A Candid Look At Camilla at almost 70

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

"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:

[sandy]

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!

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

Ok then @sandy. I will just ignore your posts.

[sandy]

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.

[FanDianaFancy]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

@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.

[sandy]

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