Camilla opens up on pressure of public life | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4548728/Camilla-opens-pressure-public-life.html)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps she reckons that whatever she ddi wrong, its ot something to be gone on about in public.
^ 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Yes, only a handful of comments were let in with large number of as green as red arrows. Loads of comments arent being allowed
A few negative comments slipped in I guess to try to make things look 'honest'. It is so rigged it is laughable.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
I cannot argue with "alternative facts" so I will just leave it at that.
The echo chamber on the DM may be challenged by alternative views and I make no apologies for that. It is going to be a very long summer if people anticipate only saccharine and complementary articles about Diana. Early indications are that the lines are hardening and the wronged wife narrative is being challenged.
Clearly the DM had enough of the outrageous comments and put a stop to them. I applaud them for that. I found the interview interesting. It brought out different facets about a woman about whom so much is said but very little is known.
One of the reasons I like Camilla is that she has this habit of doing exactly what the "fans" insist she should not do e.g. marrying Charles. This interview is a great riposte to those who seek to slander her but expect no push back. She is her own woman and will not be bulldozed or defined by the keyboard vigilantes on the DM.
Otherwise I wish Camilla a happy 70th birthday. It has been an eventful life but she still retains her sense of humor. Interestingly she says that she had an idyllic childhood with supportive and loyal parents. Perhaps that is why she seems to have good internal resources.
@TLLK is quite right that the vitriol comes from both sides. The CCD saga seems to have brought out very strange behavior in many people. It is one of the most weird phenomenons on the internet. People speak of the principles as if they were intimately known to them. It is perplexing and unnerving.
Charles is challenging it because it suits his and Camilla's purposes to try to airbrush out Diana. Obviously. The saccharine article is this one about Camilla. She wanted this lifestyle and pushed for it for many years. IF she did not want it she had many opportunities to back out. And she unless she is brainless, would understand the criticism instead of acting "surprised."
I see many outrageous comments about Diana too. But she's dead and can't defend herself. Diana gets slandered plenty. Camilla is just making a fool of herself. Better not to comment on her past--people do have memories and remember her role in the breakup of the Wales marriage.
Of course Camilla retains her sense of humor, she got on the gravy train sleeping with Prince Charles and saw off the wife and other ladies in his life.
The interview is no riposte, I find it more pathetic attempt at self justification.
The funny part was where she said her parents taught her "manners." She really did not learn a thing, placing her rear end in a royal wife's place at the table and playing hostess. That was "not done" by mistresses including her great grandmother Alice Keppel.
As I said before, one cannot argue against alternative facts. They are what they are.
The thing is that the none of the principals (CCD) really care about the vitriol on the DM comments section. Diana cannot read it and C&C are not interested in reading it. The DM simply decided to put a stop on it for this particular article and I think it was a wise editorial decision. Some of those commentators clearly need serious counselling and the DM should not be encouraging them.
Nobody is trying to airbrush Diana because she is really not part of C&C's life any more. Her own children remember her well enough and that is how it should be. Charles divorced Diana over 20 years ago. For most normal people, it would be very strange to be complaining about your ex three decades after you separated. I am sure if Diana had been alive, she would have moved on with her life. It would raise eyebrows if in 2017, she was still complaining about how Charles did not love her. She was far too sensible for such nonsense.
It is those who cry more than the bereaved who are making a fuss. I do not know who they are trying to help. Diana no longer needs their help and her children have certainly indicated that they want none of the vitriol in their life. Neither are Camilla's children or ex husband interested in waging an internet campaign against her. It is the "it is all about my anger" mob that is obsessing about Diana's life.
As for manners, I bet Camilla has much better social skills than the trolls that pollute the DM comments section. That much is clear.
Social skills do not mean taking the place of a royal wife as hostess. Nor deriding the royal wife. Or breaking up a dynastic marriage.
Diana not Camilla is the mother of royal children. Unless Charles lost his memory, Diana is still the mother of his only children. Why is she all of a sudden not a part of his life. WIlliam and Harry have half her DNA and Charles the other half. Camilla is trying hard to justify her behavior and playing victim. As a survivor, she has chosen to put her own spin on events.
people who disagree with you are not trolls no matter where they post.
Charles was said to complain about the boys talking about their feelings for their mother. I think this is his way of countering that. Deriding part of his future subjects who liked his first wife. Very stupid of him to do this.
I suspect "good mannered Camilla" who called the wife that ridiculous creature blames Diana "fans" and Diana and not herself for her role in breaking up a marriage.
