Nick Clegg sparks Royal row after saying it was must be a 'nightmare' for Charles that he's had to wait so long to be King | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2707052/Nick-Clegg-sparks-Royal-row-saying-nightmare-Charles-s-wait-long-King.html)
He was probably speaking privately, but, in all conscience, what business is it of Nick Clegg's? It must be quite upsetting for the Queen when she reads/hears ongoing speculation and remarks like this.
Poor Chuck ... but she was so young when she had him he was destined for a looooooooooong wait it's just that no one thought it would be so long ...
Charles is still a huge self pitier probably. Clegg is bucking for a Knighthood.
Curryong and Eri-I have to agree with both of you. AFAIK the only other monarchy in a similar situation is Thailand. King Bhumindol and QEII are similar in age though he ascended to the throne before she did. His heir is younger than Charles and is apparently not held in very high esteem AFAIK.
I fail to see how it is a nightmare for Charles. As POW Charles has truly given a role to the title with his causes and the fact is as Monarch he will not have the freedom to speak freely on issues. Nick Clegg is a sycophant to the core in a misguided attempt to stroke the royal ego probably hoping for a knighthood and a plum position at court when Charles finally does ascend the throne.
What is bizarre about the premise of the article is the refrain about "poor Charles" waiting 62 years which happens to be close to his age. Actually when he was born Charles was destined to be King someday being directly in line. So would it have been "better" if his mother died when Charles was young so he would not have to wait so long. It is rather a ghoulish statement to talk about Charles waiting his whole life for his mother to die or abdicate.
^ Well it's weird being Chuck ... I am sure he doesn't want his Mother to die but ...
^^I'm sure it's been the same over the centuries with most heirs in the BRF. The future Edward VII was in a similar position and didn't reach the throne until he was elderly by the standards of the day. Though there was some tension in the relationship between himself and Victoria I'm sure he didn't want his mother to die.
Charles has really worked hard in his position as Prince of Wales. I think its obvious that he does have his moments of frustration when he sees younger men in other dynasties becoming monarchs and perhaps he might secretly wish at times that his mother would abdicate. However, he knows she won't so he can do nothing but wait.
Not so sure Edward was so upset when his momma died - LOL
I think PC has had a very purposeful life doing things that he is very interested in - and he has done a great deal of good which he may not have been able to do if he had already made the throne
so not so sure it has been such a "nightmare"
Quote from: Curryong on July 27, 2014, 10:00:48 PM
^^I'm sure it's been the same over the centuries with most heirs in the BRF. The future Edward VII was in a similar position and didn't reach the throne until he was elderly by the standards of the day. Though there was some tension in the relationship between himself and Victoria I'm sure he didn't want his mother to die.
Charles has really worked hard in his position as Prince of Wales. I think its obvious that he does have his moments of frustration when he sees younger men in other dynasties becoming monarchs and perhaps he might secretly wish at times that his mother would abdicate. However, he knows she won't so he can do nothing but wait.
And I'd extend it to the other heirs around the globe who do not have an established tradition of abdication.
If the Queen abdicates there would be much pressure on Charles to do the same down the road. What goes around comes around.
^ And that is why I doubt he wants or thinks she will Abdicate ...
Charles at this point is already taking on more of HM's duties and as I said previously unlike previous POW's Charles has created a role to go with the title. This is only Nick Clegg's opinion while Charles may wish to ascend the throne I hardly think he wants his mother to die and he knows that abdication is not an option.
Quote from: sandy on July 27, 2014, 11:54:19 PM
If the Queen abdicates there would be much pressure on Charles to do the same down the road. What goes around comes around.
I have to agree. While I am personally in favor of voluntary abdication, if QEII abdicates it could set a precedence that the public might expect her son and grandson to continue.
Quote from: Curryong on July 27, 2014, 10:00:48 PM
^^I'm sure it's been the same over the centuries with most heirs in the BRF. .
Charles has really worked hard in his position as Prince of Wales. I think its obvious that he does have his moments of frustration when he sees younger men in other dynasties becoming monarchs and perhaps he might secretly wish at times that his mother would abdicate. However, he knows she won't so he can do nothing but wait.
of course it is the same for all heirs.. I think that Charles was frustrated in the 80s because he was in his 30s and could see that It was going to be a long wait and that while he did good work as POW, he felt it wasn't enough. and Diana seemed to eclipse his more serious work. But that was a long time ago. I think he's adjusted, and is now picking up more of the queen's routine work, he's busy and happy and is wiling ot wait, albeit I'm sure he would Like to be king for a bit longer..
Diana wouldn't have it seemed to eclipse Charles serious work if he had been more than happy to be a team and not a petulant child. People at the time were interested in Diana providing the heirs and her approach to charity work.
Quote from: amabel on August 03, 2014, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: Curryong on July 27, 2014, 10:00:48 PM
^^I'm sure it's been the same over the centuries with most heirs in the BRF. .
Charles has really worked hard in his position as Prince of Wales. I think its obvious that he does have his moments of frustration when he sees younger men in other dynasties becoming monarchs and perhaps he might secretly wish at times that his mother would abdicate. However, he knows she won't so he can do nothing but wait.
of course it is the same for all heirs.. I think that Charles was frustrated in the 80s because he was in his 30s and could see that It was going to be a long wait and that while he did good work as POW, he felt it wasn't enough. and Diana seemed to eclipse his more serious work. But that was a long time ago. I think he's adjusted, and is now picking up more of the queen's routine work, he's busy and happy and is wiling ot wait, albeit I'm sure he would Like to be king for a bit longer..
Diana did serious work. She worked from the get go. When Charles married Diana his mother was only in her fifties. Unless she abdicated he did not have to be a genius to realize he could be POW for a while.
Charles just got jealous of his wife even when she was barely out of her teens. Diana complemented Charles and he was too stupid to appreciate her.
Starting here and taking it back.
PC and PD could have had it all.
The Brain and the Beauty.
He serious to Her, the lighter side.
How it turned out as she had nothing else in her life , but her work, she found and took more serious things and developed into a serious advocate.
PC , cannot stand his, but he always worked hard and was serious in his position.
He has had and will have a LONGER wait.
He has made things better for his country.
No way does he want his mother to die.
Seeing other Monarchs abdicate , hmmmm, you bet he wishes, LOL!!!
