Camilla's 1997 car accident?

Mike · August 09, 2009, 04:04:13 AM

Are there other sources who say this incident happened?

Christopher Wilson, "The Windsor Knot," p.254

Camilla was keeping a low profile. That is, until one evening in the spring of 1997 when she was driving from her Wiltshire home to Highgrove for dinner. Rounding a corner on a narrow country road, her car suddenly collided with another coming in the opposite direction. Though the driver of the other car, a woman, was trapped following the collision, Camilla walked away from the scene, calling on her mobile telephone for security officers to come and pick her up. She was whisked away to Highgrove where, much later that night, she was interviewed by police and Breathalyzed. The occupant of the other car, Carolyn Melville-Smith, pointed out when asked that Mrs. Parker Bowles had walked away from the scene of the accident without bothering to discover whether she was injured. "I was trapped in my car, yelling for help, and she did not come. I could have been badly hurt and she just left me there."

All members of the British public involved in a road accident are required to stay at the scene until police have arrived, unless they are injured. That Camilla was whisked away by the royal protection squad leaving Miss Melville-Smith trapped and helpless said two things-she was now officially under Charles's protection and, to an extent, above the law: Any police officer will say it is pointless Breathalyzing a driver three hours after the incident. The whole thing was quickly brushed under the carpet and forgotten by all except, one suspects, Miss Melville-Smith, whose injuries, though minor, caused her to be taken to a hospital.

This is the first I heard of it.

drezzle · August 09, 2009, 04:48:07 AM

This info has been out there for awhile. There's some that say Camilla ran away since she was paranoid someone wanted to off her. Shortly after this Charles came out with the statement that Camilla was non-negotiable. I've often suspected if was more like a red herring for Camilla. :shifty: At any rate she is conveniently above the law. :cry:

Mike · August 09, 2009, 08:17:46 PM

Quote from: drezzle on August 09, 2009, 04:48:07 AM
This info has been out there for awhile. There's some that say Camilla ran away since she was paranoid someone wanted to off her. Shortly after this Charles came out with the statement that Camilla was non-negotiable. I've often suspected if was more like a red herring for Camilla. :shifty: At any rate she is conveniently above the law. :cry:

Thanks drezzle. "Rank has its privileges." It reminded me of Senator Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick, but without the loss of life.

scooter · September 29, 2009, 02:03:44 AM

Here it is from the New York Times, dated July 15, 1997 (6 weeks before Diana's death): 'Will Charles Pop the Question: All Britain Waits' by Sarah Lyall

Quote'If Diana was the beautiful, misunderstood Princess and Charles the frog-like Prince in the world's most dysfunctional royal fairy tale, then Camilla Parker-Bowles ---identified as the home-wrecking "third party" in the marriage by the Princess of Wales herself---was always cast as the evil crone.

Diana once called her a "Rottweiler" and tabloid photographs have usually shown Mrs Parker-Bowles, who is now 49, at her worst, her hair wildly askew, her face contorted in demonic expressions and her clothes draped at strange and unflattering angles. The British public appeasrs to genuinely loathe her, so much so that irate fellow shoppers once reportedly pelted Mrs Parker-Bowles with bread roles in the supermarket.

That article is breathtaking in so many was!

www.nytimes.com/1997/07/15/world/will-charles-pop-the-question-all-britain-waits

Edited. Please don't post entire articles as it violates copyright laws.

Mike · September 29, 2009, 03:45:01 AM

Thanks scooter for the article. The link didn't work, but thanks for copying the text.

Quote from: scooter on September 29, 2009, 02:03:44 AM
The British public appears to genuinely loathe her, so much so that irate fellow shoppers once reportedly pelted Mrs Parker-Bowles with bread roles in the supermarket.

I had read this alleged incident happened days after Diana was killed. It shows the different versions of an event that are published. "Reader beware!"

Jonquil · September 29, 2009, 01:33:35 PM

Quote from: Mike on September 29, 2009, 03:45:01 AM
Thanks scooter for the article. The link didn't work, but thanks for copying the text.

Quote from: scooter on September 29, 2009, 02:03:44 AM
The British public appears to genuinely loathe her, so much so that irate fellow shoppers once reportedly pelted Mrs Parker-Bowles with bread roles in the supermarket.

I had read this alleged incident happened days after Diana was killed. It shows the different versions of an event that are published. "Reader beware!"

