Duchess of Cornwall, favorite daughter-in-law of Queen Elizabeth II

Started by FanDianaFancy, April 19, 2014, 06:18:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DaFluffs

Quote from: sandy on April 22, 2014, 06:18:16 PM
Of course, Not all British royal men had mistresses. The Queen's father and granddad did not.  And the percentage of those who have mistresses is not definitively known.


Agreed - perfectly said Sandy.  I have a question - I'd like your opinion.  I don't know the answer to this question as I do not have a firm grip on british royal history.

Here goes:
Somewhere it is quoted that Prince Charles said he did not want to be the first Prince of Wales who did not have a mistress.
The Queen's uncle Edward womanized w/o regard to how it affected the BRF privately or publicly.
If Prince Charles said he didn't want to be the 1st, and Edward was quite the womanizer (where did he 'learn' his womanizing from) I wonder if in fact the Queen's grandfather also had a mistress??

My theory above is full of holes and probably grossly outside of the true facts of history.  If you have a better grip on the history I'd be interested in what you think.

To all posters out there:  although I am responding directly to Sandy I am interested in what you think as well.

DaFluffs



sandy

Charles was encouraged by his great Uncle Mountbatten to sow wild oats and marry a suitable girl. Charles followed his advice and later, there is a letter that came out in the public domain where Mountbatten scolded Charles for getting to be like his Great Uncle Edward (enjoying sowing wild oats too much).

Edward fell for a married woman around the time of WW I, Freda Dudley Ward and decided that he could not be a good husband to a "suitable girl" since he preferred Freda. He could not marry Freda if she got a divorce (she was married but estranged from her husband at the time she got involved with the Prince). Then he had other liaisons with married women and met Wallis whom he decided was the one for him and he never looked back.  A problem for Edward was that he came of age about the time other royal houses  were fighting against Great Britain  and some were eventually  deposed i (e.g. Russia, Germany). He could have married a Grand Duchess or the Kaiser's daughter if the war had not broken out before he had a chance to meet Freda. Under normal conditions this sort of marriage would have been arranged or planned for him. Mountbatten had fallen in love with one of the ill-fated Grand Duchesses (daughter of Nicholas II) before WW I and kept her picture until the day he died.

George V did not have a mistress he was devoted to and in love with Mary.  George VI did have a time that he sowed wild oats before he became Duke of York and courted and married Lady Elizabeth. He was involved with a married woman estranged from her husband. George V had a talk with his son and advised that he drop the married woman. George VI did so he was able to marry Lady Elizabeth with no "third parties" interfering.

Felicia

Why oh why does this all have to be about Diana and the past?

Diana died in 1997-a very long time ago.Camilla has been de facto Princess of Wales for 9 years and is donig a good job.The Queen I am sure feels comfortable around her.

sandy

Diana is the mother of William and Harry and grandmother of George.  Her dying in 1997 does not erase that fact.  Her memory won't go away. Camilla did not have royal children and she married Charles when William and Harry were grown up.

It has everything to do with the past--the writer of the article talks about Diana so she is relevant to the discussion and is not to be airbrushed.

The Queen will be cordial to Camilla but I doubt it's a love fest.

Felicia

Maybe not-but I suspect that she certainly wasn't having a love fest with Diana!

In any event it doesn't matter-the brand is fixed now-The Queen, Philip, then Charles and Camillla and the Cambridges and Harry.

sandy

There is no scaled down monarchy yet since Charles is not King. The Queen has her own "brand" not Charles. And unless Charles is in dreamland, he most likely will need more relatives to help out with royal work. Camilla is not exactly a ball of fire.

William and Harry did not emerge from Charles head and they are not Camilla's kids. They are still Diana's and she is part of the brand since the boys carry half her DNA. And George is her grandson. That's something Camilla can never have. The Queen was protective of Diana at first and she matter what is the mother of the future King and Prince Harry. Philip wrote to Diana in a letter  now in the public domain that he and the Queen could not understand how Charles could prefer Camilla.
Diana will never be airbrushed and she is indeed still very much a "brand."

