills :drool:

I really don't understand why they didn't just do a little chapel on an unknown date, but I guess it speaks for Charles he wants it to be all public, telling the world this is the woman he loves.

I agree...a private ceremony would have bypassed all the hassle. Did he really think it would have gone without a hitch?

He will now be her tampon forever....bless them!

PaulieM
Apr 8th, 2005, 10:05 PM
He will now be her tampon forever....bless them!
:haha:

Wigglytuff
Apr 8th, 2005, 10:26 PM
Of course affairs are wrong but the circumstance i'm talking about was Charles being pressured into marrying Diana when it was Camilla he was in love with. The royal family never approved of Camilla and why i'm glad is that he finally said fuck it to them i'm marrying her anyway. The royal family and their codology about duty, appearence, cermony, etc.. is a load of bullsh1t. Charles turning his back on that (in a kind of way) shows him as a better man than i thought he was. You also have to remember that they both are legally free to marry now..why shouldn't they.

i understand were you are coming from, however i do feel in addition to what pauliem said that he did have other choices at the time. he is not the first to love one person and be asked to marry another. he made a choice from a number of options and i dont think he should be rewarded for ruining other peoples lives.

Billy Moonshine
Apr 8th, 2005, 10:59 PM
She isn´t to blame for the ending of Charles and Di´s marriage. They are.
She isn´t to blame for Di´s death. It was an accident, no?
She doesn´t need our approval.
Who are we to judge her?
And she isn´t ugly.And so what if she is?
Camilla, you will never read this, but i wish you all the best. You, as much as anyone else, deserve to be happy, and you certainly look it, so enjoy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

roarke
Apr 9th, 2005, 12:25 AM
Frankly I don't see why people are so upset with Camilla .. Charles is the one without a backbone. If he had resisted getting his butt shipped off to the Faulklands he and Camilla may have been married a long time ago and Diana would probably still be alive.

The royal family knew that Charles and Camilla were in love since they were in their early twenties and before she was married to the other bloke, Parker. They disapproved of her then and split them up. They forced their ugly son to marry the innocent 19 year old Diana. If I am not mistaken the british citizenry had chance to vote on which young woman the then crusty Charles should marry. They chose Diana for her beauty, virginity and royal blood. They knew he didn't love her and she didn't love him. All they were interested in were suitable heirs.

We should all aspire to find love like that shared between Charles and Camilla which can spam decades, and weather divorce, death, scandal and is still going strong.

Everyone critizes Camilla because she is not as beautiful as Diana but what about Charles.... with all that inbreeding... Horseface is as ugly as sin..!

Experimentee
Apr 9th, 2005, 05:49 PM
Its pathetic that people would actually boo their wedding when they dont even know them :mad:
They could be really nice people and they dont deserve all the criticism. It is obvious that they love each other and thats all that matters.
People should really let go of the whole Diana thing, she wasnt perfect and made mistakes in her life too, and never got as much criticism for it. I think she was just popular because of her looks anyway.
I wish Charles and Camilla the best :)

"Topaz"
Apr 9th, 2005, 06:03 PM
It's done. Don't they look alike?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0504/gallery.royal.wedding/00.charles.camilla.ap.jpg

Done here; the civil ceremony, that is. I kind of expected something more sumptuous for Royals. But what do I know? I'm not one.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0504/gallery.royal.wedding/06.hall.ap.jpg

Well, congratulations are due; at least, 20% of the British population think so, according to CNN.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0504/gallery.royal.wedding/05.souvenirs.ap.jpg

BritneySpearsIsHot
Apr 9th, 2005, 06:05 PM
Congrats to the pair of them.

Who cares what the negative folk think, none of their business

harloo
Apr 9th, 2005, 06:08 PM
I am sorry but both Charles and Camilla knew what the public reaction would be to their big announement of a wedding. Why not just have a private ceremony and let all the media stuff go?

Regardless of what anyone says the brits will never like or fully accept Camilla. Their is just too much history involved. Charles should of been a REAL man and married Camilla in the first place instead of making excuses and bucking to pressure and marrying Diana.

He and Camilla fornicated all those years without much of a thought of how it affected his real wife. I would have more respect for Charles if he just divorced Diana and moved on to Camilla, but her sat there had a mistress for years. No matter how anyone looks at it, or tries to spin the situation it's just not right.

I do feel that people should lay off of them a little bit, but they should of took their wedding and made it a private affair that only a few people knew about. Then their would not be such drama over nothing.

"Topaz"
Apr 9th, 2005, 06:35 PM
I am sorry but both Charles and Camilla knew what the public reaction would be to their big announement of a wedding. Why not just have a private ceremony and let all the media stuff go?

The future King of even a defunct empire had to be seen when getting married (again). There was no escaping that. I, for one, think it was low key enough. Any lower than that would have been an expression of shame, uneasiness unbecoming for a king in waiting.

Now, let them have their honeymoon, although it came after more than 30 years of lust and love. BTW, Camilla is reported to be quite lusty and quite beautiful when seen up close, up very close. My my my!

DevilishAttitude
Apr 9th, 2005, 06:54 PM
I wish them the worst of luck :)

I can't stand either. She's a homewrecker and he's so far away from touch it's pure scary :tape:

And :rolleyes: @ Saki.

lilly
Apr 9th, 2005, 06:58 PM
it was a luverly thing today.

Can I vote for Stephen Fry to be the next king? Tomorrow?

"Topaz"
Apr 9th, 2005, 07:11 PM
I wish them the worst of luck :)

Link (http://www.slate.com/id/2116364/?GT1=6334#ContinueArticle)
Charles and Camilla are living proof that love is blind. Yes, they committed adultery, but according to veteran royal-watcher Ingrid Seward, the prince didn't resume his connection with Camilla until 1986, when his marriage had suffered an "irretrievable breakdown" and after Diana had cuckolded him at least twice—with Sgt. Barry Mannakee, one of her protection officers, and Maj. James Hewitt, a man she described as "her riding instructor."