QEII abdicating a way in away to still keep her title, as if after all these years the world would refer to her by anything else, LOL.
Something to give him the title, KING, world stage etc.
No matter what , QEII will not abdicate.
QEII has life of an Oak tree.
She will be here for another 10 years no doubt. 99 yr. QEII.
C and C will be what, in their 70's. Still, they will wait to be K and Q.
Oh please..to other posters Diana did nothing but made this man miserable, she knew she overshadowed him, if she had common sense, she would have found a way to stop it, but nooo..typical narcissistic, and don't tell me she couldn't help it, other famous people have been able to control it.
I'm glad that marriage ended...nothing to appreciate from Diana (except those two kids...i think, the future will determine how they will do, and is not looking good from William and the one he married. Charles made the right decision to agree to a divorce, it's good to see him actually smile (not the fake one) nowadays.
Diana was scared of doing her first appearance as a royal (on tour in Wales). Various sources who were with her noticed and how she pulled herself together and did a great job. I doubt she did any scheming to upstage Charles, she was nervous like any average person would be. Charles got jealous early on. If he had been not so childish and peevish he could have appreciated his wife. While JFK and Jackie were not the most ideal couple in the world, he appreciated her popularity and made comments like "I'm the man who accompanied Jackie to Paris."
I think Charles wanted to be the center of the universe, he was bowed and scraped to and there was this outsider taking away his attention.
Charles smiled around Diana early on and it is a myth that he went around frowning there were plenty of photos to contradict the spin that he was never looking happy with Diana. The trouble is there was another woman who was not going to go away. That would doom any marriage.
If you don't appreciate Diana that's your choice. She got into a bad situation and fought back. The right decision for Charles if he wanted his first marriage to work was to give Mrs Parker Bowles her walking papers.
Quote from: Sheridan on August 04, 2014, 03:00:42 PM
Oh please..to other posters Diana did nothing but made this man miserable, she knew she overshadowed him, if she had common sense, she would have found a way to stop it, but nooo..typical narcissistic, and don't tell me she couldn't help it, other famous people have been able to control it.
I'm glad that marriage ended...nothing to appreciate from Diana (except those two kids...i think, the future will determine how they will do, and is not looking good from William and the one he married. Charles made the right decision to agree to a divorce, it's good to see him actually smile (not the fake one) nowadays.
Really you are totally misinformed regarding your Idol. Diana made his life miserable? well I guess you could say she did by loving him and expecting him to be faithful. Diana overshadowed him well she did because one would rather see a beautiful woman in beautiful clothes then a man in a suit with a glum look on his face because people were excited to see his bride and new Princess. If HM couldn't stop the press when she appealed four months after the marriage to leave Diana alone as it was stressing do you really think They would have listen to Diana and stopped it you IMO are living in a dream world. Charles agreed to the divorce again your idol was ordered to divorce by his mother .
Now lets take a good look at your idol from the other side. Charles made Diana totally miserable starting on their honeymoon by letting Camilla's picture fall out of his diary and wearing cufflinks she gave him. Charles married and of course any wife would have overshadowed him as a novelty a Princess of Wales after 70 years and instead of being proud and working as a team Charles acted like a spoiled child. The fact that Charles refused to give up Camilla in any sense feeling entitled as POW to having a mistress would you have put up with that?
Quote from: Sheridan on August 04, 2014, 03:00:42 PM
Oh please..to other posters Diana did nothing but made this man miserable, she knew she overshadowed him, if she had common sense, she would have found a way to stop it, but nooo..typical narcissistic, and don't tell me she couldn't help it, other famous people have been able to control it.
I'm glad that marriage ended...nothing to appreciate from Diana (except those two kids...i think, the future will determine how they will do, and is not looking good from William and the one he married. Charles made the right decision to agree to a divorce, it's good to see him actually smile (not the fake one) nowadays.
Two people who really should not have married. If Diana was alive, I would hope that she would have found a good man to love after her divorce. Would have liked to see her remarry if that was her wish.
I too would have liked to see Diana happily married had she lived. However, as far as overshadowing Charles was concerned I think she did try in the beginning but I don't really know how you can repress charisma. A person's either got it or they haven't, as we see whenever William and Harry make an appearance together. When you add that the media would much rather write and photograph a beautiful young woman in stunning outfits than a man in a suit, however worthy he is, then you can see Charles was on the back foot from the beginning.
^ yes Curryong - any man is at a disadvantage to a beautiful woman.
I also wonder if Diana had continued to have her natural mousy blonde hair color and had continued to wear the matronly outfits the Queen's dressers put her in at first - would she have become such an icon? Yes Diana did a lot of amazing things in terms of opening up acceptance of HIV and creating awareness about some issues. But Diana's popularity existed before she did any of those things - she was the star immediately after her marriage. Whitaker wrote and spoke about how good she was at playing the press but they loved her anyway. Certainly some of Diana's icon status was a result of being photogenic, the blonde hair, the charming look she would give people - that sort of head down doe eyed look, great clothes and jewels and major manipulation of the press. And the press certainly collaborated in spreading the cult they financially benefitted from it. There were lots of reports at the time that Di and Charles became over time very competitive with each other.
If you read the DM nowadays you would think Kate was the most glamorous most amazing most charismatic person on the planet and we for sure know that is not remotely true. It is manufactured and to some extent manufactured by the media so they can make money.
Diana was popular with her hair gone to "mouse" in Wales 1981 and the rather plain outfits. It was not what she wore or whether or not she lightened her hair, it was her personality and her way with people. Unless she put a paper bag on her head and was not "allowed" to meet anybody of course she would be popular. And the one with the problems was Charles who should have sought help for his jealousy issues. Diana and Charles became competitive during the time the marriage was breaking down. It was Charles own childish attitude that caused the problems from the get go with his jealousy of his own wife.
Double post auto-merged: August 06, 2014, 12:12:11 AM
Quote from: Curryong on August 05, 2014, 11:21:34 PM
I too would have liked to see Diana happily married had she lived. However, as far as overshadowing Charles was concerned I think she did try in the beginning but I don't really know how you can repress charisma. A person's either got it or they haven't, as we see whenever William and Harry make an appearance together. When you add that the media would much rather write and photograph a beautiful young woman in stunning outfits than a man in a suit, however worthy he is, then you can see Charles was on the back foot from the beginning.
