Nightmare for Prince Charles Succession Wait!

Started by angieuk, July 27, 2014, 07:41:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sandy

#100
Quote from: lilibet80 on September 19, 2014, 06:18:18 PM
Quote from: sandy on September 19, 2014, 03:08:46 PM
That is not what Charles himself reported to his authorized biographer. He said he was not "ready" for marriage and did not tell Camilla to wait for him when he went to sea. When Charles cooperated on his bio with Mr Dimbleby he was not feeling very loving to his parents (to say the least) and if he felt his mother would "never" allow the marriage he certainly would have added this to his grievances.

Charles can be stubborn but apparently he did not care enough to even try.  Charles was not a baby  he was an adult and he himself made the choice not to pursue Camilla Shand as a bride. 

There you go again describing his feelings and decisions and choices.  There is a difference when a man in his twenties like Charles, and a man in his forties like the DOW.  Camilla would never have been acceptable as a future queen in the 1970s and Charles knew it.  He would never go on television and discuss what his mother and father would have said if he asked for Camilla to be his queen.  He may have been angry and resentful but he knew his boundaries. 


There I go describing what Charles told his own biographer Dimbleby. If you don't choose to believe Charles reasons that's your choice.

Double post auto-merged: September 19, 2014, 11:08:59 PM


Quote from: Canuck on September 19, 2014, 07:47:35 PM
Quote from: cinrit on September 19, 2014, 06:02:30 PM
But no one is white-washing the past.  Just saying it's in the past.

That's how I feel, Cindy.  No one is whitewashing what happened back in the 1980s; the article that started this post certainly doesn't ignore it.  But Charles and Camilla have both been divorced from their first spouses for 20 years.  Not every single article about them is going to make Diana/their affair the focus, nor should it.   

This is part of Camilla and Charles history like it or not. It could be 50 years but the past does not change or go away. Camilla is not going to be a beloved figure by everyone to put it mildly. People have memories and it is up to them not to ignore what happened with C and C and Diana.

I notice that despite Charles pals wanting to move on some keep rehashing what happened thirty years ago with Junor still trashing Diana. How come the "rules" don't apply to those who bash Diana? If C and C now have halos why do people like Junor need to dredge up the past to make them look like saints and Diana the devil. Some selective forgetting going on here.

Double post auto-merged: September 19, 2014, 11:11:26 PM


Quote from: amabel on September 19, 2014, 07:58:55 PM
Quote from: Canuck on September 18, 2014, 07:59:48 PM
Okay, so Charles wasn't convinced back in the 1970s that Camilla was the woman he wanted to marry.  How does that possibly matter?  That was literally 35-40 years ago.  Today, Charles and Camilla seem very much in love and very happy together. 
I think he did know on one level that she was the right one for him.  but she had other interest and she did not IMO want to be his wife. I think that he felt she was right for him as a person, albeit she wasn't pretty or glamorous and wanted a quiet life... but he probably reasoned that he was young enough to get over her and find someone else who would be accepted as a royal bride and that he and Cam would always be friends...Then as he got older, her marriage wasn't going so well, he was still lonely in spite of other girlfriends and they became lovers again....But I think hat the proof of the pudding si that in spite of separations, other people etc, they still loved each other and were always good friends...

Diana's marriage was not going well but she was expected to live like a nun when Charles started straying. But of course when Camilla's hubby cheats it gave her carte blanche to cheat too. Camilla could have gotten a divorce from APB but the arrangement suited both CPB and APB.

Charles and Camilla were friends with benefits and obviously could never be "just friends". Once he got engaged to another woman Camilla should have ceased contact with Charles and vice versa.

Double post auto-merged: September 19, 2014, 11:15:22 PM


Quote from: amabel on September 19, 2014, 10:09:38 PM
Quote from: lilibet80 on September 19, 2014, 06:18:18 PM
Quote from: sandy on September 19, 2014, 03:08:46 PM
That is not what Charles himself reported to his authorized biographer. He said he was not "ready" for marriage and did not tell Camilla to wait for him when he went to sea. When Charles cooperated on his bio with Mr Dimbleby he was not feeling very loving to his parents (to say the least) and if he felt his mother

There you go again describing his feelings and decisions and choices.  There is a difference when a man in his twenties like Charles, and a man in his forties like the DOW.  Camilla would never have been acceptable as a future queen in the 1970s and Charles knew it.  He would never go on television and discuss what his mother and father would have said if he asked for Camilla to be his queen.  He may have been angry and resentful but he knew his boundaries. 

Well I think the queen was not 100% behind the marriage even in the 2000s, because of all the fuss. I think that she's very old fashioned, and while I think she was not totally against the marriage and wanted Charles to be happy, she DID feel ti wasn't the best idea and that she didn't really like the idea of his marrying anyone.. esp the woman who was his long time mistress during his marriage.  But I thinks she realised that the general public didn't care very much now some years after Di's death, and that it was better given that the church would not crown him if he were living with Camilla, that he should marry her...
it was only probably because Charles DID push gradually for Cam to be accepted as his live in companion over the years and the public gradually came to accept it, that the queen gave in

Nobody cared how the general public felt. Charles wanted it his way or the highway. I would not speak about public opinion definitively since there were never any definitive surveys.

Charles could have been crowned and still had Camilla as a lover. He did not technically "have to" marry her but became obligated more or less when he outed her as his mistress (forcing the divorce of the PBs).

Charles reported a lot of things to Dimbleby that did not get on TV. He complained endlessly about his upbringing via the printed book.

lilibet80

I started reading this thread because it dealt with Charles' feelings about waiting so long to succeed.  After page 2 it once again degenerated into another argument concerning his first marriage.  As far as Charles having to wait is concerned, nobody really knows how he feels unless he speaks about it, which I doubt he does.  He may be relieved not to have the burden of kingship as he has less rules and protocols to follow.  He may be mad as hell that he has had to wait so long.  He may not care one way or the other.  The Queen, in my opinion, will never abdicate.  She took a vow for life.  She  may or not enjoy her life as Queen, but unless she becomes too ill to reign Charles will have to wait his turn.

I find this topic interesting.  I read these threads for information and an exchange of ideas.  Yet just about every one of them becomes another boring rundown of a marriage that ended in the 1990s.  I really wish those arguments and debates by those obsessed with the subject of proving Diana right or proving Charles wrong and consigning Camilla Parker Bowles to hell as a streetwalker could be kept in threads that concern them.  Charles' long wait to be King of England has absolutely nothing to do with Diana, Camilla or his first marriage.  It is a legitimate question and a good prospect for a discussion. 

Sheridan

Hey Sandy, let me ask you?
How can Charles love a woman he only met 12 or 13 times?
How can Charles love a woman he had nothing in common with?
How can Charles love a woman who possible was not well in the head?
How can Charles love a woman and yet keep pictures of  his ex in his notebook?
How can Charles love a woman, yet he wasn't sexually attracted to her? (we all know the story)
How can Charles love a woman and tell another woman, "whatever happens he'll always love her.

I get shocked when you say they loved each other and Camilla ruined it...noo..he was probably pretending, men do it. As you always say, he needed heirs only. Going by his biography by dimbleby is ridiculous, do you seriously think he will tell everything in just that book? did you seriously think Diana told everything in hers? i mean she refuse to mention, regardless of the situation she had affairs of her own...which no matter what made her an adulteress?

You say he had no choice to marry Camilla, he did, by the way in the dimbleby interview, he said Camilla was a great friend and will continue so and also said many friends were also there for him. When did he say in that interview straightly that he was with Camilla romantically? He didn't do any outing in that interview. it was outed when Diana did her so called true story and those tapes were recorded.

To say they were just friends with benefits is really insulting to the pair but then again you despise them with passion (its not normal) they were friends before they dated (believe it or not people get to know each other like that before dating), you should do more reading about them, nothing wrong with being friends with exes, it happens all the time.

In conclusion....

Im sorry your idol Diana died but life goes on, i assume you are American, Americans are those ones who get angry about this, i know a lot of Europeans who tell me the marriage shouldn't have happened. I agreed and still do (I mean look at who their first son married...a totally unsuitable woman) Very sad.

And lilibet i agree with you...its sad when some people always want to turn every conversation to be about Diana, like she was a helpless woman when she was alive, she did a whole lot of media manipulations and the impact is what we see now. the moderators or administrators on the royal insight forum should do something about this, it makes this forum very unprofessional, other forums are very strict on this. 

cate1949

I think Charles started out with a bang in the 60's - he seemed hopeful he could make an impact - but then he drifted  and we got the angst filled doubtful Charles.  Now he seems content with his status in life and the work he does - as if he surely derives great satisfaction from the Prince's Trust and know that whatever happens re: the Kingship he has left a legacy.

Charles surely - if just for a moment - faced the possibility he would never be King when all the marriage disaster stuff came out and they divorced and of course then when Diana died.  I would venture to guess he also has had to consider that his mother could conceivably outlast him.  He may have his pity party moments but he overall appears to be someone who is happy in his life.


Sheridan - re: the sexual attraction - the excerpt from Arbiter's book printed today claims Charles could not keep his hands off of Diana in the early times of their marriage.

Sheridan

QuoteSheridan - re: the sexual attraction - the excerpt from Arbiter's book printed today claims Charles could not keep his hands off of Diana in the early times of their marriage.

@ Cate1949, Early years I know...which implies to me it was nothing but infatuation, and that's not love.

amabel

#105
Quote from: cate1949 on September 20, 2014, 06:09:33 PM
I think Charles started out with a bang in the 60's - he seemed hopeful he could make an impact - but then he drifted  and we got the angst filled doubtful Charles.  Now he
Charles surely - if just for a moment - faced the possibility he would never be King when all the marriage disaster stuff came out and they divorced and of course then when Diana died.  I

Sheridan - re: the sexual attraction - the excerpt from Arbiter's book printed today claims Charles could not keep his hands off of Diana in the early times of their marriage.
I don't think he "drifted" I think he is a man who is very unsure of himself, and found it hard to accept that it would be a Long wait till he was doing the job he was born for, and sometimes he's felt depressed that his efforts to make something of his "waiting" role haven't gone well, and were overshadowed by his wife's looks and dresses and so on.   but I think he's grown more settled as he got older made the best of his waiting time and is now settled in a marriage with a woman he is happy with. Of course he's older now, probably More willing to wait and do the best he can with what he has been given to do. it probably helps that he is now in a happier marriage.  As for the sexual attraction to Diana, I think there was some, and that gradually faded because his marriage was so unhappy.  Sex wont compensate for a lack of common interests and purpose and loneliness and I imagine they were both lonely in an incompatible union.   they were probably both better out of it, if Diana did not want to make the best of things...

Double post auto-merged: September 20, 2014, 07:07:16 PM


Quote from: lilibet80 on September 20, 2014, 02:10:38 PM
.  Yet just about every one of them becomes another boring rundown of a marriage that ended in the 1990s.  I really wish those arguments and debates by those obsessed with the subject of proving Diana right or proving Charles wrong and consigning Camilla Parker Bowles to hell as a streetwalker could be kept in threads that concern them.  Charles' long wait to be King of England has absolutely nothing to do with Diana, Camilla or his first marriage.  It is a legitimate question and a good prospect for a discussion. 
I think that it is a topic that really doesn't have THAT much legs, since the Queen will rule till she dies.  Even if she gets ill, Charles will be regent, not King.  I think he accepts that.  Maybe he didn't so much years ago, but he does now. I think that he knows his mother and never believed that she'd abdicate.
I think his frustration was perhaps worse when he had a difficult marriage as well, and now it is better.  But to me I don't mind discussions of his marriage, but I would like it if people did not immediately rush into condemnation of one side or the other and tried to see it as a marriage that sadly was a mistake and wet wrong and wasn't' handled in the best way by the people involved.  Other Royal couples have had difficult  marriages, Charles and Di, were the ones who in spite of knowing they weren't supposed to divorce ended up in a messy and acrimonious divorce. There's no point in rushing to blame.  these things happen and people screw up. And I agree that it does not seem helpful  that the same points tend to be made over nad again forcing people inot repeating their points, and never really having a free and interesting discussion....