No DIana fans are not 'mobs'. They are people who have every right to speak out.
I would say those who trash Diana (and there are very crude remarks about her by Camilla fans on the DM so let's be fair here) need help.
Sandy says something that interests me though: "breaking up a dynastic marriage". So Charles was right after all. This was not a middle class romantic marriage but a dynastic marriage. Glad we cleared that one up because it means that not loving Diana was well within the expected behavior of dynastic marriages. These marriages are made for the express purpose of alliances and the couples are expected to find love elsewhere in the form of affairs.
Diana is not part of Charles' life and it is ridiculous to expect so. He divorced her in 1996. They had two children who are now grown men, one with their own family. Charles is remarried and Diana is dead. She is not part of his life and he never mentions her at all apart from when he was expected to attend her memorial at the invitation of his sons.
Once again it is those who cry more than the bereaved who are desperate to link Diana to Charles' life, 32 years after they ceased sharing a house. For what purpose, I do not know. Why is it imperative that Charles remembers or celebrates Diana in any way? Her sons and other members of the public who cared about her are remembering her and that should be quite enough. Do people who are divorced from others celebrate and remember their exes three decades after leaving them? Yet another of the strange phenomenons that surrounds the CCD story???/ :no:
Everybody in that family has moved on with their lives. It is just some people who are not intimately involved in the affair who are still complaining about how bad that marriage was. That is neither normal nor healthy behavior. I can understand people celebrating Diana's life and writing about it. What I cannot understand is the obsessive need to bring Diana into Charles' and Camilla's life? She is simply not part of it and I am sure had she been alive; she would not be concerned with anything to do with their lives.
It was supposedly a love match and a dynastic marriage. Diana did say she was "in love" with Charles. Diana provided heirs for the Windsor dynasty. I did not mean it was an "arranged marriage." IF Camilla had been chosen by Charles she would have provided heirs for the Windsor dynasty. The royals do have a dynasty. Theoretically Diana and/or Charles could have walked since there were no betrothal contracts signed so they were obligated. Charles was not right and you are putting words in my mouth and twisting my words.
A dynastic marriage meant marriage and royal heirs. George and Elizabeth were in love when they married and they had a dynastic marriage since she provided heirs. I don't get why you equate the word "dynastic" with a lack of love by the husband. And even if Charles did have an "arranged" marriage it did not give him carte blanche to cheat. He still swore to be faithful and did not say well gosh this is a dynastic marriage so I can say NO when I am asked if I will be faithful.
Who is everybody? The boys talk about their mother many times much to IMO the consternation of Charles and their stepmother. Charles seems a bit too desperate to counter the 20th anniversary articles. And there were already three specials about Diana and another one coming up with the cooperation of Will and Harry.
It is not "normal" behavior for Camilla to blame others for her own bad choices and acting "surprised" at being criticized. I think CHarles and Camilla have yet to move on. If she had moved on, Camilla would never have agreed to that interview.
You are right Charles should have no business being involved with the 20th anniversary and neither should Camilla.
But her sons have every right to do so no matter how it bothers some people who can't stand Diana.
"It was supposedly a love match and a dynastic marriage"
Surely Diana was not naive and deluded to that extent. You would have to be a true fantasist to imagine that anything that Charles did prior to, during and after that marriage indicated that it was a "love match". Absolutely laughable. :lol: The guy stated in no uncertain terms that he did not love Diana and had never really loved her. He said as much in the engagement interview. He declared his undying to Camilla prior to the wedding when Diana was listening in on the conversation. What more signs does a bride need to know that this is far from being a 'love match"???
"The boys talk about their mother many times much to IMO the consternation of Charles and their stepmother."
I am sorry but that does not make any sense. I have yet to see any evidence that either Charles or Camilla is spending time thinking about or talking about Diana or even worrying about her children remembering her. That falls within the category of irrefutable "alternative facts".
I wonder why Sandy is so determined to rope Charles into Diana's affairs? The guy has not mentioned Diana for years. What has he got to do with her 20th anniversary? The royal family indicated that they would not be doing any official memorials but W&H have some events planned. How does that somehow become "Charles seems a bit too desperate to counter the 20th anniversary articles". Where did you get that one from?