How can anybody repress charisma? Charles should have repressed his own jealous tendencies. Diana was eager to please when she started doing royal duties even learning Welsh to prepare for the trip to Wales. How can she "hold back" when she felt she had to do her best?
Yes, her youth and innocence drew the crowds from the beginning of the marriage. Of course, it's as well to remember that this was well before the Internet age. Magazines sold like hot cakes in those days. Plus, Charles was the first Prince of Wales to marry in 120 years so the Press was in a lather of excitement anyway. That much televised 'fairy tale wedding' started the frenzy off. Still, even having taken all that into account, I do believe Diana did possess genuine charisma and that lends its own sort of enchantment.
I agree that there wasn't much Diana could do about the level of interest in her early in her marriage. The same thing is happening with Will and Kate (though Will, much to his credit, seems perfectly happy with Kate being in the spotlight). A lot of what the press runs on is visual, and women provide more interesting and varied clothing and hairstyles. Additionally, anyone who marries into the family is a novelty for the first little while in a way that the born-Royals just aren't.
At the same time, as the marriage went on and became more and more acrimonious, I think that Diana did deliberately try to grab attention away from Charles. That was particularly true after their separation, IMO, when there were a host of occasions where Diana deliberately leaked something to the media/wore something provocative/scheduled her appearances to coincide with a big event for Charles and thus grab the media attention.
I can't vouch for Diana's personal relationships, but in my opinion, she was a fantastic princess. She worked, was kind to those she helped, and brought a great deal more popularity for the royal family as princess.
Quote from: Canuck on August 06, 2014, 12:18:02 AM
I agree that there wasn't much Diana could do about the level of interest in her early in her marriage. The same thing is happening with Will and Kate (though Will, much to his credit, seems perfectly happy with Kate being in the spotlight). A lot of what the press runs on is visual, and women provide more interesting and varied clothing and hairstyles. Additionally, anyone who marries into the family is a novelty for the first little while in a way that the born-Royals just aren't.
At the same time, as the marriage went on and became more and more acrimonious, I think that Diana did deliberately try to grab attention away from Charles. That was particularly true after their separation, IMO, when there were a host of occasions where Diana deliberately leaked something to the media/wore something provocative/scheduled her appearances to coincide with a big event for Charles and thus grab the media attention.
It also was a reaction to Charles pals leaking unfavorable stories about her to the press with Charles apparent approval. A woman called the press and told a reporter a story that Diana "refused" to have a party thrown for her on her 30th birthday. And Camilla going to the Sun Editor for 10 years. And Nicholas Soames and other friends of Charles knocking Diana.
Diana did wear something provocative the night Charles admitted adultery on national TV. I approved of Diana knocking Camilla's 50th birthday party off the covers by posing in a bathing suit.
William and Kate are not "out there" on the same scale that Charles and Diana were. Different scenarios.
I think if Diana is slammed for "leaking" stories then how come Charles and his cronies are not knocked for this. Diana was playing in the big leagues with Charles people undermining her to the media.
I didn't "slam" Diana, nor did I say that she was the only one leaking stories to the press. But IMO Diana made a particular point during their estrangement and after their divorce of timing her appearances, leaks, etc. to upstage Charles. Charles certainly behaved badly in his own ways, but I don't think he ever tried to play that particular game (perhaps in part because it simply wouldn't have been as effective coming from him).
^I don't think anyone accused you of "slamming" anyone, Canuck. :flower:
Apologies if I misunderstood. I took sandy's comment about people slamming Diana as a response to me, since her post quoted me.
Curryong and Canuck I have to agree with your assessments of the Wales' marriage and their behavior with the press. Also it was more time consuming for readers to share their views with the press regarding their opinions of the couple. You actually had to take pen to paper, find an envelope, mail it and hope they'd choose to share your letter in their "readers' views section." The press IMHO had greater control in selling the Wales' story when it was a fairytale and later when things had "irretrievably broken down." :(
Readers have greater opportunity to share their thoughts with the internet. I've always wonder how the royal couples of the 1960's-early 1990's would fare and what coverage they'd receive with today's royal forums.
That's a very interesting question, TLLK. One of the things I've noticed about the internet hive-mind is that (especially with women) it tends to go overboard building up a cool new celebrity as the Greatest. Thing. Ever. and then once the celebrity reaches an oversaturation point, everyone just as swiftly turns on that person and begins to pick apart everything about them. It happened with Jennifer Lawrence, and Natalie Portman, and Anne Hathaway, and a whole load of others in recent years.
I suspect that Diana would have been hugely popular during her engagement and perhaps through the births of Will and Harry, but that the internet commentariat would eventually have turned on her to a large degree after that even if she had never done anything to really deserve it. I also think it would have been much, much more difficult for her to play the PR game as well as she definitely did during her life -- instead of just needing to keep a small number of reporters on side, there would be countless internet commenters, twitter users with cameras, gossip sites for people to leak to, etc.
I suspect as well that given what we know about Diana's love/hate relationship with the press and public attention, and the reports that she obsessively read and worried about her own press, that the unfiltered mass of internet commentary would have been quite difficult for her to deal with. I think the celebrities/public figures who stay most sane under that onslaught are the ones who have the discipline and self-protective instincts to simply not read what is being said about them online. I don't think Diana would have been able to resist.
^^Yes, TLLK, I sometimes wonder if the Armstrong-Jones/Princess Margaret union would have even gone ahead if they had become close in today's Internet-driven world. A lot of things in Tony's past were hidden under the umbrella phrase 'bohemian,' by the much more deferential Press in those days.
About the only thing the general public knew then about AAJ was that he was a well connected Society photographer. Today, everything about his exes (male and female) and lifestyle would be all over the Internet, (not to mention what happened after their marriage).
Thanks Ladies. Curryong- I suspect the Armstrong-Jones union would have received far greater scrutiny than it did then. The separation and divorce coverage would have been even more intense for any royal couple: A-J, York, Wales, Phillips etc...
As for individual royal brides (Sarah, Diana, Sophie) IMHO their educational backgrounds, previous relationships, family histories, clothing choices etc...would be compared endlessly.
