A Candid Look At Camilla at almost 70

Started by TLLK, May 28, 2017, 12:04:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


sandy

Oh please. I don't see this woman as a victim. Not in the least. I don't think she is as popular as the article hints she is. If she did not want this, she could have sent Charles back to his first wife.  ANd the howler is the woman said she was taught "manners."  I guess Charles can't stand the attention given to the first wife and is trying to sell Camilla to the public, very unsubtle.

Curryong

A preemptive and hopeful PR strike methinks, as the 20th anniversary of Diana's death approaches. As for popularity with the British people, I've never seen a poll published in the past twelve years since Camilla joined the BRF that has put her popularity level above other senior royals. She's usually limping along at the back of the pack.

'A horrid time', with reference to the period following revelations about her relationship with Charles? Yes, revelations of adultery that impacted on two marriages and four children tends to have that effect.

sandy

#3
I do think a book about Camilla by Penny Junor is in the offing.

As one commentator suggested he thought the Queen did not like soul baring by her family. This unfortunate interview appears to be in that category.

If she did not want a horrid time she could have backed off and ended her association with Charles. I don't think she had a horrid time in the least, but is playing victim which I find pathetic. I think it better if Camilla kept her mouth shut. A selling point in her PR was that she is "discreet." This article is not discreet in the least.

The article smacks of desperation by perhaps Charles who may be disturbed about all the news stories on Diana (and TV shows) as the 20th anniversary of her death approaches. I don't think people will pay much attention to Camilla's 70th birthday in comparison. This could prove a foolish move on Charles' part. Camilla should just keep her mouth shut, it also shows that she is not sorry in the least, except perhaps for herself. Not a good image for a future Queen Consort.

royalanthropologist

I really enjoyed the article. Queue all the snide remarks from some Diana devotees on the DM (as we have come to expect) but I don't really think it matters. The truth of the matter is that Camilla is doing a wonderful job as consort to Charles. Not a hint of self-pity or attempts to attack the monarchy. This is an intelligent, well-grounded woman that does not need to play the victim.

The only criticism I have of the interview is that Camilla does not express any regret for the adulterous affair she had with Prince Charles. That suggests to me that she has still not accepted that she had any role to play in the ensuing tragedy. You cannot heal or expect forgiveness unless you do an objective review of your role in situations. If you just ignore your role then you remain stuck in the circle of recriminations, blame-games and bitterness. That is something that Camilla might be well-advised to work on. At 70, she has seen it all and can afford to have a moment of honest self-reflection.

Other than that; I admire her sense of humor and pragmatism. I am looking forward to the coronation if and when it happens. Those who obsessively hate Camilla (based on tabloid speculation and the narratives of an embittered abandoned first wife) might be very surprised by the reception she gets on that day. Interestingly even the Diana obsessives will come out too. They just can't seem to live without Camilla and Charles, yet they hate them with a passion :hehe: You can always see them rushing to post the same comments on any article about Charles or Camilla as if the royal couple really care and read all the vitriol.

There are very many, many people who never bought into the "Camilla is a Devil" fairy tale and those people will come out to support her. Camilla is certainly not lacking in invitations to do engagements or become patron of charities.  The people who come out to see her are well-behaved and polite. They do not attempt to create divides between the couple in order to satisfy their own sense of self-importance. None of the crazies the royals had to endure in the 1980s and 1990s. Royal visits now have dignity and gravitas, instead of descending into something of a Beatles fan fest. Of course the crowds are much, much less; but they are overall much better crowds so the royals can't complain.

As for opinion polls; this is not a competition for teacher's pet. It is a group effort under the firm. Those that think they are too popular to obey the rules are soon pushed out (but then they want to come back in when they realize fickle press adulation can be). I am glad that the royal family is no longer playing the beauty contest game, with constant reviews of the papers to see whether and how they are being covered or who is up in the polls. That is just for sad people who have no internal resources to cope with rejection; a natural occurrence when you live with different people with different tastes.

One cannot lead their life by opinion polls. If opinion polls mattered that much, Donald Trump would not be President and Carl would not be King of Sweden. So people can whine all they want. It is their right. That does not stop Camilla from doing her job. At 70, she can look back with gratefulness for all that fate has given her. It would have appeared impossible that she would be in this position in 1992 but she somehow got through it all.