Camilla is the anti-Di. Whereas Diana was forever getting her chakras balanced and her colon irrigated, Camilla is self-confident and well-adjusted. Diana was obsessed with the trappings of celebrity, while Camilla, like the royals, prefers to hide her wealth behind a thick veneer of ordinariness. Her main interests are said to be horses, dogs, and farm prices—standard Buckingham Palace talking points, in other words. You see, it's not all roses for Diana either. As in any story, there is a bit of gray somewhere.

harloo
Apr 9th, 2005, 07:39 PM
The future King of even a defunct empire had to be seen when getting married (again). There was no escaping that. I, for one, think it was low key enough. Any lower than that would have been an expression of shame, uneasiness unbecoming for a king in waiting.

Now, let them have their honeymoon, although it came after more than 30 years of lust and love. BTW, Camilla is reported to be quite lusty and quite beautiful when seen up close, up very close. My my my!

Camilla:unsure: . I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so that's good that Charles loves her.;)

However, if the biggest celebrities can have private weddings so can the future King. Their was no escaping the media, however a private ceremony without much fanfare could of diffused the situation.

I wish them the best of luck!

Infiniti2001
Apr 9th, 2005, 08:04 PM
I wish them the worst of luck :)

I can't stand either. She's a homewrecker and he's so far away from touch it's pure scary :tape:

And :rolleyes: @ Saki.

How is she a homewrecker?? I mean they were in love waaaaaaaayy long before he was forced to marry Diana. This is a lesson to everyone as far I am concerned. Yes you should obey your parents , but one should stand up to avoid a situation like what happened between Charles and Diana. Marrying someone you are not in love with will only lead to disaster down the road. Anyway, this union is destiny --- I don't care how ugly they both are. They were meant to be, and today they made it official . Here's hoping they have a wonderful married life . Mind you, I don't give a shit about royalty--- I'm just looking at it from a human point of view :p

DevilishAttitude
Apr 9th, 2005, 08:30 PM
How is she a homewrecker?? I mean they were in love waaaaaaaayy long before he was forced to marry Diana. This is a lesson to everyone as far I am concerned. Yes you should obey your parents , but one should stand up to avoid a situation like what happened between Charles and Diana. Marrying someone you are not in love with will only lead to disaster down the road. Anyway, this union is destiny --- I don't care how ugly they both are. They were meant to be, and today they made it official . Here's hoping they have a wonderful married life . Mind you, I don't give a shit about royalty--- I'm just looking at it from a human point of view :p

3 People in our marriage comes to mind... ;)

I hate the royals so I don't really want them to have a happy life :rolleyes: :p

lilly
Apr 9th, 2005, 08:48 PM
3 People in our marriage comes to mind... ;) Diana brought a couple more people to the party ;)

"Topaz"
Apr 9th, 2005, 09:08 PM
Diana brought a couple more people to the party ;)And don't forget Sarah Ferguson who allegedly was also shagged by Charles. Hey, what's family for? :o

fifiricci
Apr 9th, 2005, 09:18 PM
it's great for entertainment. It's good he married Diana first though, the monarchy'd be in the toilet much sooner if the future heirs hadn't come out with the benefit of the Spencer looks :o

I'm not that fussed about the British monarchy, along with millions of other Brits. It doesn't affect our everyday lives in the least, its just there in the background and every so often the Roayl Family troop out for one ceremony or another and we all get a bit patriotic and damp around the eyes.

Ironically, I get the impression that its people from countries that don't have a monarchy or other countries in the commonwealth that make much more of a song and dance about the monarchy (for and against) and its usually visitors from those countries that hungrily flock to see all London tourist attractions that are only there because we have a monarchy (Tower of London, Crown Jewels, Buck House, Windsor, etc) :lol:

When visiting Aus last year I had a very interesting chat with some friends who thought that we Brits were terribly hung up on the "commonwealth" and that we thought about it most every day and would be gutted if countries like Aus voted to come out of it and be republican. They seemed strangely crestfallen when I suggested that the "commonwealth" (or the "colonies" as the Queen probably still calls them :lol: ) hardly ever entered our heads and that the Brits wouldnt give a toss if Aus, Canada, etc weren't in it or if the whole thing was abolished.

Its a strange old world .....

lilly
Apr 9th, 2005, 10:48 PM
mmm, I get the impression royalty is quite popular in Germany. At least it seems to be shown on tv terribly much. Perhaps a German could enlighten me on that.

lilly
Apr 9th, 2005, 10:49 PM
And don't forget Sarah Ferguson who allegedly was also shagged by Charles. Hey, what's family for? :othat's the first I heard 'bout that. and I'm not buying it.

Pdm1987
Apr 9th, 2005, 10:58 PM
mmm, I get the impression royalty is quite popular in Germany. At least it seems to be shown on tv terribly much. Perhaps a German could enlighten me on that.

The British Royal Family are German

Pdm1987
Apr 9th, 2005, 10:59 PM
or of German descent

fifiricci
Apr 9th, 2005, 11:06 PM
The British Royal Family are German

Except for Phil the Greek! :lol:

Hulet
Apr 9th, 2005, 11:23 PM
Who said true love is only for the beautiful and the young? :some-hardcore-rolling-of-eyes:

Good thing Saki and Infiniti posted here. :)

harloo
Apr 9th, 2005, 11:26 PM
Who said true love is only for the beautiful and the young? :some-hardcore-rolling-of-hard:



I don't think the issue most have is Camilla's looks because that's up for debate whether you think she is beautiful or ugly. I think it's the whole mistress situation. :D

Farina Elia Fan
Apr 9th, 2005, 11:29 PM
I am not a fan of camilla or charles

Hulet
Apr 9th, 2005, 11:31 PM
I don't think the issue most have is Camilla's looks because that's up for debate whether you think she is beautiful or ugly. I think it's the whole mistress situation.
But, that was all in the past. Once Diana expired, Camilla is not technically a mistress. I think if Charles married some hot 25-year old, many would have forgiven him. I don't like him (or the royal family for that matter) but their love-story is sort of inspiring - the way that it survived all the turmoil including marriages with others.