Yes, though Canuck I have noticed on some royal forums, (and many Tumblr sites), though not this one, that Kate (for instance) was very unpopular right from the beginning so there was no celebrity-type build-up to be disassembled in the first place.
Interesting, Curryong. I wonder if that has anything to do with how long she dated Will, and the fact that (especially in the UK) she was already well known to the public for years before their marriage. In Canada/the U.S. I think there was much more of a honeymoon period for her.
I really don't know what caused it, though she seems to be thought of, along with her mother, as a schemer who wanted the ring from the beginning and she and her family were and are regarded as having manipulated a vulnerable young man (William) into marriage.
Heaven knows, Kate has her faults (which have been discussed here) but some of the personal abuse on Twitter, Tumblr and some forums has been downright nasty and over the top, IMO, every facial expression scrutinised etc.
Quote from: Canuck on August 06, 2014, 01:28:27 AM
That's a very interesting question, TLLK. One of the things I've noticed about the internet hive-mind is that (especially with women) it tends to go overboard building up a cool new celebrity as the Greatest. Thing. Ever. and then once the celebrity reaches an oversaturation point, everyone just as swiftly turns on that person and begins to pick apart everything about them. It happened with Jennifer Lawrence, and Natalie Portman, and Anne Hathaway, and a whole load of others in recent years.
I suspect that Diana would have been hugely popular during her engagement and perhaps through the births of Will and Harry, but that the internet commentariat would eventually have turned on her to a large degree after that even if she had never done anything to really deserve it. I also think it would have been much, much more difficult for her to play the PR game as well as she definitely did during her life -- instead of just needing to keep a small number of reporters on side, there would be countless internet commenters, twitter users with cameras, gossip sites for people to leak to, etc.
I suspect as well that given what we know about Diana's love/hate relationship with the press and public attention, and the reports that she obsessively read and worried about her own press, that the unfiltered mass of internet commentary would have been quite difficult for her to deal with. I think the celebrities/public figures who stay most sane under that onslaught are the ones who have the discipline and self-protective instincts to simply not read what is being said about them online. I don't think Diana would have been able to resist.
I think Camilla's machinations would have been more available to the public. Plus Charles would not have been able to be as "discreet" in his various affairs. And it would be detected perhaps who was leaking bad stories about Diana.
It would be difficult for Charles to play his PR games.
Double post auto-merged: August 06, 2014, 10:51:31 AM
Quote from: Canuck on August 06, 2014, 01:05:30 AM
I didn't "slam" Diana, nor did I say that she was the only one leaking stories to the press. But IMO Diana made a particular point during their estrangement and after their divorce of timing her appearances, leaks, etc. to upstage Charles. Charles certainly behaved badly in his own ways, but I don't think he ever tried to play that particular game (perhaps in part because it simply wouldn't have been as effective coming from him).
I said Diana is slammed. A general statement. Yes indeed she is slammed on boards, in the media and by Charles pals.
But it can be said that Diana did work on her charities and was not this woman cackling about how she can upstage Charles. She did get praised by Mandela and others for her charity work which does show she was doing a lot more than "upstaging" Charles.
Charles jealousy issues were the problem from the get go. And he put down Diana some of the put downs witnessed by others including Jephson. Charles surely was no saint to her. If a woman is emotionally abused by a husband, there can be some reactions by the wife to put it mildly.
Charles had done plenty of undermining of Diana. And yes he uses PR. He was not and is not some helpless person. If he had not used his friends and sympathizers to undermine Diana (even before Morton) maybe he and Diana could have come to some sort of understanding. Charles is IMO not a nice guy to say the least.
Quote from: Curryong on August 06, 2014, 05:53:33 AM
I really don't know what caused it, though she seems to be thought of, along with her mother, as a schemer who wanted the ring from the beginning and she and her family were and are regarded as having manipulated a vulnerable young man (William) into marriage.
Heaven knows, Kate has her faults (which have been discussed here) but some of the personal abuse on Twitter, Tumblr and some forums has been downright nasty and over the top, IMO, every facial expression scrutinised etc.
Seems to be a phenomenon with our internet age as she's not the only one. Letizia, Mary, Maxima, M-M and Rania have all had their share of OTT comments from people with a very, very intense interest in them. (M-M's taking some real heat at the moment. :no: Letizia's had a bit of a break since the abdication/proclamation/investiture events.)
I imagine if Diana was still alive that she'd have her own sugar/vinegar followers like many public figures. Seems to be par for the course.
The problem with Diana was that she shone from the moment she was identified as Charles girlfriend. Diana was different from all the previous girls he dated as she was very charismatic and the media staked out her apartment and employment places. If Charles hadn't been so petty and jealous he would have seen Diana as an asset in supporting his charitable works such as she did with the Princes Trust attending concerts etc. The way the media stalked her while they were dating should have given him a clue that if he wanted all the attention on him Diana was not the girl for him to marry.
(Going back to the thread starting her and going back).
I agree Trudie. The Shy Di picture with the sunlight behind her skirt as she held the two little kids from Preschool.."It" quaility.
There were many, many other titled girls for HRH C to marry.
LDS, PD had that "It" quailty.
JBKOnassis, AHephurn, PGrace and some others had that "It" quality. ETaylor was "It."
Too bad she did not live.
Too bad she and PC did not at some point before it was all too late, before she became bitter and past 22, make it work by giving up CPB.
Too bad.
PC had it all. He really did with her have it all or could ahve.
They could have rode the wave of popularity amoung their subkects and cont. to both work hard for things together and apart.
That would have done him much good because he had such a long wait for KofE and is having a long wait and will cont. to have such a long wait.
Good gawd why can't we just have one discussion about Charles without turning in this into a st diana debate! She has her own board go there and tall non stop about how great she was and how evil Charles hurt her.
I do feel sorry for Charles a little bit. It's unfortunate that such a system still exists where a man is a) forced into a job, b) at the she time forced to wait to decades to have the job c) living with the notion that you can't have the job you were born to do until your parent dies.
Well Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark is in the same position as Charles only difference is Frederick nor any of the ministers are whining about it. :thumbsup:
Diana was dimond. And even her children were like little dimonds. She is only one - and I think it is only good person in England.