The royal family is now in a much, much better shape than it was during those times of competitiveness. I know some would like to go back 20 years but those times are long gone. They will never return. It is those times (as defined by obsessive fans)  that ruined the lives of many members of the royal family. Even Diana ended up being victimized by the intrusiveness and need for a new scoop/crisis every single day.

"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

Perhaps she reckons that whatever she ddi wrong, its ot something to be gone on about in public. 

Curryong

^ How are the fifty people who turned up for one engagement for Charles and Camilla on the first tour of Canada undertaken after their marriage 'better' than the huge and enthusiastic crowds who turned out for Charles and Diana when they toured and the Cambridges on their first tour of Canada?

And yes, I know that Charles and Camilla were mobbed in Italy this year, but I'm talking about British people and Commonwealth citizens. Ultimately, they are the ones that matter to the BRF. If members of the Royal family are consistently pulling small crowds and people remain uninterested, that becomes a matter of concern to TPTB back at CH and BP. And Charles and Camilla don't bring large crowds out, crowds that define whether a Royal is truly popular or not. They just don't.

And Yes, of course you can't lead your life by opinion polling. However, in a democracy it is the only way of finding out the answer to certain questions without surveying every household.

Yes, we know that Camilla isn't sorry for anything she did in her life and the misery she caused another human being. That's no revelation.

royalanthropologist

Yes quite @amabel. Perhaps I am expecting too much. But I still think that self-introspection is a very powerful stage of personal growth. If you are always blaming others for your misfortune (and not recognizing your own part); it makes for a very miserable and sad life as a perpetual victim. Camilla does not strike me as the victim type but I just hoped she might have expressed some regret. Perhaps she wanted to avoid aggravating Diana obsessives if she even mentioned her name. I don't know either way.

One of the posters made this statement: "the misery she caused another human being" with reference to Camilla. That is exactly the mindset that trapped Diana in the gilded cage of a wronged, miserable,  abandoned, privately unwanted but publicly popular wife. It is a testament to the triumph of PR wars and the blame-game over personal happiness and human growth. I do not think that the wild (and sometimes obsessive) popularity Diana enjoyed in her life really compensated for the emptiness and unhappiness in her life. If it had done so, she would never have done Morton and Panorama.

As for the 50 people in Canada mentioned by @Curryong , I have not heard either the Canadian government or the royal couple complaining. C&C were there at the invitation of the Canadian government. They performed the duties required and have been invited back again. Make of that what you will; but I don't think the royal family is missing the 1980s and 1990s, not by a long shot. The C&D visit was a glamorous affair but one which masked the basic incompatibility of the couple.

The people who obsessed about Diana were exclusive to her and did not include Charles or the royal family in their adulation. When Diana left (or more accurately was pushed out); those obsessives started sniping on the sidelines, even suggesting the removal of the institution. I therefore question whether their adulation was really useful or welcome to the institution of the monarchy at all. To me they seemed like people who were mad about Diana and wanted to make it all about her.  That is all very well but it was not acceptable to have such a set up in an institution in which people are expected to work as a team. There was simply no room for overwhelming super stars.

Canadians are typically polite and friendly on the whole (at least the ones I have had the pleasure of meeting); so I would not say that they were obsessives at that point. The dark moments started when comparisons in relative popularity were made (particularly in Australia); comparisons that some people want to bring back again. The current pragmatic compromise is more in line with the Windsor style. They are not interested in rock star status as far as I can tell. The royal family is not interested in super celebrity consorts, but pragmatic ones who support the work of the institution. The Cambridges had very good crowds but none of the hype of the 1980s and 1990s which later darkened into obsessiveness.

If we take the example of the Queen Mother, you can clearly see that the Diana obsessives were not really monarchists at all. The QM was very popular, but never at the expense of the monarchy. She remained at the heart of the institution, working to protect her husband and his family. She never ever exposed the weaknesses and pressure points within the institution. That is very different from what Diana did in Morton and Panorama. She wanted to reach her own fans to make them rise against her husband and his family.  Diana did not really mind or care whether those fans had Republican sentiments that would ultimately want to abolish the monarchy. She was not appealing to monarchists at all, but her own constituency of fans. 