FanDianaFancy

Well said  sandy. Nicely put, factual, and really, without biasiam.

Trudie

Quote from: Felicia on April 23, 2014, 02:12:18 PM
Maybe not-but I suspect that she certainly wasn't having a love fest with Diana!

In any event it doesn't matter-the brand is fixed now-The Queen, Philip, then Charles and Camillla and the Cambridges and Harry.

The brand is fixed relating to Queen Victoria. The Queen is the great great granddaughter of Queen Victoria through Edward VII with Phillip being a great great grandson through Queen Victoria daughter and  Edward VII 's sister Princess Alice by the Hesse and Rhine. Charles by these lines as well as William and Harry are the brand Camilla does not even enter the equation as she is not their mother. The only brand that matters is the royal blood and to be honest Diana Princess of Wales also had royal blood something Camilla never possessed.



Eri

Quote from: sandy on April 23, 2014, 01:38:46 PM
Diana is the mother of William and Harry and grandmother of George.  Her dying in 1997 does not erase that fact.  Her memory won't go away. Camilla did not have royal children and she married Charles when William and Harry were grown up.

It has everything to do with the past--the writer of the article talks about Diana so she is relevant to the discussion and is not to be airbrushed.

The Queen will be cordial to Camilla but I doubt it's a love fest.
She has her own section on this forum ...

cinrit

Camilla is Charles' wife, and the Queen's daughter-in-law.  The fact that she did not give birth to Charles' children, which we all know, doesn't enter into this particular equation.

Cindy
Always be yourself.  Unless you can be a unicorn.  Then always be a unicorn.

Felicia

Re the "royal blood"-both Camilla and Diana are descended from Charles II by various mistresses

And there is more than a chance that via Alice Keppel Camilla actually has more recent Royal blood from Edward VII

Not that I think it makes an iota of difference!

Re the "Brand"-in the next reign Camilla will be de facto Queen Consort-of course she is part of the brand!

sandy

Nobody ever proved or disproved that Camilla is descended from Edward VII. So it is not a fact. No DNA testing was done it is not known if her grandmother was Edward's "love child."

The thing is Diana not Camilla got chosen to be the mother of the royal children and she is part of the brand and always will be through William and Harry and their descendants. That's something Camilla can never have. Diana's memory is not going to be usurped by Camilla.

Diana was from an old established family and had a title and had more distinguished ancestry than Camilla had. Charles chose her not Camilla to marry and have his children.

Diana is part of the brand--since Charles did not have the kids all by himself and they are not Camilla's children.

The royal family are not a cereal or product they are an institution not a "Brand." That diminishes them IMO. But that said Diana will be always part of the brand and there is nothing that can be done about it.


Double post auto-merged: April 24, 2014, 02:58:46 PM


Quote from: cinrit on April 24, 2014, 10:03:57 AM
Camilla is Charles' wife, and the Queen's daughter-in-law.  The fact that she did not give birth to Charles' children, which we all know, doesn't enter into this particular equation.

Cindy

Of course it does Cindy. Some are wanting to airbrush Diana out. It is not possible since she not Camilla is the mother of William and Harry. Why not read my posts and see why Diana was brought into it.

Double post auto-merged: April 24, 2014, 02:59:30 PM


Quote from: Eri on April 24, 2014, 07:40:49 AM
Quote from: sandy on April 23, 2014, 01:38:46 PM
Diana is the mother of William and Harry and grandmother of George.  Her dying in 1997 does not erase that fact.  Her memory won't go away. Camilla did not have royal children and she married Charles when William and Harry were grown up.

It has everything to do with the past--the writer of the article talks about Diana so she is relevant to the discussion and is not to be airbrushed.

The Queen will be cordial to Camilla but I doubt it's a love fest.
She has her own section on this forum ...

Eri am I not allowed to answer somebody who wants to airbrush out Diana. How come you don't go after her. Oh it's because I defend Diana not slam her.