Quote from: Trudie on August 13, 2014, 02:21:53 PM
Well Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark is in the same position as Charles only difference is Frederick nor any of the ministers are whining about it. :thumbsup:
Fred is also 20 years younger than Charles. I expect if he's still waiting to be King in 2034, there will be some discussion of how long his wait has been.
That said, I don't think Charles is complaining about it. He's carved out a meaningful role for himself as PoW, he's not just sitting around waiting to be King as was the case for much of history.
For the last 20 years there have become public Charles plans for his ascension. Never heard anything from Denmark about Frederick or his plans. :orchid:
I don't recall seeing anything in which Charles complains about the wait or tries to muscle his way into the top job. Of course there are plans being made--barring some tragedy, he will become King at some point--but I haven't seen a hint of whining from Charles.
His authorized biography is full of whining.
And there are periodic blurbs about Charles' "coronation" even that he wants to be Defender of Faith. The articles of course came with Charles' blessing and he made it known he wants to defend "all faiths."
I don't understand what Charles wanting to defend all faiths has to do with whether or not he complains about the long wait to be King. Of course there are periodic blurbs about Charles' coronation -- he'll be King someday, plans get made, and journalists on a slow news day will write about them (or make things up, in many cases).
I wouldn't be at all surprised if he finds it frustrating sometimes that he's spent his entire fairly long life to date waiting for a job he still doesn't have. That seems only natural. At the same time, it's clear he has enormous respect for his mother and I don't think he's wishing for her to die. He's managed to make a real role for himself as PoW, he hasn't just been sitting around crying about not being King.
I think it has been frustrating for him at time Canuck. Esp during the bad years of his marriage, where he was trying hard to "make a difference" and to show the world what he could do as POW, to feel that he would still be waiting till he was old and gray to do his "proper Job" and that even when he did his best to do things, Diana's hairstyle or dress over shadowed his best efforts. but he's older now, I think he has settled down and accepeted the long wait and certainly does not wish his mother's death... As for the defending all faiths, what has that to do with his waiting to be King? He may wish for this, whether it is practical is another matter. but if it is soemthign he would like to do at his coronation I don't see why he should not occaionially metnioe it.
Yes, I think he went through a period where he found it a lot more frustrating. I think over the past 15 years or so, he's really blossomed in the PoW role and it's reduced the feeling that he's just sitting around waiting to be King.
Quote from: amabel on August 16, 2014, 07:10:49 PM
I think it has been frustrating for him at time Canuck. Esp during the bad years of his marriage, where he was trying hard to "make a difference" and to show the world what he could do as POW, to feel that he would still be waiting till he was old and gray to do his "proper Job" and that even when he did his best to do things, Diana's hairstyle or dress over shadowed his best efforts. but he's older now, I think he has settled down and accepeted the long wait and certainly does not wish his mother's death... As for the defending all faiths, what has that to do with his waiting to be King? He may wish for this, whether it is practical is another matter. but if it is soemthign he would like to do at his coronation I don't see why he should not occaionially metnioe it.
It should be remembered that without Diana he would not have had William and Harry. I think his priorities are and were messed up if Diana is dismissed as being a "pest" that "frustrated him" and it was her hairstyles that upset the Great Man. It showed how little he felt about her and he started doing this with her early on, getting jealous. I think he is very self centered.
Re: the Defender of the faith thing - I think Charles is right about this. The original title was granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X as a thank you for Henry writing a book defending the Catholic faith from the reformers - Defense of the Seven Sacraments. Ironically the book defended the sanctity of marriage.
Anyway - one wonders why a King who then got rid of the Catholic faith in England and he and his immediate descendants killed a whole bunch of Catholics should continue to even use the title? Can you imagine how those people who were recusant Catholics - risking their lives to practice their faith felt about their King/Queen continuing to call themselves a defender of the faith? So it is pretty absurd - while the penal laws are active and it is against the law for Catholics to own land, practice a profession, vote, and go to Mass and hiding a priest is an act of treason for which people do get beheaded- the Monarch is still hanging on to a title given to them by the Pope for defending the Catholic faith. The whole thing should have been passed on.
So when Charles says he thinks the monarchs role should be to defend freedom of conscience - the right of people to have whatever faith they choose - I'd say that is a welcome change and would have saved a lot of lives and human misery if someone had that idea a couple of centuries ago. He is right on this one. IMHO of course.
And I think if one considers Charles initiatives and efforts on behalf of interfaith dialoque and protection of Christians in the ME - he is walking the talk. Good for him. IMHO.
In 1544 the British Parliament conferred on Henry and his successors the title 'Defender of the Faith', that is the Anglican faith, which became in England the State religion, the Church of England of which the monarch is the Head.
I agree it is time for a change and Charles has been a great champion of freedom of conscience.
It would require Parliament to agree to amend the 1953 Royal Titles Act which came into law after changes were made for the Queen's Coronation in the same year.
Are Catholics still not allowed to be in line of succession? Has that been changed? If not, Charles can't claim to defend "all" faiths. Some religions may not necessarily want Charles defending them. There is already supposed to be freedom of religion so what is the point? Also what will Charles do about atheists?
As long as the Settlement of the Church of England is established by law and the Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, I don't want to see any changes made to titles.
Curryong - title was given to him by Pope Leo X first - parliament confirmed it and re granted it after his excommunication.
Most monarchies in Europe are no longer heads of their Church - disestablishment of state religions has been the trend. I understand it is traditional and it is hard to see traditions change. But in a society where so few are adherents to CoE - where so many now are not even Christian - how does a state religion make sense? How does it say open and inclusive society? Given the brutal history of religious persecution - so many dead - so much misery - to defend freedom of conscience as Charles has suggested - is a step forward.
^^Yes, I knew about Henry being granted the title by the Pope and the circumstances. However, Parliament was referring in 1544 to the Anglican faith and it is the Church of England that Henry's successors on the throne have headed ever since, as Protestant monarchs.
I don't believe there is any justification for Church and State to be linked in this way any more, cate. I agree it is out-dated and I hope Charles doesn't use the title 'Defender of the Faith' at his Coronation.