Also the success of royal visits and work is not judged by chanting crowds alone. That is a mistake that Diana sometimes made. Nobody can argue that Princess Anne is not an effective royal but she is not exactly a crowd puller. Just because the tabloid press is not filled with hyperventilation about the visit of some royal does not mean that they are not doing their work or that they do not have their fans.

If you insist on listening only to people who agree with you about your view of Diana, it is very easy to make the mistake of thinking that she is either universally popular or universally unpopular.  The same can be said of Camilla. The silent majority is very real; even when they do not have the inclination to participate in opinion polls or even post on internet forums. That is how Trump won the presidency.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Trudie

Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 28, 2017, 08:20:51 AM

The only criticism I have of the interview is that Camilla does not express any regret for the adulterous affair she had with Prince Charles. That suggests to me that she has still not accepted that she had any role to play in the ensuing tragedy. You cannot heal or expect forgiveness unless you do an objective review of your role in situations. If you just ignore your role then you remain stuck in the circle of recriminations, blame-games and bitterness. That is something that Camilla might be well-advised to work on. At 70, she has seen it all and can afford to have a moment of honest self-reflection.

Sorry but that shows me how much of a liar Camilla is to get what she wants. She lied at her marriage blessing with that false act of contrition she was one of the major contributors to the ensuing tragedy and yet has never once showed any regrets as for saying she doesn't act grand? I have a few bridges to sell



sandy

#9
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 28, 2017, 08:20:51 AM
I really enjoyed the article. Queue all the snide remarks from some Diana devotees on the DM (as we have come to expect) but I don't really think it matters. The truth of the matter is that Camilla is doing a wonderful job as consort to Charles. Not a hint of self-pity or attempts to attack the monarchy. This is an intelligent, well-grounded woman that does not need to play the victim.

The only criticism I have of the interview is that Camilla does not express any regret for the adulterous affair she had with Prince Charles. That suggests to me that she has still not accepted that she had any role to play in the ensuing tragedy. You cannot heal or expect forgiveness unless you do an objective review of your role in situations. If you just ignore your role then you remain stuck in the circle of recriminations, blame-games and bitterness. That is something that Camilla might be well-advised to work on. At 70, she has seen it all and can afford to have a moment of honest self-reflection.

Other than that; I admire her sense of humor and pragmatism. I am looking forward to the coronation if and when it happens. Those who obsessively hate Camilla (based on tabloid speculation and the narratives of an embittered abandoned first wife) might be very surprised by the reception she gets on that day. Interestingly even the Diana obsessives will come out too. They just can't seem to live without Camilla and Charles, yet they hate them with a passion :hehe: You can always see them rushing to post the same comments on any article about Charles or Camilla as if the royal couple really care and read all the vitriol.

There are very many, many people who never bought into the "Camilla is a Devil" fairy tale and those people will come out to support her. Camilla is certainly not lacking in invitations to do engagements or become patron of charities.  The people who come out to see her are well-behaved and polite. They do not attempt to create divides between the couple in order to satisfy their own sense of self-importance. None of the crazies the royals had to endure in the 1980s and 1990s. Royal visits now have dignity and gravitas, instead of descending into something of a Beatles fan fest. Of course the crowds are much, much less; but they are overall much better crowds so the royals can't complain.

As for opinion polls; this is not a competition for teacher's pet. It is a group effort under the firm. Those that think they are too popular to obey the rules are soon pushed out (but then they want to come back in when they realize fickle press adulation can be). I am glad that the royal family is no longer playing the beauty contest game, with constant reviews of the papers to see whether and how they are being covered or who is up in the polls. That is just for sad people who have no internal resources to cope with rejection; a natural occurrence when you live with different people with different tastes.

One cannot lead their life by opinion polls. If opinion polls mattered that much, Donald Trump would not be President and Carl would not be King of Sweden. So people can whine all they want. It is their right. That does not stop Camilla from doing her job. At 70, she can look back with gratefulness for all that fate has given her. It would have appeared impossible that she would be in this position in 1992 but she somehow got through it all.

The royal family is now in a much, much better shape than it was during those times of competitiveness. I know some would like to go back 20 years but those times are long gone. They will never return. It is those times (as defined by obsessive fans)  that ruined the lives of many members of the royal family. Even Diana ended up being victimized by the intrusiveness and need for a new scoop/crisis every single day.



There is plenty of self pity and playing victim int he article. The obsessive fans excuse is  bunk. Because without Diana fans, do you think all the rest of the country approves of Camilla's behavior? I doubt it. Charles is spending loads of money on this.