"Topaz"
Apr 10th, 2005, 12:23 AM
that's the first I heard 'bout that. and I'm not buying it.Can't confirm it. That's why I said alleged. Some reports though did come out regarding a conversation between Charles and Fergie where the Prince was sort of praising her derrière; smitten a bit (continued the reports) she replied: "you can have it if you want it". What happened next was left to imagination. Granted, since 1999, things went sour between those two, and Fergie, btw, was expressly not invited to the wedding today.

PaulieM
Apr 10th, 2005, 12:58 AM
But, that was all in the past. Once Diana expired, Camilla is not technically a mistress. I think if Charles married some hot 25-year old, many would have forgiven him. I don't like him (or the royal family for that matter) but their love-story is sort of inspiring - the way that it survived all the turmoil including marriages with others.
the fact that diana is dead doesn't change the fact that they are both adulterers, that doesn't just go away. in my opinion any "love" story that invoves adultery is far from inspiring. :shrug:

"Topaz"
Apr 10th, 2005, 05:05 AM
for me it has nothing to do with diana. i disapprove of camilla and charles because i disapprove of anyone that commits adultary. just my personal feelings.
the fact that diana is dead doesn't change the fact that they are both adulterers, that doesn't just go away. in my opinion any "love" story that invoves adultery is far from inspiring.
i completely disapprove of adultary. as someone who's been in a family that has been affected by it, i don't believe the excuses people make for it, one person's selfishness really does hurt a lot of people.
Ok, that makes 3 posts where you express stronger than anyone else your disapproval of adultery. And you noticed nobody picked up on it. Why not, you may have asked. The answer is nobody likes adultery, ie, nobody likes to be cheated on, men or women; and yet, it's happening on a grand scale, attesting to how complex a being we, humans, are. Let's take a look at the statistics for USA alone.

Two of the most reliable studies come to similar conclusions. The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior estimates that "More than one-third of men and one-quarter of women admit having had at least one extramarital sexual experience." A survey by the National Opinion Research Center (University of Chicago) found lower percentages: 25 percent of men had been unfaithful and 17 percent of women. Even when these lower ratios are applied to the current adult population, that means that some 19 million husbands and 12 million wives have had an affair.

Whatever the actual numbers, the point to be made is that adultery is much more common than we would like to admit. Family therapist and psychiatrist Frank Pittman believes "There may be as many acts of infidelity in our society as there are traffic accidents." He further argues that the fact that adultery has become commonplace has altered society's perception of it. He says, "We won't go back to the times when adulterers were put in the stocks and publicly humiliated, or become one of those societies and there are many in which adultery is punishable by death. Society in any case is unable to enforce a rule that the majority of people break, and infidelity is so common it is no longer deviant."

Another report estimates that "53% of all people will have one or more affairs during their lifetime." BTW, I saw Playboy's stats and just disregarded them, see below. What are you gonna do, PaulieM? Now, check this: Washington (this week) had room for either Carter or Clinton, not both seemingly, in their delegation to the Pope funerals; they chose Clinton.

PaulieM, this problem is huge. I just hope it won't touch me... well, until one of my faves gives me an offer I can't refuse ;).

....................

Playboy's outrageous statistics:
-86% of men and 81% of women admit they routinely flirt with the opposite sex.
-75% of men and 65% of women admit to having sex with people they work with.

Wigglytuff
Apr 10th, 2005, 05:26 AM
How is she a homewrecker?? I mean they were in love waaaaaaaayy long before he was forced to marry Diana. This is a lesson to everyone as far I am concerned. Yes you should obey your parents , but one should stand up to avoid a situation like what happened between Charles and Diana. Marrying someone you are not in love with will only lead to disaster down the road. Anyway, this union is destiny --- I don't care how ugly they both are. They were meant to be, and today they made it official . Here's hoping they have a wonderful married life . Mind you, I don't give a shit about royalty--- I'm just looking at it from a human point of view :p

again he was not forced he had choices.

slaves were forced.
child rape victims were forced.

charles CHOSE. there is a difference between being forced to do something, and makeing a choice. he had options. as any royal of any nation or empire before him. he chose wealth and acceptance over love. period. THATS looking at it from a human point of view.

PaulieM
Apr 10th, 2005, 07:22 AM
Ok, that makes 3 posts where you express stronger than anyone else your disapproval of adultery. And you noticed nobody picked up on it. Why not, you may have asked. The answer is nobody likes adultery, ie, nobody likes to be cheated on, men or women; and yet, it's happening on a grand scale, attesting to how complex a being we, humans, are. Let's take a look at the statistics for USA alone.

Two of the most reliable studies come to similar conclusions. The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior estimates that "More than one-third of men and one-quarter of women admit having had at least one extramarital sexual experience." A survey by the National Opinion Research Center (University of Chicago) found lower percentages: 25 percent of men had been unfaithful and 17 percent of women. Even when these lower ratios are applied to the current adult population, that means that some 19 million husbands and 12 million wives have had an affair.

Whatever the actual numbers, the point to be made is that adultery is much more common than we would like to admit. Family therapist and psychiatrist Frank Pittman believes "There may be as many acts of infidelity in our society as there are traffic accidents." He further argues that the fact that adultery has become commonplace has altered society's perception of it. He says, "We won't go back to the times when adulterers were put in the stocks and publicly humiliated, or become one of those societies and there are many in which adultery is punishable by death. Society in any case is unable to enforce a rule that the majority of people break, and infidelity is so common it is no longer deviant."

Another report estimates that "53% of all people will have one or more affairs during their lifetime." BTW, I saw Playboy's stats and just disregarded them, see below. What are you gonna do, PaulieM? Now, check this: Washington (this week) had room for either Carter or Clinton, not both seemingly, in their delegation to the Pope funerals; they chose Clinton.