Quote from: Canuck on August 06, 2014, 01:28:27 AM
I
I suspect as well that given what we know about Diana's love/hate relationship with the press and public attention, and the reports that she obsessively read and worried about her own press, that the unfiltered mass of internet commentary would have been quite difficult for her to deal with. I
I think that's a very valid point.. and that also the trend of the British public and press IS ot build someone up and then slam them.. and that did Happen with Diana to an extent. she was losing popularity in her last few years. But with the Internet if she read stuff about herself there would certainly be nasty and vicious posts form many people, because the Net encourages that sort of behaviour and it would be hurtful for her if she read it.
Yes, I agree. Diana found paps following her and reporters probing into her private life troubling enough, and we know her phone was tapped, though not exactly by whom. I just think the Internet Age would have been too much. Celebrities have to deal with reading all sorts of vile and overly-candid tweets from 'fans' and I just dont think Diana would have coped with that sort of rubbish very well at all. She was much too sensitive in many ways.
We've gotten a little off-topic, but can you imagine if Diana had Facebook or Twitter or Instagram accounts? Would she use them to answer anything that the media or "fans" might put out there?
Cindy
I hope not but I fear she would have.
Double post auto-merged: August 31, 2014, 02:42:02 PM
Quote from: Curryong on August 31, 2014, 01:05:25 PM
Yes, I agree. Diana found paps following her and reporters probing into her private life troubling enough, and we know her phone was tapped, though not exactly by whom. I
Many said that they told her to ignore what was said in the papers, about her but she never did. but she also "intruded on her own privacy" and gave stories to the press, so of course they were able to claim that she could hardly use them one day and shy away from them another day. she also got rid of her protection officers, so it was a lot easier for paparazzi to get too close to her.
I dont know if her phone was tapped, its not clear, if her call to James Gilbey was picked up by an amateur with a scanner who heard the conversation and then told it to the papers. Some have said that it si possislble what he heard was a re broadcast of her conversation possibly by rogue elements In the secret service, who were listening, heard the explosive conversation and put it out so that someone was likely to pick it up.
Charles calls were taped too.
Charles' pals had people "tip off" the press about Diana. A friend of his called the paper to talk about Diana not wanting a 30th birthday party. Charles was hardly squeaky clean.
Quote from: Canuck on August 13, 2014, 10:19:19 PM
I don't recall seeing anything in which Charles complains about the wait or tries to muscle his way into the top job. Of course there are plans being made--barring some tragedy, he will become King at some point--but I haven't seen a hint of whining from Charles.
there's nothing he can do about it. Complaining would only make hm look ridiculous. I'm sure that he accepts his long wait is just something that had to be, and while he'd like to be King, he does not want his mother to die....
This will probably cause world war on this board, but since he married Camilla he is more relaxed and happier than I have ever seen him. He seems much less nervous and more settled in his mind. His sense of humor comes out more and he seems at peace with himself and the world. Perhaps he has finally grown up.
I think that is true, but it reminds me of all those Nazi butchers that went to live in Argentina and other places and became happy model citizens.
I find that comparison incredibly distasteful, Limabeany. Nothing Charles has done should invite comparisons to Nazis. That's just really offensive.
I cannot believe that anyone in his or her right mind could equate the Prince of Wales with a Nazi murderer. What did he really do? He married a girl barely out of her teens who he liked very much. As time went by the marriage was not working out. As many kings, princes, generals, executives and the guy next door do he had a lover. He handled it like an imbecile and not like a gentleman. She also had a lover. She also handled it like an imbecile. They both could not keep their mouths shut, but aired their dirty linen in public with it would seem very little thought for their children or the Parker Bowles children. They got divorced. She got killed.
He married some years later and has two lovely boys and a grandson.
He did not run a gas chamber. He did not invade Russia. He did make Jewish people dig their own graves and then shoot them into it. He did not run a concentration camp. He made a bad marriage. It is time to let this kind of hatred go for this man. He committed no crime, he handled a marriage stupidly.
It was not meant to be literal, but that is what the statement reminded me of, he is happy so that is all that matters.
Quote from: Limabeany on September 16, 2014, 09:26:36 PM
It was not meant to be literal, but that is what the statement reminded me of, he is happy so that is all that matters.
He has a right to be happy. He does not have to walk around in sackcloth and ashes over something that ended 17 years ago. He does not have to stay stuck in the past but is able to move on. The judgment and hatred I read on board is all out of proportion. Perhaps some of the people on this board would let this part of his life go and concentrate on what he is doing as POW. He is over sixty and has every right to be happy in his life.
c
I realize it was not meant to be literal, but I still find it inappropriate and frankly I think any point you were trying to make is totally lost when using an analogy like that.
Quote from: lilibet80 on September 16, 2014, 07:26:35 PM
I cannot believe that anyone in his or her right mind could equate the Prince of Wales with a Nazi murderer. What did he really do? He married a girl barely out of her teens who he liked very much. As time went by the marriage was not working out. As many kings, princes, generals, executives and the guy next door do he had a lover. He handled it like an imbecile and not like a gentleman. She also had a lover. She also handled it like an imbecile. They both could not keep their mouths shut, but aired their dirty linen in public with it would seem very little thought for their children or the Parker Bowles children. They got divorced. She got killed.
He married some years later and has two lovely boys and a grandson.
He did not run a gas chamber. He did not invade Russia. He did make Jewish people dig their own graves and then shoot them into it. He did not run a concentration camp. He made a bad marriage. It is time to let this kind of hatred go for this man. He committed no crime, he handled a marriage stupidly.
well said
:)
Quote from: Limabeany on September 16, 2014, 06:42:50 PM
I think that is true, but it reminds me of all those Nazi butchers that went to live in Argentina and other places and became happy model citizens.
Perhaps another comparison could be made Limabeany? :)
Quote from: lilibet80 on September 16, 2014, 06:31:59 PM
This will probably cause world war on this board, but since he married Camilla he is more relaxed and happier than I have ever seen him. He seems much less nervous and more settled in his mind. His sense of humor comes out more and he seems at peace with himself and the world. Perhaps he has finally grown up.
If she made him so content why did he think her only good enough to be a mistress and not good enough to have his royal children. If he cared for her so much he would not have married another woman nor put the idea of having heirs ahead of their "love."
She looks like the cat that got the cream. She did not meet the fate of Wallis Simpson and even got rewarded for what she did (which to me was manipulating her way to the top).
Charles looked happy with Diana early on but Camilla undermined Diana every step of the way.
Charles looks a lot older since he married Camilla (I guess because she looks quite elderly now).