Nobody "hates" Camilla but they don't think her a living Saint either.

Double post auto-merged: May 28, 2017, 10:27:53 AM


Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 28, 2017, 09:22:30 AM
Yes quite @amabel. Perhaps I am expecting too much. But I still think that self-introspection is a very powerful stage of personal growth. If you are always blaming others for your misfortune (and not recognizing your own part); it makes for a very miserable and sad life as a perpetual victim. Camilla does not strike me as the victim type but I just hoped she might have expressed some regret. Perhaps she wanted to avoid aggravating Diana obsessives if she even mentioned her name. I don't know either way.

One of the posters made this statement: "the misery she caused another human being" with reference to Camilla. That is exactly the mindset that trapped Diana in the gilded cage of a wronged, miserable,  abandoned, privately unwanted but publicly popular wife. It is a testament to the triumph of PR wars and the blame-game over personal happiness and human growth. I do not think that the wild (and sometimes obsessive) popularity Diana enjoyed in her life really compensated for the emptiness and unhappiness in her life. If it had done so, she would never have done Morton and Panorama.

As for the 50 people in Canada mentioned by @Curryong , I have not heard either the Canadian government or the royal couple complaining. C&C were there at the invitation of the Canadian government. They performed the duties required and have been invited back again. Make of that what you will; but I don't think the royal family is missing the 1980s and 1990s, not by a long shot. The C&D visit was a glamorous affair but one which masked the basic incompatibility of the couple.

The people who obsessed about Diana were exclusive to her and did not include Charles or the royal family in their adulation. When Diana left (or more accurately was pushed out); those obsessives started sniping on the sidelines, even suggesting the removal of the institution. I therefore question whether their adulation was really useful or welcome to the institution of the monarchy at all. To me they seemed like people who were mad about Diana and wanted to make it all about her.  That is all very well but it was not acceptable to have such a set up in an institution in which people are expected to work as a team. There was simply no room for overwhelming super stars.

Canadians are typically polite and friendly on the whole (at least the ones I have had the pleasure of meeting); so I would not say that they were obsessives at that point. The dark moments started when comparisons in relative popularity were made (particularly in Australia); comparisons that some people want to bring back again. The current pragmatic compromise is more in line with the Windsor style. They are not interested in rock star status as far as I can tell. The royal family is not interested in super celebrity consorts, but pragmatic ones who support the work of the institution. The Cambridges had very good crowds but none of the hype of the 1980s and 1990s which later darkened into obsessiveness.

If we take the example of the Queen Mother, you can clearly see that the Diana obsessives were not really monarchists at all. The QM was very popular, but never at the expense of the monarchy. She remained at the heart of the institution, working to protect her husband and his family. She never ever exposed the weaknesses and pressure points within the institution. That is very different from what Diana did in Morton and Panorama. She wanted to reach her own fans to make them rise against her husband and his family.  Diana did not really mind or care whether those fans had Republican sentiments that would ultimately want to abolish the monarchy. She was not appealing to monarchists at all, but her own constituency of fans. 

Also the success of royal visits and work is not judged by chanting crowds alone. That is a mistake that Diana sometimes made. Nobody can argue that Princess Anne is not an effective royal but she is not exactly a crowd puller. Just because the tabloid press is not filled with hyperventilation about the visit of some royal does not mean that they are not doing their work or that they do not have their fans.

If you insist on listening only to people who agree with you about your view of Diana, it is very easy to make the mistake of thinking that she is either universally popular or universally unpopular.  The same can be said of Camilla. The silent majority is very real; even when they do not have the inclination to participate in opinion polls or even post on internet forums. That is how Trump won the presidency.

I see Camilla obsessives who don't blame her for anything and heap the blame on Diana's fans.  Charles and Camilla never take the blame but blame others that is there modus operandi. And how amusing the DM is not letting comments in, the ones out there must be scathing. The DM knows that those comments would ruin the Saint Camilla article.

What silent majority? If there were one, the DM would let ALL comments in.

DIana had every right to complain if she did not bring out her side of the story, the drivel by Camilla would believed by ALL people.