sandy

#106
Quote from: Sheridan on September 20, 2014, 06:17:55 PM
QuoteSheridan - re: the sexual attraction - the excerpt from Arbiter's book printed today claims Charles could not keep his hands off of Diana in the early times of their marriage.

@ Cate1949, Early years I know...which implies to me it was nothing but infatuation, and that's not love.

Basically Charles wanted the heir and spare. So he'd have to be "hands on" with the young wife. After that he could not be bothered.

Double post auto-merged: September 20, 2014, 09:47:04 PM


Quote from: lilibet80 on September 20, 2014, 02:10:38 PM
I started reading this thread because it dealt with Charles' feelings about waiting so long to succeed.  After page 2 it once again degenerated into another argument concerning his first marriage.  As far as Charles having to wait is concerned, nobody really knows how he feels unless he speaks about it, which I doubt he does.  He may be relieved not to have the burden of kingship as he has less rules and protocols to follow.  He may be mad as hell that he has had to wait so long.  He may not care one way or the other.  The Queen, in my opinion, will never abdicate.  She took a vow for life.  She  may or not enjoy her life as Queen, but unless she becomes too ill to reign Charles will have to wait his turn.

I find this topic interesting.  I read these threads for information and an exchange of ideas.  Yet just about every one of them becomes another boring rundown of a marriage that ended in the 1990s.  I really wish those arguments and debates by those obsessed with the subject of proving Diana right or proving Charles wrong and consigning Camilla Parker Bowles to hell as a streetwalker could be kept in threads that concern them.  Charles' long wait to be King of England has absolutely nothing to do with Diana, Camilla or his first marriage.  It is a legitimate question and a good prospect for a discussion. 

Well there is the other side of the coin like Penny Junor in her recent book consigning Diana to hell and placing halos on Charles and Camilla (no doubt Penny expects honours for this down the road.

Double post auto-merged: September 20, 2014, 09:50:58 PM


Quote from: Sheridan on September 20, 2014, 03:10:02 PM
Hey Sandy, let me ask you?
How can Charles love a woman he only met 12 or 13 times?
How can Charles love a woman he had nothing in common with?
How can Charles love a woman who possible was not well in the head?
How can Charles love a woman and yet keep pictures of  his ex in his notebook?
How can Charles love a woman, yet he wasn't sexually attracted to her? (we all know the story)
How can Charles love a woman and tell another woman, "whatever happens he'll always love her.

I get shocked when you say they loved each other and Camilla ruined it...noo..he was probably pretending, men do it. As you always say, he needed heirs only. Going by his biography by dimbleby is ridiculous, do you seriously think he will tell everything in just that book? did you seriously think Diana told everything in hers? i mean she refuse to mention, regardless of the situation she had affairs of her own...which no matter what made her an adulteress?

You say he had no choice to marry Camilla, he did, by the way in the dimbleby interview, he said Camilla was a great friend and will continue so and also said many friends were also there for him. When did he say in that interview straightly that he was with Camilla romantically? He didn't do any outing in that interview. it was outed when Diana did her so called true story and those tapes were recorded.

To say they were just friends with benefits is really insulting to the pair but then again you despise them with passion (its not normal) they were friends before they dated (believe it or not people get to know each other like that before dating), you should do more reading about them, nothing wrong with being friends with exes, it happens all the time.

In conclusion....

Im sorry your idol Diana died but life goes on, i assume you are American, Americans are those ones who get angry about this, i know a lot of Europeans who tell me the marriage shouldn't have happened. I agreed and still do (I mean look at who their first son married...a totally unsuitable woman) Very sad.