PaulieM, this problem is huge. I just hope it won't touch me... well, until one of my faves gives me an offer I can't refuse ;).

....................

Playboy's outrageous statistics:
-86% of men and 81% of women admit they routinely flirt with the opposite sex.
-75% of men and 65% of women admit to having sex with people they work with.

i was simply responding to the people who said that the problem most people had with their marriage was the fact that people liked diana better, or thought camilla was ugly etc. i was just expressing my opinion, i don't care how often people committ adultery i'm all too aware off the facts, since my parents are currently going through a divorce because my dad had an affair. my opinion just happens to be that marriages that stem from such relationships shouldn't be so readily accepted. i was just saying that i think for some people, like myself their disapproval has nothing to do with diana or anyting like that,l that was the point. the person who started the thread asked a question and i responded. i don't really see what you were trying to say.

ubiquitous
Apr 10th, 2005, 09:10 AM
Exclusive photo of Charles and Camilla....

http://img165.exs.cx/img165/5023/royalweddingportrait0kq.jpg

iced gem
Apr 10th, 2005, 09:40 AM
Exclusive photo of Charles and Camilla....

http://img165.exs.cx/img165/5023/royalweddingportrait0kq.jpg
:haha: :haha: That's a good one!

saki
Apr 10th, 2005, 03:45 PM
Regardless of what anyone says the brits will never like or fully accept Camilla. Their is just too much history involved. Charles should of been a REAL man and married Camilla in the first place instead of making excuses and bucking to pressure and marrying Diana.



That's not true, actually. Polls consistently have shown that a clear majority of the British public supported their marriage and a majority now seem to like Camilla personally. British culture is not as obsessed with morality as you might think - even the very moral tabloids like the Daily Mail are supporting them. It's very obvious that Camilla makes him happy. Diana never tried to. As she, an Earl's daughter, knew quite well, her role in return for the lavish lifestyle she got out of the marriage was to support Charles. Despite the fact that Charles and other royals have always done more charity work than her, she was adept at getting herself in the media looking blonde and kissing babies - she was never the Saint that she portrayed herself as, but rather an attention seeking, clingy bimbo. She and Charles were never well suited but, IMO, she was the one not making the effort and, at the very least, it was 50-50. Don't forget - she committed adultery with at least 2 other men..

Pdm1987
Apr 10th, 2005, 08:29 PM
That's not true, actually. Polls consistently have shown that a clear majority of the British public supported their marriage and a majority now seem to like Camilla personally. British culture is not as obsessed with morality as you might think - even the very moral tabloids like the Daily Mail are supporting them. It's very obvious that Camilla makes him happy. Diana never tried to. As she, an Earl's daughter, knew quite well, her role in return for the lavish lifestyle she got out of the marriage was to support Charles. Despite the fact that Charles and other royals have always done more charity work than her, she was adept at getting herself in the media looking blonde and kissing babies - she was never the Saint that she portrayed herself as, but rather an attention seeking, clingy bimbo. She and Charles were never well suited but, IMO, she was the one not making the effort and, at the very least, it was 50-50. Don't forget - she committed adultery with at least 2 other men..

I'm glad someone's finally said that, I couldn't put it into words ;)

Camilla seems a nice enough person, I don't see why people should object

jbone_0307
Apr 10th, 2005, 11:16 PM
I accept Dutchess Gorilla and Charles. They make a umm good couple. :lol: :haha:

harloo
Apr 10th, 2005, 11:47 PM
That's not true, actually. Polls consistently have shown that a clear majority of the British public supported their marriage and a majority now seem to like Camilla personally. British culture is not as obsessed with morality as you might think - even the very moral tabloids like the Daily Mail are supporting them. It's very obvious that Camilla makes him happy. Diana never tried to. As she, an Earl's daughter, knew quite well, her role in return for the lavish lifestyle she got out of the marriage was to support Charles. Despite the fact that Charles and other royals have always done more charity work than her, she was adept at getting herself in the media looking blonde and kissing babies - she was never the Saint that she portrayed herself as, but rather an attention seeking, clingy bimbo. She and Charles were never well suited but, IMO, she was the one not making the effort and, at the very least, it was 50-50. Don't forget - she committed adultery with at least 2 other men..

I must be seeing different polls because most I have seen have said the Brits don't approve of Camilla. I guess that's up for debate depending on what source you use for information.

So now Diana is a bimbo? She was not perfect and did start to fool around because of neglect from her husband but she was a decent woman. Her charity efforts were heartfelt and touched alot of people around the world.

The fact that Camilla would continue to sleep around with Charles while he was married makes her look like the bimbo, but that's just my opinion. Camilla was always around as his mistress and I just cannot respect women who does that.

If they are happy then so be it, but please don't sit here and act like Camilla is virtuous, because she is not.

Andy T
Apr 11th, 2005, 12:13 AM
Diana left a considerable legacy. In her work with people with HIV, her campaign against landmines and just her general warmth, she projected an image of the UK which undercut the traditional stereotype of a people who are essentially cold, tight-assed and living in the past. That legacy is not going to be effaced by the new marriage and maybe Camilla also has someting to contribute. She deserves a chance, at least.

Denise4925
Apr 11th, 2005, 05:48 AM
I have undying love for the beautiful, inside and out, Princess Diana. I wept when she died and mourned the loss of her. I still mourn her. However, I believe in love. I despised Camilla and Charles for hurting Diana. But, life goes on and Camilla is obviously the perfect woman for him. She's not beautiful, but she's not that hard on the eyes. She's his age and has the same interests he does. She stays in the background and let's him have all of the glory (something his insecurity desperately needs). She understands him. They run in the same circle of friends. She makes him happy. So, maybe he will be a better man and king because of her.

Denise4925
Apr 11th, 2005, 06:24 AM
I must be seeing different polls because most I have seen have said the Brits don't approve of Camilla. I guess that's up for debate depending on what source you use for information.