The Palace team must be hard at work on those green arrows. I'm surprised red arrows were even let in.

amabel

Quote from: Curryong on May 28, 2017, 08:41:40 AM
^ How are the fifty people who turned up for one engagement for Charles and Camilla on the first tour of Canada undertaken after their marriage 'better' than the huge and enthusiastic crowds who turned out for Charles and Diana when they toured and the Cambridges on their first tour of Canada?

And yes, I know that Charles and Camilla were mobbed in Italy this year, but I'm talking about British people and Commonwealth citizens. Ultimately, they are the ones that matter to the BRF. If members of the Royal family are consistently pulling small crowds and people remain uninterested, that becomes a matter of concern to TPTB back at CH and BP. And Charles and Camilla don't bring large crowds out, crowds that define whether a Royal is truly popular or not. They just don't.


Yes, we know that Camilla isn't sorry for anything she did in her life and the misery she caused another human being. That's no revelation.
How do you know that??  she may be very sorry, and not want to talk about it.  She may not be sorry, either way, it is IMO soemthitng that is best kept private.

Curryong

Well, it's certainly going to be kept private as far as Charles and Camilla are concerned, for obvious reasons. Charles did all his blabbing for the Dimbleby interview and then blamed his Private Secretary for the decision.

You can tell by Camilla's attitude, demeanour and actions that she is one of those people who are never sorry for anything they do in life. She has the hide of a rhinoceros and the cheek of the devil, as was seen when, after all that had happened she was prepared to sit at the ten year memorial service of a woman who's life she had made miserable practically from the beginning. It was only TPTB taking fright at the public reaction that would ensue that stopped her.

dianab

Quote from: sandy on May 28, 2017, 12:15:43 AM
Oh please. I don't see this woman as a victim. Not in the least. I don't think she is as popular as the article hints she is. If she did not want this, she could have sent Charles back to his first wife.  ANd the howler is the woman said she was taught "manners."  I guess Charles can't stand the attention given to the first wife and is trying to sell Camilla to the public, very unsubtle.
Her 'popularity' must be the reason of comments being 'so controlled' in this article...

sandy

Only a handful of comments were let in with a curiously large number of green arrows to those favorable. So obvious.

Double post auto-merged: May 28, 2017, 01:48:53 PM


Quote from: amabel on May 28, 2017, 11:54:18 AM
Quote from: Curryong on May 28, 2017, 08:41:40 AM
^ How are the fifty people who turned up for one engagement for Charles and Camilla on the first tour of Canada undertaken after their marriage 'better' than the huge and enthusiastic crowds who turned out for Charles and Diana when they toured and the Cambridges on their first tour of Canada?

And yes, I know that Charles and Camilla were mobbed in Italy this year, but I'm talking about British people and Commonwealth citizens. Ultimately, they are the ones that matter to the BRF. If members of the Royal family are consistently pulling small crowds and people remain uninterested, that becomes a matter of concern to TPTB back at CH and BP. And Charles and Camilla don't bring large crowds out, crowds that define whether a Royal is truly popular or not. They just don't.


Yes, we know that Camilla isn't sorry for anything she did in her life and the misery she caused another human being. That's no revelation.
How do you know that??  she may be very sorry, and not want to talk about it.  She may not be sorry, either way, it is IMO soemthitng that is best kept private.

She should have kept her mouth shut. I think Charles wanted this interview to counter all the Diana articles. Did not work for me. I don't think she's the least bit sorry, In the Great Love spin it is not mentioned that Charles had other ladies besides her and Diana. He had another married mistress too.  Didn't the Queen criticize "soul baring" of her grandsons. This soul baring of Camilla is far worse.

dianab

Yes, only a handful of comments were let in with large number of as green as red arrows. Loads of comments arent being allowed

sandy

A few negative comments  slipped in I guess to try to make things look 'honest'. It is so rigged it is laughable.

royalanthropologist

I can see the DM has had the good sense to keep the crazies at bay. They ought to do that more often. It will improve the quality of commentary on that website.  They are about twenty people who keep posting the same nasty comments so it is not really worth it to give them the space to spread their vitriol. Let them stew or find an echo chamber where they can all exchange posts about how bad Camilla is. Frankly speaking, I doubt she gives a damn :hehe:

I also think that Charles and Camilla should not reach out to the obsessives at all or try to win them over. If someone is determined to hate you, the last thing you want to do is try and appease them. Better to just ignore them and do your job. Yes, Camilla had an affair with a married man about 30 years ago. We've heard it all before; bring something new and relevant to the current work of the monarchy. The ad hominen attacks on Charles and Camilla are getting repetitive. The criticisms based on past transgressions (or perceptions and reports of past transgressions) now resemble the tired cliches of people who lack an imagination.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

You mean keep people with their own opinions off and make it a Camilla groupie site.  Controlling opinions suppresses free speech. Would you like it if anti Diana comments were left out of comments? I doubt it.