Double post auto-merged: September 17, 2014, 12:22:54 AM
Quote from: lilibet80 on September 16, 2014, 07:26:35 PM
I cannot believe that anyone in his or her right mind could equate the Prince of Wales with a Nazi murderer. What did he really do? He married a girl barely out of her teens who he liked very much. As time went by the marriage was not working out. As many kings, princes, generals, executives and the guy next door do he had a lover. He handled it like an imbecile and not like a gentleman. She also had a lover. She also handled it like an imbecile. They both could not keep their mouths shut, but aired their dirty linen in public with it would seem very little thought for their children or the Parker Bowles children. They got divorced. She got killed.
He married some years later and has two lovely boys and a grandson.
He did not run a gas chamber. He did not invade Russia. He did make Jewish people dig their own graves and then shoot them into it. He did not run a concentration camp. He made a bad marriage. It is time to let this kind of hatred go for this man. He committed no crime, he handled a marriage stupidly.
Charles being "happy" did come at the expense of others including the unfortunate first wife. For some it seems to be the be all and end all that this man is "happy."
Charles did not start the taking of lovers only after he married Diana, he helped himself to his pals' wives. Charles was involved with Lady Kanga Tryon and Camilla Parker Bowles. Charles could have been drummed out of the military if he had been "ordinary" and not who he was--for sleeping with a fellow officer's wife.
Charles should not have married Diana if he only "liked" her. I think he saw her as a means to an end: the begetting of heirs.
In my humble opinion the young Camilla was head over heels in love with Andrew Parker Bowles and wanted to marry him even though she knew he was a womaniser. Even though she was undoubtedly fond of Charles, Camilla knew she wouldn't be deemed suitable by the Palace, and Prince Whiffle-Waffler wasn't going to rock the boat and propose to her any time soon. So she married APB, for better or for worse.
It would have been very foolish and indeed wrong for Charles to propose to a woman who wouldn't' be acceptable to the RF. he has to have the Queen's permission. So I don't know why you call him "Prince Whiffle-Waffler . And Cam I think was indeed I love with Andrew and wasn't overly keen on the idea of being a royal wife. so I think in any case she would have said no, back then
Edward VIII chose a very inappropriate woman with two divorces but he had this all out can't live without you love and fought for her even at the expense of his being King.
Charles OTOH told his biographer that he felt he was "too young" and did not tell her to wait for him. If he had this desperate love for her he would have fought to marry her and I think she could have been promoted as his bride via PR and his "set" would protect her and her past lovers would keep their mouths shut.
If Camilla were not keen on being a royal wife she could have always said no to being Charles mistress and later the second wife. I think she wanted the trappings of royalty.
As it turned out Charles had his cake and ate it too. He consigned Camilla to being a mistress, he chose Diana to marry and have his children and envisioned a sort of "captain's paradise" where he could be involved with more than one woman. But circumstances including Charles outing of Camilla led to his ultimately marrying her.
In the 1970's, no, Charles could not have proposed to Camilla, even if he hadn't thought he was too young. He couldn't have protected her. It was a different time then. And to compare how Edward VIII acted to how Charles acted is unfair, since the two are completely different people and shouldn't be expected to act or react the same.
Cindy
Of course he could have proposed to her. If he pushed for the marriage I think he could have gotten to marry her. He did not even try. It is not unfair to compare the two. Edward did not bring a "suitable" girl into a marriage where he knew he could not be faithful to her. Charles did.
Quote from: cinrit on September 17, 2014, 07:02:35 PM
In the 1970's, no, Charles could not have proposed to Camilla, even if he hadn't thought he was too young. He couldn't have protected her. It was a different time then. And to compare how Edward VIII acted to how Charles acted is unfair, since the two are completely different people and shouldn't be expected to act or react the same.
Cindy
How is it unfair Cindy? Both men were Prince of Wales in the same circumstances regarding marriage and restrictions. The difference is Edward manned up about Wallis and declared his love for her against the wishes of King George V he even brought her to a court function where they were forced to meet. Edward VIII was not prepared to live a lie and marry for the sake of appearances it was for love. Charles did not man up at all he just left then returned and made her his mistress that was the safe thing for him to do. Charles was more then well prepared to live a lie and it cost his wife and children dearly.
Quote from: cinrit on September 17, 2014, 07:02:35 PM
In the 1970's, no, Charles could not have proposed to Camilla, even if he hadn't thought he was too young. He couldn't have protected her. It was a different time then. And to compare how Edward VIII acted to how Charles acted is unfair, since the two are completely different people and shouldn't be expected to act or react the same.
Cindy
True there was a huge gap in time between them. and in the outside world things had changed in that women were now having sex prior to marriage instead of saving themselves... But in the RF things hadn't changed all that much in that a woman who had had lovers, like Cam, was liable NOT to be accepted as the wife of the future King. So if C had proposed, I think the Queen would have simply refused permission and he'd have either ot face stepping out of the succession.. which would have been a body blow to his mother and family, or to face a long fight...And Cam would nt in any case have been interested. She loved Andrew PB, she wasn't that keen on t he idea of being in a public role, being scrutinised and photographed and watched and she was happy enough to maintain a close friendship or affair with Charles while waiting to get Andrew to marry her. I think that after she married Andrew, Charles was very upset, but he was still young and probably DID feel that he was rather Young to make the big commitment of marriage and that he wowud prefer to take his time getting over this girl he really loved, but waiting for anotehr serious relationship to come along..
The point is Charles did not even try. He told his biographer he was "not ready to get married in the early seventies and he never told Camilla to wait for him.
If Camilla were not keen on the role she would not have said yes to Charles' proposal nor been his mistress.
Camilla's past could have been spun if Charles had chosen to vet her as a wife back then. She has spin doctors now she could have had them back then. IMO.
Okay, so Charles wasn't convinced back in the 1970s that Camilla was the woman he wanted to marry. How does that possibly matter? That was literally 35-40 years ago. Today, Charles and Camilla seem very much in love and very happy together.
Nobody knows how they feel. And the time is irrelevant. Once Charles decided not to marry Camilla he should not have looked back. And he did the same with Dale Tryon, he was attracted to her but felt too young to marry but her marrying someone else did not stop him from pursuing her. She became a "stand in" for Camilla when Camilla was pregnant with APB's children.