So now Diana is a bimbo? She was not perfect and did start to fool around because of neglect from her husband but she was a decent woman. Her charity efforts were heartfelt and touched alot of people around the world.

The fact that Camilla would continue to sleep around with Charles while he was married makes her look like the bimbo, but that's just my opinion. Camilla was always around as his mistress and I just cannot respect women who does that.

If they are happy then so be it, but please don't sit here and act like Camilla is virtuous, because she is not.
Exactly. No one is perfect, but there's no need to denigrate the memory and insult a woman you don't even know. People who speak like Saki act as if they were there everyday in the marriage and know exactly what happened. Saki is just looking at the marriage from his subjective point of view. Which is not even relevant. :rolleyes:

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 11th, 2005, 08:54 AM
Mind you, that li'l floozie Di was okay with me. But I don't blame Charles for her death. Blame those goddamn paparazzi. Lots of people have relationships that break up, involve other lovers, etc. It's all part of modern life, but thankfully it doesn't usually end in people dying in a car crash while being pursued by reptiles from the media.

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 11th, 2005, 10:49 AM
Anyway, Saki rocks as always. :D

Fat Frog
Apr 11th, 2005, 11:57 AM
again he was not forced he had choices.

slaves were forced.
child rape victims were forced.

charles CHOSE. there is a difference between being forced to do something, and makeing a choice. he had options. as any royal of any nation or empire before him. he chose wealth and acceptance over love. period. THATS looking at it from a human point of view.

He had choices but there was pressure by the Royals for him to do his duty..it wasn't quiet as simple as choosing wealth and acceptance over love..and remember this was 30yrs and a far more conservative time..the royals did what they were told to do.
Now alright things are changing (as shown by he eventually marrying her) but we don't know what it was like for him back then..judging him on the decisions he took (or indeed was forced to take) is pointless and dare i say hypocritical because we've never been in his shoes. Anyway if his own sons stood by his side at the wedding and it being their mother he commited the adultery against then who are we to say he shouldn't be forgiven.

Veritas
Apr 11th, 2005, 12:10 PM
I must be seeing different polls because most I have seen have said the Brits don't approve of Camilla. I guess that's up for debate depending on what source you use for information.

So now Diana is a bimbo? She was not perfect and did start to fool around because of neglect from her husband but she was a decent woman. Her charity efforts were heartfelt and touched alot of people around the world.

The fact that Camilla would continue to sleep around with Charles while he was married makes her look like the bimbo, but that's just my opinion. Camilla was always around as his mistress and I just cannot respect women who does that.

If they are happy then so be it, but please don't sit here and act like Camilla is virtuous, because she is not.

Exactly my thoughts!

Camilla and Charles do deserve a happy marriage, but whether they deserve it to be accepted by everyone is up for debate. I don't think I could ever look at Camilla as a legitimate wife. I do believe her affair with Charles caused Diana a lot of grief and humiliation. And not only that, the relationship would've done others a fair bit of damage as well. If I were either William or Harry, I'd feel humiliated at having my dad's 'activities' splashed out as front page news on British tabloids. It'd make me want to hide away for a while :o

Camilla and Charles had the chance to end whatever relations they were having when Charles was married to Diana. But they didn't, and I reckon because of that, many people will still view Camilla as the "mistress" in the Charles-Diana POV rather than his new wife.

saki
Apr 11th, 2005, 12:24 PM
I must be seeing different polls because most I have seen have said the Brits don't approve of Camilla. I guess that's up for debate depending on what source you use for information.

So now Diana is a bimbo? She was not perfect and did start to fool around because of neglect from her husband but she was a decent woman. Her charity efforts were heartfelt and touched alot of people around the world.

The fact that Camilla would continue to sleep around with Charles while he was married makes her look like the bimbo, but that's just my opinion. Camilla was always around as his mistress and I just cannot respect women who does that.

If they are happy then so be it, but please don't sit here and act like Camilla is virtuous, because she is not.

I'm really curious as to what polls you've looked at - could you link to them? Because I've seen many and every single one has quite clear support for their marriage. Perhaps these are just the British ones, though.

Royal marriages are generally different from "normal" ones. There has never been a Prince of Wales who wasn't unfaithful to his wife. You can disapprove of that if you wish, but I don't believe that Diana didn't know what she was getting into - she was nobility herself and moved in that set, her elder sister even dated Charles earlier. As Princess of Wales she got a lavish lifestyle and publicity, in return all she was expected to do was support Charles rather than continually upstage him. While we're on this subject, I'd like to correct the impression that Diana was a Charitable Saint - she did less charity work than any other royal, she just got more publicity for what she did because she was blonde and beautiful. And because she picked popular causes. Charles' work with disadvantaged young people gets little publicity because he doesn't get photographed with little children/do dramatic stunts but his work has done an awful lot of good.

Camilla has been virtuous in her own way. There is no evidence to suggest that she and Charles had a sexual relationship before the Charles/Diana marriage broke down and Camilla and her husband appear to have always had an open marriage (just my impression). Ultimately, the fact that Charles and Diana's sons approve, Camilla's ex-husband called her "a good woman" at the wedding reception (yes, he was invited and attended), strongly suggests to me that Camilla is a good person. She certainly makes Charles happy.

Adultery isn't for me a hugely big deal, although I see that it is for many people. It's not, for me, anywhere near the worst thing a partner could do to me. In fact, I'd much rather have an adulterous partner than a passive-agressive, manipulative, clingy, attention-seeking partner. I'm not saying that it's not wrong, but everyone falls short of the ideal and, for me, adultery is much more understandable and much more excusable than some of the other unpleasant things that people do to one another and many of those get far less attention.

Oh, and :kiss: for The Leopard..

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 11th, 2005, 01:22 PM
It's also a fact that 95% of people on bulletin boards flirt with each other even though they have real-life relationships. :hehehe:

:kiss: @saki!