Here we go with the word 'obsessive' again. So people with other opinions have to be 'obsessives". This just makes no sense. There are clear headed people who form their own opinions and don't become "sheep" who go with PR spin articles.

I agree, Charles and Camilla should not reach out. I think she needs to keep her mouth shut. It was better when the PR did the talking for her. NObody hates the woman but at the same time she is no Saint.

Camilla helped break up a dynastic royal marriage and undermined the wife. Something previously unthinkable for a mistress to do.

The attacks on Diana all sound the same. THe best people have is calling those who disagree obsessives or cult members or fanatics.

Camilla's PR really lacks imagination.

royalanthropologist

England has had queens who started off as mistresses. Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour come to mind.  The former is considered by many historians to be one of the most important queen consorts of all time. Apart from being mother to the incomparable Elizabeth I of England, her marriage heralded the birth of the Church of England. Camilla is not the first or last person to have an affair with a married man, as everybody here knows (no need to mention names as they are already in the public arena).

Let me also take the effort to clarify a few things:

1. Obsessiveness: "a person who is continually preoccupied with a particular activity, person, or thing" e.g. DM commentators who go on every article about Charles and Camilla to post vitriol.

2. Cult: "a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing." e.g. Those DM commentators who behave as if everything bad that happened to Diana was a personal affront and injury to them and that they have to personally attack anyone who is not prepared to write complementary things about her.

Just using the English language, that's all.  I am more than happy to consider using alternative terms that describe the behavior above, if someone can help me with them.

I can just predict that someone somewhere is about to say that C&C fans are "obsessives" and "cultists". Whatever...I am more than happy to take on that label, if only to break through the group think. I hate group think with a passion.

Imitation is the best form of flattery so I liked that  comment about Camilla's PR lacking imagination.

In actuality the woman gave a relatively mild interview to commemorate her 70th birthday. Nothing on the scale of Morton, Dimbleby or Panorama. Camilla is as entitled as anyone to give interviews about her life and it is presumptuous to assume that some random person can order her to "shut up"...as if she would ever listen to them.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

Jane Seymour was not a mistress. She resisted Henry VIII's advances until they got married. Anne Boleyn got executed when she fell out of favor. Camilla did not have royal children so she is not going to influence any Dynasties. Diana will.

The obsessiveness charges are getting repetitive. It is not a way of respecting another's opinion, just derision. And it is more in the getting personal category than staying on topic. So people who don't agree that Camilla is wonderful is obsessive? That is totally wrong and is against free speech.

I don't think anybody should be derided as a cultist or obsessive or fanatics or so on.

Camilla should really not give interviews. And the DM should have let in comments so both sides can be heard. Unless Charles PR decreed otherwise.

Camllla playing victim is laughable. What did she expect? Praise for being the other woman?

Trudie

Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 28, 2017, 06:00:51 PM
England has had queens who started off as mistresses. Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour come to mind.  The former is considered by many historians to be one of the most important queen consorts of all time. Apart from being mother to the incomparable Elizabeth I of England, her marriage heralded the birth of the Church of England. Camilla is not the first or last person to have an affair with a married man, as everybody here knows (no need to mention names as they are already in the public arena).

Let me also take the effort to clarify a few things:

1. Obsessiveness: "a person who is continually preoccupied with a particular activity, person, or thing" e.g. DM commentators who go on every article about Charles and Camilla to post vitriol.

2. Cult: "a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing." e.g. Those DM commentators who behave as if everything bad that happened to Diana was a personal affront and injury to them and that they have to personally attack anyone who is not prepared to write complementary things about her.

Just using the English language, that's all.  I am more than happy to consider using alternative terms that describe the behavior above, if someone can help me with them.

I can just predict that someone somewhere is about to say that C&C fans are "obsessives" and "cultists". Whatever...I am more than happy to take on that label, if only to break through the group think. I hate group think with a passion.