No member of the royal family has indicated that it bothers them that W and H are remembering their mother. It is amazing how people can make facts from thin air
:no:
Well they were living in the late 20th century not the middle ages so it is reasonable to think they were a love match (at the time of the wedding). There were no announcements that Diana was merely a conduit for Charles to have heirs with. He dated her, proposed to her, and she accepted. They had a wedding.
Men have affairs and other girlfriends before they commit. They find the woman they love and settle down presumably without keeping on the old girlfriends part of the deal. so a man who has previous girlfriends can't marry for love?! It's absolutely laughable if that is the premise.
Excuse me royalanthropologist why are you speaking of me in the third person when you answer my post and put up those little faces. That is rude. So should I answer your posts in the third person to, to play your little game. Enough of the personal stuff please.
You are trying to rope Charles in because you keep harping on it incessantly. Camilla referred to her "suffering" so obviously she has not forgotten about Diana. Diana would have had a few choice words over Camilla's "suffering."
There WERE stories that Charles was bothered by the boys talking about their mother. I think he does. It is an opinion board and I can write my opinion.
I wonder why royal anthropologist refers to me in the third person? Oh that's right.
My posts make sense. Your saying they don't does not make sense.
Charles apparently sweet talked Diana and reassured her before the wedding Unfortunately, Diana put too much trust in the man. You are blaming Diana for not dropping out yet you absolve Charles for proposing to her when he knew he preferred Camilla. IT's always DIana's fault to you.
The funny part of the comments is that it looks like Charles and Camilla's minions were up all nights working those arrows. Some had 5000 "green arrows." What a farce!
Like I said, I cannot dispute what are effectively alternative facts. Charles and Camilla have nothing to do with Diana's anniversaries. This interview is about Camilla's 70th birthday. She also highlighted the press intrusion, a matter of public record. The interview is not about Diana and she was not mentioned. I had foolishly argued earlier that she might have expressed regret but now I can see that it would just have been an invitation to the crazies on the DM to start their repetitive whines. Perhaps the royal family is wise to simply behave as if Diana never existed at all. Maybe, just maybe that will keep the obsessives away.
Since you want me to address you directly
@sandy, let me say this: Neither Charles nor Camilla have ever cheated on or hurt you in any way. They are a couple of royals doing their duty. They do not know you and I am sure have no intention of hurting you in any way. They never made a single promise to you and they really owe you nothing. If you find them offensive, it might do you a lot of good to just ignore them. Of course this being advice, you are quite entitled to dismiss and ignore it.
What are alternative facts? Camilla wanted to attend the 10th anniversary so she did have "something to do" with it. Camilla also refers to the "suffering" which was from her unpopularity due to her affair with you know who's husband. Camilla's life did touch upon Diana's.
Diana was indeed mentioned in the article. Camilla was savvy enough not to mention her directly. But the article refers to her unpopularity having to do with people liking Diana.
Excuse me? I could ask you the same question. Did Diana hurt you in any way? You are always blaming her and giving Charles a free pass. But to get back on topic, this is not about personal feelings about other posters so projecting my feelings about the topic is not the purpose of this discussion site. Your lecturing me about royals not "hurting me" is really out of line. Can you please get over the personal stuff and say on topic. Why don't you ignore Diana and any mention of her.
Please do not patronize or lecture me. I am asking you politely. Enough already. Your giving analysis of me is really ridiculous and rude.
Ok then
@sandy. I will just ignore your posts.
So you can't answer my posts without making it personal? I will continue to answer your posts. If you avoid the lecturing and patronizing I think it entirely possible to stay on topic.
Jumping into the fray...royal, you are a ver the palce? Huh?
I cannot post all of your many post with alternative facts.
LOL!!!
This article is pr pr pr spin spin spin. It is better that PC and his handlers and their journalist fans , the Junors, NOT NOT keep doig stories like this on Little Camilla. It reeks of spin pr spin pr spin and takes away from what they really want to do which is to put her in a favorable light and of being a former long lost gf of PC who reconnected when both marriages were over an how this is a fairytale , coughcough, romance!!!
HOW IS THAT FOR YOUR ALTERANTIVE FACT KELLYANNE!!!!!!
It is best BEST for PC and his PTB to just have articles out of she is working, loves her children and grandchildren ... with no mention of PW and his family and PH.
Diana worshippers. People can or don't , or do for Camilla, or don't. It does not matter. CAMILLA WILL BE QUEEN CAMILLA and there is nothing no one can do abut that.
It is not open for an election. PD s dead and is not coming back.
I am trying to answer and correct so many of your alternative facts and negatives and just silliness, really.Untruths.
Camilla is ot and never was a victim. PD was and licked her wounds , got over that part of her life and was moving on, really moving on before she died.
Diana is part of PC and C life and always will be . The royal heirs, and the next royal heir, PG of PW all lead back to LDFS/PD. PW and PH did not fall out the sky from the stork.
The media brings up PD now, then, always for as long as PC and C are alive. That is the way it is.
Every move in life of PW and PH will always have a reference by the media of their mother MOTHER M-O-T-H-E-R!!!!
YES, I was a fan of PD. I know she is dead. She, PC, C, none of these people have no bearing n my life , esp since I am a US citizen and these people's lies have no bearings on any British citizens either. King Charles and Queen Camilla are not open for vote.
I can appreciate the FACTS , not alternative facts, of the history of BRF.
@FanDianaFancy. Although I disagree with you on many, many things; I think that you are open to reason. So I think it only fair to respond to your queries.
Just like you are entitled to your opinion, Camilla is entitled to her opinion as well as expressing them (barring any constitutional issues of course). Having read a lot of commentary from some Diana fans, I have come to the conclusion that it is better for the royal family to take a hard line. Do what is right and ignore the noisiest detractors. There is no reasoning with some sections of the public and it is better to ignore them.
Now about spin. The queen of spin and press manipulations in the royal family is none other than the former Princess of Wales (Diana Spencer). She was exceptionally good at it and even seasoned spin doctors marveled at her unique ability to upstage the royal family. Of course it all ended in tragedy for her when the press that she tried to use, ended up using her. Lie with the dogs and you catch fleas. Those who detach from the gutter press do not seem to suffer the media craze. They just go about their duties quietly and for the most part are none too bothered by the swings in public opinion.
Camilla's interview is quite mild, unless you are determined to dislike her and looking for faults in her at every turn. Nothing in her interview can be compared to the bombshell that was Panorama and Morton. If it is a mistake for Charles and Camilla to do interviews, then it was an even bigger mistake for Diana to do hers. Camilla has not attacked a single person in that interview. She has talked about her life and experiences to mark her 70th birthday. You really have to have an ax to grind in order to see anything particularly offensive about that interview
Charles did complain about his parents in his interview; but Diana went the full distance with an all out nuclear war against everybody who did not show her unwavering loyalty. She caused damage to the reputation of the monarchy in ways that would be inconceivable to virtually any other royal. No other member of the royal family has been so indiscreet, so reckless and so damaging in their press forays. Camilla's interview is Sunday School stuff by comparison.
As for talking about Charles and his sons, they are actually her family. Camilla is the wife of the Prince of Wales and the step mother of William and Harry. There is nothing strange at all about her talking of them, unless of course you have an ax to grind and are looking for faults regardless of what she does.
Ultimately Camilla has her fans and detractors. Some of the detractors are open to reason while others are not. If I was her adviser, I would encourage her to simply do her job and do what suits her best rather than trying to please those who will never be pleased. Thankfully she is in a position where she does not ever have to ever meet, rely on or even interact with her most avid detractors. That to me seems like a safe compromise.
The people that want to know about Camilla or see her will continue doing so. Those that do not, are quite welcome to stay at home or even voice their anger on the internet. Frankly speaking; I would advise those who intensely dislike Camilla to keep away from her or anything to do with her. Otherwise it becomes a case of going where one is neither wanted nor needed. Camilla is not a politician. She does not need a single vote to get her position. Her position is sealed by her marriage to Prince Charles, so I am afraid the complaints about popularity are moot point.
Camilla is lucky to have gotten admitted to the royal family. I don't think the Queen is thrilled with her. Camilla spoke for herself not for the Queen or the "royal family." Her playing the victim is downright pathetic.
Charles did an interview ONE year before the Panorama interview and it caused much damage. I don't know why this is ignored. Well Camilla blamed the "Diana fans" for her plight instead of her own behavior. Charles admitted in his interview he was involved with his friend's wife. Plus in his book he said he never loved his first wife.
Camilla's interview was damaging because he never took responsibility for her own actions. Maybe her being a "prisoner" was the consequence of her own behavior.
The Middletons are William's family. Harry has his own life. This is the woman who married their father when the two were grown up. And she had no hand in raising them.
I don't think you have anything to worry about Camilla meeting her critics. They would not walk a block to see her. And would not want to see her.
It is not a moot point because she will always realize that she is not going to be a popular royal with everyone to put it mildly