Wigglytuff
Apr 11th, 2005, 05:24 PM
He had choices but there was pressure by the Royals for him to do his duty..it wasn't quiet as simple as choosing wealth and acceptance over love..and remember this was 30yrs and a far more conservative time..the royals did what they were told to do.
Now alright things are changing (as shown by he eventually marrying her) but we don't know what it was like for him back then..judging him on the decisions he took (or indeed was forced to take) is pointless and dare i say hypocritical because we've never been in his shoes. Anyway if his own sons stood by his side at the wedding and it being their mother he commited the adultery against then who are we to say he shouldn't be forgiven.

its wonderful and great to acknowlegde the whole of the picture. all i ask is that people stop saying he was forced like he had a gun to his head that the wedding. he CHOSE. and i would like to add that there was another royal from an earlier generation who was is mostly the same situtation and made very different choices.

how is it hypocritical (hy·poc·ri·sy Audio pronunciation of "hypocrisy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.) to hold someone accountable for the things that they do? its not. like i said time and time again, he was not the first to be put in that situation and other royals from even more conservative times made different choices.

if he really wanted to say: "no, i dont love diana and no, i dont think i will marry her." he could have.
would he have been sent away for doing so, sure. but so what? if he had married the woman that he loved he would not have been king...booo hooo. its not like he would have been stoned to death, sent to jail, or (god forbid) lost all his money and had to start from scratch.
seriously, in the range of human hardship and consiquences, being sent away to live in the life of luxury outside the palace is NOT that bad. in fact its not bad at all.

so to those who say " if he had married camilla in the first place his mommy would have been mad at him and he would of never gotten to be king." i say simply :
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc10.jpg

"Topaz"
Apr 11th, 2005, 05:38 PM
Boy! Looking at the last few posts, most of the posters have very good points: Saki, Harloo, Denise, Leopard, ... One comment by Harloo though got my attention.
The fact that Camilla would continue to sleep around with Charles while he was married makes her look like the bimbo, but that's just my opinion. Camilla was always around as his mistress and I just cannot respect women who do that.Now, who sought whom? Could it be that Charles was the one who always pursued Camilla? Could it be that Camilla just succumbed to his persistence, perceived charming approach, lust and love? This could happen to any woman, given that they had dated before and apparently never broke off, despite other vows made. People often talk about Charles' love for her; does it occur to people that Charles also respects her? Where would that respect come from if she was just a bimbo or a side-mistress? The truth is: we don't know. One thing we do know though is that they got married willingly without any pressure to do so, and actually against the will of quite a few. And that's a powerful statement.

A side question: do you know what will happen if Ben Afflect initiates a fresh, persistent and appealing move towards J-Lo? Well, Ok, that's a bad example.:)

Anyway, most people loved Diana; I did too. She was a combination of Royalty and Hollywood; of beauty, love and sorrow; of motherhood, charity to others and personal pursuit of happiness. She was human, with all the complexity that involves. She was Royal, yet appeared humble and shy. Besides, it helped that she was a tall, thin and beautiful blonde; we all know what this last combination can do.

Now, what am I driving at, you may ask? Well, I have the feeling that both ladies were initially decent and both fell for Prince Charles, while he fell for only one, Camilla. In all this, he's the one to blame. However, he may have been victim himself of power politics, royalty, succession, empire preservation or salvation, dominance of the Windsors, and all that jazz.

Something new just began; let's go with it.

daniela86
Apr 11th, 2005, 05:55 PM
And don't forget Sarah Ferguson who allegedly was also shagged by Charles. Hey, what's family for? :o
omg :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: i didn't know this gossip :p

Charles and Camilla are obviously made one for the other and they will keep on loving each other married or not, i think that nothing can separe them.Plus the Britishs already accepted their love story so they should accept this mariage too. If they have disagreed with this marriage, they should have prevented their love affair but they have accepted it instead.
Of course, me don't like adulters at all. But, like Topaz said, people shouldn't be naive and think that Charles and Camilla are the only one who have done it and me kinda admire the strenght of their love so i really have nothing against Camilla. (but i'm not british :p so nobody cares about my opinion on her :p)

PaulieM
Apr 11th, 2005, 06:55 PM
to whoever made the comment about charles possibly being the one who pursued the relationship. does it really matter?? they were both wrong, and neither of their actions are deserving of any respect imo. and also the fact that lots of people have affairs, so it's not that serious arguement someone made doesn't make much sense to me. did anybody ever think that the reason so many marriages fail these days is precisely because of attittudes like that, which allow for people to pull the moral escape hatch whenever they want.

!<blocparty>!
Apr 11th, 2005, 07:15 PM
I cant be bothered to read the thread, can someone tell me what kind of background Camilla is from and what they do/did etc? Thanks.

DevilishAttitude
Apr 11th, 2005, 07:23 PM
:bs: Saki has clearly been living in a different country since the marriage isn't particularly accepted and Diana was easily the best and most normal royal. He/She is clearly jealous :tape:

No idea what Camilla's ever done. Cheat and screw maybe. She's posh so I don't like her :lol: ;)

"Topaz"
Apr 11th, 2005, 07:30 PM
to whoever made the comment about charles possibly being the one who pursued the relationship. does it really matter?? they were both wrong, and neither of their actions are deserving of any respect imo. and also the fact that lots of people have affairs, so it's not that serious arguement someone made doesn't make much sense to me. did anybody ever think that the reason so many marriages fail these days is precisely because of attittudes like that, which allow for people to pull the moral escape hatch whenever they want.Hi, Pauline! I did and I respect your opinion. It's actually a respectable one, honored by most religions; I'm not sure about Islam though where you possibly can have several wives simultaneously (don't quote me on that). All I was doing was just trying to bring balance to the discussion. It's always a good thing to know the facts as they are and deal with them: that's the scientific way.

saki
Apr 11th, 2005, 08:33 PM
:bs: Saki has clearly been living in a different country since the marriage isn't particularly accepted and Diana was easily the best and most normal royal. He/She is clearly jealous :tape:

No idea what Camilla's ever done. Cheat and screw maybe. She's posh so I don't like her :lol: ;)

Heh. Jealous of who? I'm envious of the love that Charles & Camilla have, actually, and I do hope that I have that when I'm their age, but I'm currently very happy in my own relationship. Certainly not jealous of Diana - failed marriage, no brains, bulimia, failed extra-marital affairs, died in a car crash - don't see anything there that I'd like!