Imitation is the best form of flattery so I liked that  comment about Camilla's PR lacking imagination.

In actuality the woman gave a relatively mild interview to commemorate her 70th birthday. Nothing on the scale of Morton, Dimbleby or Panorama. Camilla is as entitled as anyone to give interviews about her life and it is presumptuous to assume that some random person can order her to "shut up"...as if she would ever listen to them.

We all know how well things turned out for Anne Boleyn now don't we? Now by your logic I suppose that would put you in the category as obsessive about Camilla and also a member of a cult dedicated to worshipping the wonderful way Camilla destroyed the marriage dreams of a woman and could care less about the feelings of four children involved in either marriage. Diana was no saint but at least she didn't have a church blessing where she was supposed to have remorse or regret of how she came to her second marriage but then Charles lied in Church both times his marriage to Diana and his act of contrition which allowed COE recognition.



royalanthropologist

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from being critiqued or challenged. Neither does it mean freedom to make up facts, slander or insult others without any push back. It does not mean insisting that only one way of thinking is right. The people that DM is moderating are those who make repetitive, irrelevant and slanderous comments. It is the responsible thing to do (I am surprised the DM is doing this as I always assumed that site was a troll magnet). Maybe the comments were so outrageous that even the DM felt they could not publish them?

I marvel at those who know what is going in  Charles and Camilla's mind when they make vows. I would never presume so much about another person.

As for the children; they have given interviews to indicate they have no issues with the second marriage. Of course the "fans" will never believe them. It must be that all powerful Charles insisting that they give reasonable interviews.  It is not them who are posting vitriol on sites like the DM. They have found ways of dealing with their respective parents strengths and weaknesses.

Diana herself is sadly beyond the concerns of this world so "destroying dreams" means nothing to her anymore. By the time of her death, she had given an interview (Panorama) in which she clearly stated that she was no longer bitter about things. It is the outsiders who are always crying more than the bereaved. That is what is so strange about this Diana thing. People who do not personally know any of the principals seem to be more invested in the saga than the principals themselves. Strange, strange stuff :wacko:

BTW. Jane Seymour was a mistress who had been originally appointed as lady in waiting to the queen. Anne  slapped her one time when she caught Jane with Henry. It is all there in the history books. As for Anne's fate, it did not detract from her significance in history.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

Freedom of speech means not deriding other posters as being 'obsessive' or anybody who does not agree with you is 'obsessive.' It means sticking to the topic. I have my take on it you have yours.

The DM is wrong not letting people have their opinions and censoring. I stand by that. what if there were all anti Camilla posts in the small list, wouldn't you want to see some pro Camilla posts among them or have your say?

Tom got teased in school and hid that he had the middle name "Charles." But he made  good living referring to Mum and Sir to plug his books. And Charles gave Laura and Tom trust funds.

Diana is fair game now because she's dead and Camilla is free to rewrite history and play the victim.

No Jane Seymour was not a mistress. She never slept with Henry pre marriage and returned his gifts. This is a fact. Those against Anne Boleyn were promoting Jane as wife not mistress. Jane did not want to be a mistress. She was lady in waiting first to Catherine and did not like Anne Boleyn because she had loyalty to Catherine. The story of Anne slapping Jane may or may not be true.  It is not in all history books. Camilla did not have royal children so she will have no legacy like Diana will. Jane allegedly slapping Anne does not prove Jane slept with Henry. Jane was more of a threat because Anne realized she would be replaced by Jane as Henry's wife.

TLLK

QuoteThey are about twenty people who keep posting the same nasty comments so it is not really worth it to give them the space to spread their vitriol

To be fair I'd like to point out that the nasty comments are coming from both sides Pro-Diana and Pro-Camilla/Charles. It's probably best to not respond to either group. (Andrew PB seems to have escaped much of anyone's wrath.)

sandy

Andrew Parker Bowles has been compared to Mr Simpson. Some have contempt for him for being so wishy washy and sharing his wife with Charles. And he got to be in royal circles because of his being" civilized". He only divorced Camilla after Charles blabbed. There are accounts of his watching Camilla and Charles all touchy feely on the dance floor when he was still married to Camilla.

I think there are more than 20 people who post against Camilla in the Daily Mail.

I still maintain it would have been better for Camilla herself to keep her mouth shut.