Double post auto-merged: April 24, 2014, 03:02:49 PM


Quote from: Trudie on April 24, 2014, 02:00:57 AM
Quote from: Felicia on April 23, 2014, 02:12:18 PM
Maybe not-but I suspect that she certainly wasn't having a love fest with Diana!

In any event it doesn't matter-the brand is fixed now-The Queen, Philip, then Charles and Camillla and the Cambridges and Harry.

The brand is fixed relating to Queen Victoria. The Queen is the great great granddaughter of Queen Victoria through Edward VII with Phillip being a great great grandson through Queen Victoria daughter and  Edward VII 's sister Princess Alice by the Hesse and Rhine. Charles by these lines as well as William and Harry are the brand Camilla does not even enter the equation as she is not their mother. The only brand that matters is the royal blood and to be honest Diana Princess of Wales also had royal blood something Camilla never possessed.

I totally agree.

TLLK

Quote from: Felicia on April 23, 2014, 10:35:12 AM
Why oh why does this all have to be about Diana and the past?

Diana died in 1997-a very long time ago.Camilla has been de facto Princess of Wales for 9 years and is donig a good job.The Queen I am sure feels comfortable around her.
I have to agree Felicia.  :) IMHO it would be better to go back on topic.

sandy

Back to topic: I am not so sure the Queen feels all that comfortable with Camilla much less that she is her "favorite" daughter in law.. One part of the thread though is that it is not a fact that Camilla is related to Edward VII. Some biographer  wrote she could be descended from Alice Keppel and a banker that she had an affair with not the King.

TLLK


Felicia

I never said it was a fact that Camilla was descended from Edward VII-I said there was a chance that she was

She and Diana do however both appear to descend from Charles II-where you claimed that only Diana had Royal descent

sandy

I did not say that. I said she came from an old and distinguished family the Spencers-- descended from John and Sarah Churchill, she is related to Winston Churchill, and she has more Stuart Lines of descent than Camilla has.  Diana's father was also an Earl.

You said "more than a chance" that Camilla was descended from Edward VII.  There is speculation and no proof and Alice Keppel had several liaisons not just the one with Edward and this is a fact.

Felicia

Sorry Sandy you are right-it was Trudie that said Camilla had no royal blood

Re the Edward VII connection-yes pure speculation no proof -but still a possibility.

Trudie

Quote from: Felicia on April 24, 2014, 04:31:57 PM
Sorry Sandy you are right-it was Trudie that said Camilla had no royal blood

Re the Edward VII connection-yes pure speculation no proof -but still a possibility.

Yes it was me and Diana does possess more royal blood then Camilla as I believe her lineage goes back even further I misstated that here but in actuality from William on it will also be Spencer blood running through the BRF not Camilla's so really what is your Point? Her title is just that a title just words it does not make up the people or their DNA. As for Camilla being a favorite It is well documented how The Queen feels about Sophie.



sara8150

Quote from: sandy on April 23, 2014, 02:42:12 PM
There is no scaled down monarchy yet since Charles is not King. The Queen has her own "brand" not Charles. And unless Charles is in dreamland, he most likely will need more relatives to help out with royal work. Camilla is not exactly a ball of fire.

William and Harry did not emerge from Charles head and they are not Camilla's kids. They are still Diana's and she is part of the brand since the boys carry half her DNA. And George is her grandson. That's something Camilla can never have. The Queen was protective of Diana at first and she matter what is the mother of the future King and Prince Harry. Philip wrote to Diana in a letter  now in the public domain that he and the Queen could not understand how Charles could prefer Camilla.
Diana will never be airbrushed and she is indeed still very much a "brand."

I'm agreed with you


Queen Camilla

Still another Camilla thread hijacked by the Diana fanatics.


sandy

Quote from: Queen Camilla on April 25, 2014, 02:42:17 AM
Still another Camilla thread hijacked by the Diana fanatics.

It's not hijacking though when the bashing of Diana takes place. I never see any complaints about that by some.