Find me a poll that says that the marriage isn't accepted. Every one I've seen says the opposite. The BBC here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4259305.stm cites only 22% of the British population disapproving, 43% approving, and the rest not caring. Even the survey by the most right-wing and conservative of the British papers, The Daily Mail, had 58% approving and 27% disapproving.

Denise4925
Apr 11th, 2005, 08:49 PM
I'm really curious as to what polls you've looked at - could you link to them? Because I've seen many and every single one has quite clear support for their marriage. Perhaps these are just the British ones, though.

Royal marriages are generally different from "normal" ones. There has never been a Prince of Wales who wasn't unfaithful to his wife. You can disapprove of that if you wish, but I don't believe that Diana didn't know what she was getting into - she was nobility herself and moved in that set, her elder sister even dated Charles earlier. As Princess of Wales she got a lavish lifestyle and publicity, in return all she was expected to do was support Charles rather than continually upstage him. While we're on this subject, I'd like to correct the impression that Diana was a Charitable Saint - she did less charity work than any other royal, she just got more publicity for what she did because she was blonde and beautiful. And because she picked popular causes. Charles' work with disadvantaged young people gets little publicity because he doesn't get photographed with little children/do dramatic stunts but his work has done an awful lot of good.

Camilla has been virtuous in her own way. There is no evidence to suggest that she and Charles had a sexual relationship before the Charles/Diana marriage broke down and Camilla and her husband appear to have always had an open marriage (just my impression). Ultimately, the fact that Charles and Diana's sons approve, Camilla's ex-husband called her "a good woman" at the wedding reception (yes, he was invited and attended), strongly suggests to me that Camilla is a good person. She certainly makes Charles happy.

Adultery isn't for me a hugely big deal, although I see that it is for many people. It's not, for me, anywhere near the worst thing a partner could do to me. In fact, I'd much rather have an adulterous partner than a passive-agressive, manipulative, clingy, attention-seeking partner. I'm not saying that it's not wrong, but everyone falls short of the ideal and, for me, adultery is much more understandable and much more excusable than some of the other unpleasant things that people do to one another and many of those get far less attention.

Oh, and :kiss: for The Leopard..
:eek:

Denise4925
Apr 11th, 2005, 08:55 PM
Heh. Jealous of who? I'm envious of the love that Charles & Camilla have, actually, and I do hope that I have that when I'm their age, but I'm currently very happy in my own relationship. Certainly not jealous of Diana - failed marriage, no brains, bulimia, failed extra-marital affairs, died in a car crash - don't see anything there that I'd like!

Find me a poll that says that the marriage isn't accepted. Every one I've seen says the opposite. The BBC here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4259305.stm cites only 22% of the British population disapproving, 43% approving, and the rest not caring. Even the survey by the most right-wing and conservative of the British papers, The Daily Mail, had 58% approving and 27% disapproving.
Why do you hate Diana so, even in her horribly tragic death?

saki
Apr 11th, 2005, 09:18 PM
:eek:

Oops, I probably should have clarified that - I don't know whether Diana was passive-agressive, clingy, etc (although, based on public image it looks that way to me), I was enumerating the qualities that would annoy me much more than adultery in a partner. I realise that people differ on this, I'm not claiming anything other than simply that adultery is not, for all people, the worst and most evil think that a romantic partner could ever do.

"Topaz"
Apr 11th, 2005, 09:49 PM
Hey, Saki, I'm puzzled about this "passive-aggressive" trait. What is it? In my order of things, one is either passive or aggressive; puting the two together really blows my mind.

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 12th, 2005, 01:19 AM
It really is about time we abolished this whole monogamy idea. It doesn't suit human nature, and it causes so many problems when, inevitably, a large percentage of people find that they can't (emotionally) stick with it. I'm usually in love with more than one person at any one time, and I'm pretty sure that this is true of most people I know well. Most people just have trouble admitting it, even to themselves, but you can tell by observing their behaviour. I'd rather live in a society that is honest about this, but I guess it'll take a long time.

I won't go into how culture, religion and evolution all converged to get us into this mess. I'll just say that some of us can see through the situation and avoid moralising. about it. Saki and Topaz are almost there, or maybe they're totally there but trying to be tactful. :devil:

harloo
Apr 12th, 2005, 01:46 AM
to whoever made the comment about charles possibly being the one who pursued the relationship. does it really matter?? they were both wrong, and neither of their actions are deserving of any respect imo. and also the fact that lots of people have affairs, so it's not that serious arguement someone made doesn't make much sense to me. did anybody ever think that the reason so many marriages fail these days is precisely because of attittudes like that, which allow for people to pull the moral escape hatch whenever they want.


:clap2: :bigclap: :clap2:

Denise4925
Apr 12th, 2005, 02:05 AM
It really is about time we abolished this whole monogamy idea. It doesn't suit human nature, and it causes so many problems when, inevitably, a large percentage of people find that they can't (emotionally) stick with it. I'm usually in love with more than one person at any one time, and I'm pretty sure that this is true of most people I know well. Most people just have trouble admitting it, even to themselves, but you can tell by observing their behaviour. I'd rather live in a society that is honest about this, but I guess it'll take a long time.

I won't go into how culture, religion and evolution all converged to get us into this mess. I'll just say that some of us can see through the situation and avoid moralising. about it. Saki and Topaz are almost there, or maybe they're totally there but trying to be tactful. :devil:
I guess I don't have a problem with people not being monogamous if that's what they choose to do, just be honest about it with your partner and let your partner make the choice of whether to stay in the relationship.