And lilibet i agree with you...its sad when some people always want to turn every conversation to be about Diana, like she was a helpless woman when she was alive, she did a whole lot of media manipulations and the impact is what we see now. the moderators or administrators on the royal insight forum should do something about this, it makes this forum very unprofessional, other forums are very strict on this. 


I can ask you:

How come Charles who later admitted to his authorized biographer that he felt "forced" to marry Diana proposed to Diana and married her?

How come Charles had the "civilized" arrangements with the Parker Bowlese and the Tryons?

How come Charles could not have done the right thing and stopped seeing or contacting Camilla once he married Diana?
Your questions make me feel more that Charles was a cad towards Diana. He wanted the heir and spare and married her for expediency's sake.

Charles said in the interview that he cheated on his wife. The next day his secretary confirmed publicly it was Camilla. Why would APB divorce her if Charles considered her "just a friend.?

Sheridan can you possibly post something without getting personal? Seems you can't.

lilibet80

#107
It has started again.  Why is the Dimbleby book being brought into a discussion we are having?  What does it have to do with Charles waiting to succeed?  I am not clear if the above was written by Sandy or by Sheridan or both, but if it was I ask why? Why is this happening and being allowed to happen in almost every discussion we have.  The world of royalty does not revolve around what happened to Charles and Diana 20 years ago.  If it is such an ongoing obsession that certain people cannot disconnect it from their thinking at least keep it within specified threads having to deal with the subject. 

sandy

The Dimbleby book is Charles authorized biography. Since the thread is about Charles why is it irrelevant? It gives a background of Charles and his work as POW in addition to his personal life.

I must pose the question if it is not "relevant" how come two authors who have just had books released (Arbiter and Junor) are dredging up the past and going back more than 20 years.

lilibet80

Because they have written biographies.  This is not a book.  It is a thread with a subject.  The subject is Charles having to wait to be king.  It does not involve a biography written about him, his marriage to Diana or anything else except his possible reactions to waiting so long to be king.

sandy

So it can only be talked about when someone writes a book?  There are other venues besides books and there are journal articles.

I brought it up that it refutes the premise that events of 20 years ago are not "relevant." The fact that there is attention paid to this shows there is still interest in the topic.

Charles authorized biography is very relevant since it talks of the work he did and his first efforts to carve a role for himself. It is very relevant and yes has an impact on his possible reactions. To me it shows that Charles did not sit and wait, and was quite productive. I found his biography informative and very relevant to bring into the discussion. His personal life also had an impact. His sons for instance were born 32 and 30 years ago and the two are not ancient history.

lilibet80

This thread is to do with a specific subject.  It is not a general discussion about Charles and his life. If the thread has run out of steam, it is not necessary to once again start an argument about his marriage.  It is not relevant to the subject of the thread. An authorized biography of Prince Charles belongs in a thread concerning said authorized biography, not in a different specific subject. I am sorry if you cannot accept that the subject of Diana and Charles' marriage is inappropriate and irrelevant in certain threads, but that is my take on it.  No doubt you will argue the point until everyone gets bored, the thread is abandoned, and you have had the last word (probably about Camilla).

sandy

It is about CHarles and his wait. The biography tells us some part of his "wait" and how he is dealing with it.

Charles personal life did impact how he is viewed by the public.  He is not in some vacuum.

lilibet80

Of course his biography covers this subject and he of course is not in a vacuum.  However, this thread is about one subject, his waiting to be king.  Since the biography covers some part of his wait, start a thread discussing the biography.  Just because Charles has something to do with a thread gives you no call to introduce Diana, Camilla and his first marriage into it. 

SophieChloe

[mod]Title of this thead is "Nightmare for Charles Succession Wait!" Please get back to the topic![/mod]

[mod]Please use these threads for continued discussions on : Charles' latest biography : Prince Charles' 'anger' as former press secretary to the Queen releases book The Charles, Diana, & Camilla triangle : Charles, Diana and Camilla: General Chat / The History Thanks... :flower:[/mod]
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me