The pelting of bread rolls is an urban myth, it never happened. No supermarket was ever identified, no-one ever said they actually saw it and Camilla herself said it never happened.

To add to its uban myth status, it seems that the timing of the event changes to whomever is telling the story, here it's after Diana's death, there are also versions of it happening when Charles's affair with Camilla was made public.

sandy · September 29, 2009, 01:41:30 PM

Whether or not the bread roll story is true, Camilla did have to retreat from the Operation Camilla that Charles launched in the Summer of 1997 (a documentary about her, a high profile birthday party, and a planned charity appearance in the Fall) after Diana died. And Camila went into hiding. Operation Camilla was resumed in 1998 with the story about William meeting Camilla over tea.

Trudie · September 29, 2009, 02:40:18 PM

The pelting of breadrolls may be a myth but this accident was no myth and someone was injured and Cammy just walked away not bothering to see how badly that person was hurt. This is a perfect example of the character described as a rottweiler. Cammy cares about nothing not even the law or another human being it is all about her and her survival.

scooter · September 29, 2009, 09:49:43 PM

Well Jonquil, the New York Times is not exactly the National Enquirer. If 'the grey lady' as NY Times is known here, says it happened, it's not an urban legend. They are scrupulous about fact checking, and one of the most repected newspapers in the USA. I was having trouble with the link, so I posted the whole article...sorry SillyJoBug!

daibando · September 30, 2009, 11:38:05 AM

I doubt if the New York Times is as exemplary as that. It is more likely that they will write anything that will delay their inevitable demise; would you believe, just like all the newspapers in the world, they are seriously threatened by other and more modern sources of information.

Fabulous Fake · September 30, 2009, 12:33:14 PM

Quote from: scooter on September 29, 2009, 09:49:43 PM
Well Jonquil, the New York Times is not exactly the National Enquirer. If 'the grey lady' as NY Times is known here, says it happened, it's not an urban legend. They are scrupulous about fact checking, and one of the most repected newspapers in the USA. I was having trouble with the link, so I posted the whole article...sorry SillyJoBug!

There isn't any newspaper in the whole wide world which constantly reports accurately scooter......not even the NYT. :)

Quote from: Trudie on September 29, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
The pelting of breadrolls may be a myth but this accident was no myth and someone was injured and Cammy just walked away not bothering to see how badly that person was hurt. This is a perfect example of the character described as a rottweiler. Cammy cares about nothing not even the law or another human being it is all about her and her survival.

Unfortunely it is almost unknown for a member of The Royal Family to proceed with legal action.
Are the site owners fully aware that they (not the individual posters) are totally accountable for all that is permitted to appear on their site?

drezzle · September 30, 2009, 12:50:47 PM

Quote from: Fabulous Fake on September 30, 2009, 12:33:14 PM

Unfortunately it is almost unknown for a member of The Royal Family to proceed with legal action.
Are the site owners fully aware that they (not the individual posters) are totally accountable for all that is permitted to appear on their site?

Since it would be unheard of for the royals to take the time to sue some message board, the site owners have nothing to worry about ;) Their greatest worry is subversive tactics by some to get threads closed.

fawbert · September 30, 2009, 02:43:31 PM

Quote from: Trudie on September 29, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
The pelting of breadrolls may be a myth

Indeed it is a myth.

daibando · September 30, 2009, 03:08:35 PM

Quote from: drezzle on September 30, 2009, 12:50:47 PM
Since it would be unheard of for the royals to take the time to sue some message board, the site owners have nothing to worry about ;) Their greatest worry is subversive tactics by some to get threads closed.

Tommyrot, if anyone is resorting to subversive tactics, it's you and your cohorts. Also, you still haven't apologised for your diabolical personal attack on FF.

Mike · September 30, 2009, 04:14:27 PM

Getting back to the traffic accident: What is the legal penality in Britain for being convicted of leaving the scene of such an accident?

Thanks

Trudie · September 30, 2009, 10:21:54 PM

Quote from: Fabulous Fake on September 30, 2009, 12:33:14 PM
Quote from: scooter on September 29, 2009, 09:49:43 PM
Well Jonquil, the New York Times is not exactly the National Enquirer. If 'the grey lady' as NY Times is known here, says it happened, it's not an urban legend. They are scrupulous about fact checking, and one of the most repected newspapers in the USA. I was having trouble with the link, so I posted the whole article...sorry SillyJoBug!

There isn't any newspaper in the whole wide world which constantly reports accurately scooter......not even the NYT. :)

Quote from: Trudie on September 29, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
The pelting of breadrolls may be a myth but this accident was no myth and someone was injured and Cammy just walked away not bothering to see how badly that person was hurt. This is a perfect example of the character described as a rottweiler. Cammy cares about nothing not even the law or another human being it is all about her and her survival.

Unfortunely it is almost unknown for a member of The Royal Family to proceed with legal action.
Are the site owners fully aware that they (not the individual posters) are totally accountable for all that is permitted to appear on their site?

And just why should the site owners be worried and accountable for my post it is most certainly true. Cammy did leave the scene, did not bother to see if the other driver was allright and then told police she was afraid someone might kill her. It was in all the papers at the time and they weren't sued and she wasn't a member of the RF yet so therefore it is true. Cammy was a private citizen at the time and could have sued.

scooter · October 01, 2009, 01:39:43 AM

Guys, if it was some questionable source maybe...but are you really saying you think the New York Times does not check it's facts and that the the article is incorrect? They have whole floors of attorneys vetting for libel. You know I live in New York and I cant remember a single instance in 45 years that the Times was sued and lost a case.

Fabulous Fake · October 01, 2009, 02:02:06 AM

Quote from: Mike on September 30, 2009, 04:14:27 PM
Getting back to the traffic accident: What is the legal penality in Britain for being convicted of leaving the scene of such an accident?

Thanks

Here's your answer Mike. :)

''Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is illegal to fail to report an accident or leave the scene without swapping addresses with anyone else involved. The maximum penalty is six months in prison and/or a fine and between five and 10 penalty points.''

from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/police-launch-investigation-into-parker-bowles-crash-1255723.html

''Failure to stop after an accident, failure to give particulars as required, or to report an accident to the police are serious offences. They can result in licence penalty points and potential fines of up to £5000 on conviction.''

from http://www.motorhoming.com/need_jan_2003.htm

Mike · October 01, 2009, 03:09:56 AM

Quote from: Fabulous Fake on October 01, 2009, 02:02:06 AM
''Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is illegal to fail to report an accident or leave the scene without swapping addresses with anyone else involved. The maximum penalty is six months in prison and/or a fine and between five and 10 penalty points.''

Thanks FF for the info and especially the links. That's what I was looking for. :thumbsup:

Take care,

Mike

Fabulous Fake · October 01, 2009, 09:03:46 AM

No probs Mike.Anytime. :thumbsup:

When you ask for information it is annoying to get a lecture instead, isn't it? :laugh:

daibando · October 01, 2009, 11:34:30 AM

Quote from: scooter on October 01, 2009, 01:39:43 AM
Guys, if it was some questionable source maybe...but are you really saying you think the New York Times does not check it's facts and that the the article is incorrect? They have whole floors of attorneys vetting for libel. You know I live in New York and I cant remember a single instance in 45 years that the Times was sued and lost a case.

But British law is different, much less inclined to accept defamation. Your newspaper would most probably have lost multiple cases in London.

Trudie · October 01, 2009, 02:27:03 PM

^ And just where do you think the NYT got their information? It was also in all the british news at the time. But the NYT covers all over not just NY so yes they do have attorneys that are well versed in libel law all over the globe.

daibando · October 01, 2009, 03:07:44 PM

Name the newspapers, please. Give us your evidence. There are many lawyers in Britain, whose knowledge of British law is superior to that of American lawyers.

How often have we seen British newspapers successfully sued for defamation? They also have plenty of lawyers at the disposal. The New York Times is no better than any other newspaper; they're all fighting for survival.

sandy · October 01, 2009, 04:18:46 PM

I don't think there can be a sweeping statement about American lawyers. What about a lawyer who moved to America from the UK and is an expert on British law? Or an American who is an expert on British Law. This is possible.

Trudie · October 01, 2009, 04:22:48 PM

daibando I guess I will do your homework for you.

Saturday July 12, 1997 The independent.uk: Camilla Escapes Prosecution in the article her reason to police she was concerned about a security risk.

Associated Press article in the Indian Express these are just two why not research more for your self you may become enlightened.