PaulieM
Apr 12th, 2005, 02:13 AM
I guess I don't have a problem with people not being monogamous if that's what they choose to do, just be honest about it with your partner and let your partner make the choice of whether to stay in the relationship.
i'd somewhat agree with this. i wouldn't do it myself but if both parties are aware and ok with having an open relationship it's fine by me, although i wouldn't extend this to marriage, because i feel that if you're not ready to make that committment that marriage asks for then just don't do it. it's the dishonesty and selfishness that really bothers me.
on another note, i personally don't believe you can be IN love with 2 people, you can love more than one person, but to be IN love with someone, you fully devote yourself to them and nobody else.

"Topaz"
Apr 12th, 2005, 07:35 AM
It really is about time we abolished this whole monogamy idea... Saki and Topaz are almost there, or maybe they're totally there but trying to be tactful. :devil:Nope, Leopard, I'm not there at all. I believe in a monogamous society as it leads to family as the nucleus of the social fabric. The whole socio-economic order would be utterly disrupted if kids were to be engendered left and right with no clear parenthood, and no clear unit where they could develop and grow into responsible and productive adults.

However, due to my scientific background, I feel compelled to observe reality as it is, ie, with no a-priori filter. And reality indicates that we are far from being monogamous as a group. I've already supplied some stats to that effect (post #55). I didn't pursue that discussion, as it was beyond the scope of this thread. At this point, suffice it to say that I don't have the right to judge others who have multiple partners simultaneously or even consecutively at a high rate. Another observation I've made is that society tends to accept this kind of behavior more readily from men than women. Why? Well, this is our species at work! We elect legislatures in democratic countries (Congress in the US) to legislate on the rules by which we want to live, and we've decided not to incriminate adultery. Again, why? This is only the beginning of a long and tough subject which requires a lot of maturity and intellectual openness.

A final note: if I have a girlfriend, she'd better be monogamous; otherwise, Topaz is gone.

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 12th, 2005, 10:26 AM
Well, it might be beyond the topic but lots of people have brought up not liking ,or not approving of Camilla, because she committed adultery etc. The thing is, everyone professes to find adultery very morally problematic, yet a very high percentage of people do it. They don't do other things that they find very morally problematic, such as murder.

Go figure.

I think I know the answer, but it would get very complicated to explain it here. Suffice to say that I'm not going to be judgmental about something like that.

Andy T
Apr 12th, 2005, 11:23 AM
Well, it might be beyond the topic but lots of people have brought up not liking ,or not approving of Camilla, because she committed adultery etc. The thing is, everyone professes to find adultery very morally problematic, yet a very high percentage of people do it. They don't do other things that they find very morally problematic, such as murder.

Go figure.

I think I know the answer, but it would get very complicated to explain it here. Suffice to say that I'm not going to be judgmental about something like that.

:worship: a wise and mature attitude.

saki
Apr 12th, 2005, 12:55 PM
It really is about time we abolished this whole monogamy idea. It doesn't suit human nature, and it causes so many problems when, inevitably, a large percentage of people find that they can't (emotionally) stick with it. I'm usually in love with more than one person at any one time, and I'm pretty sure that this is true of most people I know well. Most people just have trouble admitting it, even to themselves, but you can tell by observing their behaviour. I'd rather live in a society that is honest about this, but I guess it'll take a long time.

I won't go into how culture, religion and evolution all converged to get us into this mess. I'll just say that some of us can see through the situation and avoid moralising. about it. Saki and Topaz are almost there, or maybe they're totally there but trying to be tactful. :devil:

Well, I've been polyamorous before - having more than one relationship with everyone knowing about it and being happy with it - and it works for me on some levels, my main issue with it is the fact that I find it stressful from the point of view of time and emotional energy. At the moment, my current boyfriend doesn't want to do this and I'm equally fine with that. Well, not equally fine - I'd prefer to have a poly relationship with him, but I want him more than I want a poly lifestyle.

My main feeling on this though is that I don't like the idea that adultery is the most terrible and awful thing that you can do in a marriage/relationship. If you've agreed to be monogomous (and, personally, I think the Charles/Diana marriage didn't necessarily have that agreement given the background of both parties - open marriages seem to be the norm in the British upper class), then clearly breaking that promise is poor form, but I don't think it's any worse behaviour than a number of other things that people do to their spouses/partners that don't get this righteous condemnation. If your partner is (and I don't know if Diana was or not, but this is the impression she gave to me) manipulative, attention-seeking, hysterical and demanding and you have an affair, I think you're both to blame, I don't believe in putting all of the blame in that situation onto the adulterous partner. As another example, my mother is severely mentally ill and periodically spends time in hospital for this, my father has stood by her and is incredibly supportive even though my mother is very very difficult to live with and the vast majority of men would have divorced her years ago as he just is like that about things he thinks of as his "duty". He is, as far as I'm aware, faithful to her even though they've not had sex since they conceived me (I'm 24..), but there is no way on earth that I'd condemn him if he did have an affair and I think it would be incredibly harsh for anyone who was aware of the facts to do so.

In other words, it's fine if you think adultery is the worst thing that could happen to your relationship, but I don't think it can be said to be objectively true for all relationships. For me, I think I'd actually find it much harder to get over my boyfriend doing something like reading my e-mails/generally snooping through my belongings than him having an affair/one night stand. Given that I have made this clear to him, he knows what to expect. Snooping might not be a dumping issue for many people but it really would be for me. Infidelity wouldn't be. We're all different, you see..

PaulieM
Apr 12th, 2005, 05:19 PM
to all the people that go on about how people aren't meant to be monogomous or everyone has affairs, i would be interested to see if you would say the same thing if you ever found yourself in the situation where you had invested yourself in a lifelong relationship and your spouse cheated on you, breaking your heart, completely embarassing you and perhaps leaving you with a couple kids to explain it to. :shrug: