Charles’ plan to get Camilla accepted as Queen FOILED after Diana doc

Started by Duch_Luver_4ever, August 10, 2017, 11:07:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

royalanthropologist

Charles is focusing on the road driving and she smiles at someone. It is wrong to say that Camilla looks for and hogs the camera. That is just not her personality.

In any case, the point is that they are not looking that they are much bothered by the present hullabaloo. If anything, rumors are that the queen intends to create a regency when she is 95.  The skipping over remains nothing but a pipe dream.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

She smiles for the cameras. But he does look sick or worried or maybe both.  I never saw him looking like that before.

I doubt the Queen would create a Regency. She would distribute her work but I doubt she'd want to have  a Regency. Charles may not want it either because then when he becomes King then there would be pressure for  him to have  a Regency.

TLLK

QuoteIt is wrong to say that Camilla looks for and hogs the camera.
Good point @royalanthropologist  and IMO this is true for many royal ladies who are often accused of doing the same. The expectation is that when the various royals are out and about on their public duties (funerals and memorial services being the exception) is that they will be courteous, dignified and friendly and for most of them (mostly the ladies) that includes smiling for the cameras. Even the older generation of royals including:QEII, Princess Beatrix (former queen), Queen Margrethe, and the consorts Silvia, Sonja, Sofia, and Maria Teresa have been doing the same for decades. However they're never accused of "hogging the cameras."

sandy

I don't know where the "hogging the cameras" came from. I never said it I just said Camilla notices the cameras and smiles at them (sometimes while the others were busy talking or attending to duties).  I don't think one single royal in a group can 'hog the cameras." I notice though that Charles and Camilla and other royals do mug for the cameras, including, Kate, WIlliam and Harry. The Queen and the previous generation never went in for that. Maybe the newer generations were advised to do so to look "human" by mugging.

Duch_Luver_4ever

Im sure if they were bothered, theyd not show it in public, as much as id love to see charles throw things at the tv watching them, or W&H saying "dad, you got some s'plainin to do!" i doubt that happened.

They probably watched some of them or had staffers watch for anything that would be a concern for future outings and such in case the press asked a question,etc. but unlike the british public, this is all info mostly we saw from 2003/4. Maybe things like Jephsons comments are new, although im sure they probably knew that from previous interactions with him over the years.

As much as Diana fans would love to see it cause a reality show ruckus among them, thats not going to happen. They are though, valuable for moving public opinion, which as much as some claim carries no weight, it does, otherwise so much money wouldnt have been spent on the "Mrs PB" project. Monarchy is in a strange place as its no longer the "off with their heads" stage of absolute rule, and its not a big brother style voting your fav monarch on or off the island/house, etc.

It does however, give me a bit of hope and change of feeling towards the British public that at least prt of their post 97 reaction to the RF was affected by this information being withheld from them for so long.
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

Duch_Luver_4ever

"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

Curryong

Constitutional experts have argued back and forth for at least a decade to my knowledge about the legality of Charles and Camilla's union.

IMO immediately after the Queen's death (or even before if there's a regency) it will come down to this. The grey men at BP will sniff the air of public opinion in Britain at the time. If it is completely negative towards Camilla being crowned queen (that is, hovering below the 30% level,)  they are likely to advise that Camilla be Princess Consort. If under those circumstance Charles (unpopular himself in comparison to others) insists on Camilla being crowned Queen, then they will let him swing in the breeze and pay for it in the court of public opinion.

If, on the other hand Camilla's popularity jumps ahead in the next few years/decade and things look good then all will be set fair for a double crowning.

If Camilla is not crowned because of negative public opinion then the argument put forward will be that she feels that because of her position as a second wife/divorcee she would prefer to take on the title of Princess Consort. (Charles would probably be livid but that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.) I doubt that the arguments about the legality of their civil marriage would be brought up into the light of day as a reason. That would open up yet another old controversy.

As far as I remember there were several rather esoterical arguments brought up at the time against legality as it was not a C of E wedding in church surroundings and Charles was heir to the throne, but many constitutional experts were consulted and felt that a civil union would be quite legal.

Charles was stuck between a rock and a hard place at the time, as the Queen as Supreme Governor of the Church of England took the advice of her Archbishops, which was that they would prefer not to preside over the marriage ceremony of two individuals who had been responsible for the dissolving of each other's marriages. That remains the position of the Cof E today.

(It lets Harry off the hook by the way if he and Meghan marry within the Church as he wasn't responsible at all for Meghan's divorce.)

royalanthropologist

There is a serious danger in these constitutional shenanigans. If a civil marriage is no longer as valid and as equal as a church one then there will be demands for reform. As far as I can tell, the COE establishment has recognized the marriage and Camilla is entitled to all the rights of a wife of the POW. They released a statement to that effect and the attorney general said the same thing. The "constitutional experts" will continue arguing about it, just like they argued about the end of the war of roses but to no effect.

You are right though about consideration of public opinion. However, I somehow doubt any government is going to countenance a queen consort of the United Kingdom being downgraded in any way.  Camilla will have all the rights of a queen. We also know that a coronation is not necessary to become King or Queen in this country. It happens upon the end of the old reign.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Duch_Luver_4ever

"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

Curryong

Some excellent points put by Sky Duch_. Thanks for posting this. And doesn't Diana look absolutely gorgeous in that photo!  :blowkiss: People will say some of the revelations of this summer haven't done Diana's reputation much good. However, it appears that they haven't done Charles any good at all, and CH press office must be perturbed, I should think.

sandy

And it does not help Charles that William publicly empathized with Diana re: the Panorama Interview. Diana's revelations were around for some time now there was really nothing new. The tapes transcripts and youtube videos were readily available.

Trudie

@sandy In most of your posts as always you have been right, as you have said many times over the years it seems there is no real big lovefest between Charles and Camilla and William and Harry. While the boys may love their father, The interviews given by the Princes especially William defending Panorama speaks volumes. The points in the above article demonstrates just how much Diana gave of herself something that will never be seen again from a royal. What a pity Charles could not or would not appreciate just how big an asset Diana was not just to her family but to the whole institution of monarchy.



FanDianaFancy

I am waiting out a hurricane, Haurricane Harvey, so I'll be posting and on line a lot.     :hi:
:Houston , Texas area here.

Some points.... Only QEII and PP do not grin everything they see a camera. Any camera, anytime, etc.  Th rest of them .they all mug for the cameras.  Anytime they see a camera, they will smile, grin. Just riding. Walking ...etc. :D

Camillla will be titled Queen Camilla to King Charles. She will be titled so and received by others of royalty and govt officials . No way no how will be be titled and called Princess Camilla to Queen Letiza, Queen Maxima, etc.

The polls, so what.

W and H love their father, no doubt. No doubt, they are civil, tolerate etc. of Camilla.  It is without , Camieala knows her place and does motherly advise, intrude, be too personal and familiar with them she knows her place. She stays in her place. W , H, K stay in their places. Ex. I am sure Camilla has not had a talk to Harry about his relationship withMM... Do you love her...And she , you....date...proposal... I must meet her,... ummmmm, NOWAY! We know the boys are close. We know W is close to Mom and Dad ,  The Mids.
No, no fans of BRF, PD, want to see reality tv there because it will not happen. Ever!
W and  H  loved their mother. They are not those controlled little boys of 12 and 15. To speak of their mother and all now as they are men and talk ,show pictures of the 20 years  of her passing says enough.

It says volumes.


Curryong

Gosh, FanDianaFancy, stay safe in that awful weather! Texas is doing it tough at the moment.

TLLK

QuoteI am waiting out a hurricane, Haurricane Harvey, so I'll be posting and on line a lot.     :hi:
:Houston , Texas area here.

Be safe @FanDianaFancy! My sister is north in the Dallas area so she's safe, but please be careful in the southern part of the state.

sandy

Quote from: FanDianaFancy on August 26, 2017, 02:17:18 AM
I am waiting out a hurricane, Haurricane Harvey, so I'll be posting and on line a lot.     :hi:
:Houston , Texas area here.

Some points.... Only QEII and PP do not grin everything they see a camera. Any camera, anytime, etc.  Th rest of them .they all mug for the cameras.  Anytime they see a camera, they will smile, grin. Just riding. Walking ...etc. :D

Camillla will be titled Queen Camilla to King Charles. She will be titled so and received by others of royalty and govt officials . No way no how will be be titled and called Princess Camilla to Queen Letiza, Queen Maxima, etc.

The polls, so what.

W and H love their father, no doubt. No doubt, they are civil, tolerate etc. of Camilla.  It is without , Camieala knows her place and does motherly advise, intrude, be too personal and familiar with them she knows her place. She stays in her place. W , H, K stay in their places. Ex. I am sure Camilla has not had a talk to Harry about his relationship withMM... Do you love her...And she , you....date...proposal... I must meet her,... ummmmm, NOWAY! We know the boys are close. We know W is close to Mom and Dad ,  The Mids.
No, no fans of BRF, PD, want to see reality tv there because it will not happen. Ever!
W and  H  loved their mother. They are not those controlled little boys of 12 and 15. To speak of their mother and all now as they are men and talk ,show pictures of the 20 years  of her passing says enough.

It says volumes.



Take care FDF.  Stay safe.

Charles did not hire all those spin doctors and consult with Smith and Junor  just so she would be Princess Consort.  I agree

Curryong


Trudie

Charles is still so out of touch 20 years later. If only he and Camilla didn't have such a ruthless sense of entitlement Diana would have had no need to expose the lies and deceit imposed upon her by these two. They still don't get it that their position is there by the will of the people even 40 years ago The DOE acknowledged that publicly the people loved Diana as she gave back that same love with all her charities I will say it again Charles should have realized he had a true asset in Diana and he failed to appreciate her.



royalanthropologist

Hmmm. I can see the anonymous sources who are close to the family are at it again. Just this very day the DM reports that the Prince is ignoring all the hullabaloo and going on a number of visits. Then the very same sources tell us in the express that he is gloomy about it all. Frankly speaking; it all  seems like a lot of rubbish. Press manufactured crises to keep the fickle  masses occupied and not thinking of really important things like Brexit.

As for Charles appreciating Diana, you can't force someone to love another. He did not love her and that's all there is to it. Even worse, he could no longer live with her. Saying that he ought to have loved her is in the realms of should've, could've etc.  Sometimes you just have to accept that not everybody loves you in the way that you expect or want. That is why we have the option of separation, breaking up and divorce; options that should have always been available to C&D had it not been for the silly palace rules.

In terms of Diana being an asset, it was a mixed picture. Diana did many good things but she also harmed the royal family in many ways. No other royal spouse has damaged the reputation of the institution in quite the same way that Diana did. Even in death, the things she did continue to damage the institution (recordings, interviews, books etc.)  On balance, I do think that apart from the children; they actually regretted Charles marrying her.  It was a disaster. Perhaps they have now learnt a lesson and will never again support an arranged marriage based on shallow criteria of "suitability".
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

TLLK

QuotePress manufactured crises to keep the fickle  masses occupied and not thinking of really important things like Brexit.

Considering that it is August in Europe when so many people including public figures are on vacation, I'm not surprised to see the press doing their best to "sell" something.

The terror attacks in Barcelona, flooding in Houston, anything Trump related, North Korea, and the late Princess of Wales seem to be keeping them afloat until September.

Trudie

Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 27, 2017, 03:41:21 PM
Hmmm. I can see the anonymous sources who are close to the family are at it again. Just this very day the DM reports that the Prince is ignoring all the hullabaloo and going on a number of visits. Then the very same sources tell us in the express that he is gloomy about it all. Frankly speaking; it all  seems like a lot of rubbish. Press manufactured crises to keep the fickle  masses occupied and not thinking of really important things like Brexit.

As for Charles appreciating Diana, you can't force someone to love another. He did not love her and that's all there is to it. Even worse, he could no longer live with her. Saying that he ought to have loved her is in the realms of should've, could've etc.  Sometimes you just have to accept that not everybody loves you in the way that you expect or want. That is why we have the option of separation, breaking up and divorce; options that should have always been available to C&D had it not been for the silly palace rules.

In terms of Diana being an asset, it was a mixed picture. Diana did many good things but she also harmed the royal family in many ways. No other royal spouse has damaged the reputation of the institution in quite the same way that Diana did. Even in death, the things she did continue to damage the institution (recordings, interviews, books etc.)  On balance, I do think that apart from the children; they actually regretted Charles marrying her.  It was a disaster. Perhaps they have now learnt a lesson and will never again support an arranged marriage based on shallow criteria of "suitability".

I never said he had to love her all I said was he never appreciated that she was an asset to him and his work. Instead of making snide remarks and putting her down on occasion that was all Diana really wanted she herself said they made a great team. That said of couse Diana became angry and she exposed the ill treatment she received



royalanthropologist

I would say that appreciation is a two-way street. Right from the moment she set eyes on him, Diana was criticizing everything about Charles, his life, his family, his friends, his work etc (I am not making this up...just referencing her own words). She never liked him very much, let alone love him. If someone is making you unhappy and they insist that they are an asset to you, it can be quite disconcerting. That is what they call cognitive dissonance.

Diana was an asset to the people she interacted with in terms of her charity work and public works. She was not an asset to Charles (with the obvious exception of having children with him): certainly not in an emotional way. Never once have I heard of her giving him any advice or support or defending him. On the contrary, she often consorted with his enemies to share stories that put in him in a bad light. Later on when she became vengeful, she did much to ruin his reputation. If that is what is being an asset, I dread to think what the alternative is.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

she was certainly an asset in the early days.  The RF had gone very dull and didn't attract more than moderate attention.  Diana drew crowds.  She was charming and beautiful nad people loved her.  however she did unfortunately overshadow C and her in laws in the first years but I don't believe that was a conscious thing on her part.  later she did use her power as a media draw to "win battles" against him..

royalanthropologist

I agree entirely that in the early days Diana was really great for the monarchy. She did much to revive their visibility. It is only later that her popularity and media savvy was used to devastating effect. And of course the monarchy was an asset to her. Without the Windsors, Diana would join the list of fairly anonymous aristocrat wives that litter the countryside.

On a personal level, I do not think that relationship was ever really quite right. I was staggered that from the one go there were issues. Both parties did not really know each other or what the other person wanted. You cannot be an asset to someone if you are actually making them miserable; worse still if you are in a marriage. Both parties were destroying one another by the end.  I make the distinction between the monarchy as an institution and Charles the man. With Charles the man, the marriage to Diana was just never right.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

She would most likely have been better off marrying someone who loved her and she loved. But then she would not have had her two beloved sons.

Charles had to do the courting and proposing, he should have stated clearly and thoroughly what his expectations were. Before he even proposed. Diana then could have agreed or disagreed with those expectations.

Charles the man IMO wanted things his way or the highway. He could have been a non-royal and still wanted the marriage on his own terms. The marriage was not right because Charles the man and the royal knew he did not love her. He was unrealistic in thinking he could "learn" to love her. That was very naive and unrealistic on his part.