Charles "happiness" came at a great price. And she is the cat that got the cream. I think who he is had much to do with her staying in his life after he married another woman. If he had been Charles Jones I doubt she'd have given him the time of day.
You say that nobody knows how they feel, then you go on to describe their feelings. The time is relevant in that Charles would have never even asked for marriage to Camilla in the 1970s as he already knew the answer would be no. His parents would never have signed off on a marriage to a girl who was not socially his equal and who was a girl with a "past." I do not profess to know their emotional reactions and I do not delude myself into taking a position in the blame game. They all behaved badly.
That is not what Charles himself reported to his authorized biographer. He said he was not "ready" for marriage and did not tell Camilla to wait for him when he went to sea. When Charles cooperated on his bio with Mr Dimbleby he was not feeling very loving to his parents (to say the least) and if he felt his mother would "never" allow the marriage he certainly would have added this to his grievances.
Charles can be stubborn but apparently he did not care enough to even try. Charles was not a baby he was an adult and he himself made the choice not to pursue Camilla Shand as a bride.
I think the point is, Sandy, what does it matter what he did or didn't do decades ago? He and Camilla are married now and to all appearances, seem happy.
Cindy
It does matter. The two just did not emerge from a vacuum. And their life stories do include a past.
Camilla is still controversial and not universally loved because of her past. So yes the past does matter and people do have memories of how she got where she is and how William and Harry got to be here.
^I can understand where you're coming from as far as white-washing the past and pretending it was all a fairy tale love story which the press do sometimes. It can get annoying and nauseating when overdone.
But no one is white-washing the past. Just saying it's in the past.
Cindy
There are plenty of articles that do. The whole Camilla winning people's hearts thing was one.
Quote from: sandy on September 19, 2014, 03:08:46 PM
That is not what Charles himself reported to his authorized biographer. He said he was not "ready" for marriage and did not tell Camilla to wait for him when he went to sea. When Charles cooperated on his bio with Mr Dimbleby he was not feeling very loving to his parents (to say the least) and if he felt his mother would "never" allow the marriage he certainly would have added this to his grievances.
Charles can be stubborn but apparently he did not care enough to even try. Charles was not a baby he was an adult and he himself made the choice not to pursue Camilla Shand as a bride.
There you go again describing his feelings and decisions and choices. There is a difference when a man in his twenties like Charles, and a man in his forties like the DOW. Camilla would never have been acceptable as a future queen in the 1970s and Charles knew it. He would never go on television and discuss what his mother and father would have said if he asked for Camilla to be his queen. He may have been angry and resentful but he knew his boundaries.
Quote from: cinrit on September 19, 2014, 06:02:30 PM
But no one is white-washing the past. Just saying it's in the past.
That's how I feel, Cindy. No one is whitewashing what happened back in the 1980s; the article that started this post certainly doesn't ignore it. But Charles and Camilla have both been divorced from their first spouses for 20 years. Not every single article about them is going to make Diana/their affair the focus, nor should it.
Quote from: Canuck on September 18, 2014, 07:59:48 PM
Okay, so Charles wasn't convinced back in the 1970s that Camilla was the woman he wanted to marry. How does that possibly matter? That was literally 35-40 years ago. Today, Charles and Camilla seem very much in love and very happy together.
I think he did know on one level that she was the right one for him. but she had other interest and she did not IMO want to be his wife. I think that he felt she was right for him as a person, albeit she wasn't pretty or glamorous and wanted a quiet life... but he probably reasoned that he was young enough to get over her and find someone else who would be accepted as a royal bride and that he and Cam would always be friends...Then as he got older, her marriage wasn't going so well, he was still lonely in spite of other girlfriends and they became lovers again....But I think hat the proof of the pudding si that in spite of separations, other people etc, they still loved each other and were always good friends...
Trying to bring it back to the center.
Past matters. Past is part of present and future. Past makes the present and present makes the future.
PC and Camilla did not just fall from the sky nor was she some old girlfriend...her divorced...she divorced...and well, they just deicded to rekindle their relationship from their 20's. A sweet, old romance all nice and innocent and wrapped in a Tiffanys blue box with a bow on it.
---------
Nazi reference is too strong. That is really never good to use as an analogy for things.
Things like that subject are never really good to use as an analogy.
------------------------
If Prince wanted to marry Camilla Shand back then in mid 1970's, He, HRH, PofW, future KofE, could have. It could have been spun by LordMountbatten, TPTB, others. She was not like in WS case-American, old, infertiel, ugly, 2x or divorced, manly looking, jetsetter or I should say shipsetter, involved in some kinky stuff with the Vanderbilt girl by marriage and her sisters , the twins, and all those types, etc.
Camila was : British, outer fringe of nobility, connected, had some noble in her on her mother's side I think, connection with her grandmother as mistress #1 to past King, good gossip story there could have been spun in her favor and PC's that he wanted her in marriage and not the other way, educated, Protestant, British, military man's daughter, etc.
PC is HRH and HRH gets what HRH wants for the most part, 99.999 of the time.
NO, LordM, QEII,PPhillip, QMother, TPTB etc. perhaps would not have wanted her BUT PC could have won and demanded them over. Truely , the girl with a past thing sounds more than what it was. Does anyone really think LadySarahS, Anabell whoever of the nobility, had not had intimate times with boyfriends?
All of these women were of PC's age group. The pill was still fairly new in the 1970's and liberating and I guess Women's Lib movement of the 1970's hit the Upper Classes of TUK as well.
My opinion here.
-----------------------
PMaragaret wanted to marry that man but it was a different day and time and she was BORN HRH, Princess via bloodline, but he was divorced and not good enough for her. Being the spolit HRH Princess she was as all HRH people are because how can they not be, she went on and made her silly, childlike tantrum and married someone not worthy of her. Did PMaragaret have intimate times with what's his name , the first guy and the divorced one? YEP!!! I think that is a yes.
---------------------------------------------------
PC , I am sure of this, just common sense, was not ready to marry Camilla or anyone until he was ready and needed to and finished having all his fun..so to speak. Being P, HRH, it would have STUPID, SILLY of him not to sample every woman there on Earth he wanted to, LOL. He did and he did it well!! From starletts (Susan George) to nobility girls ( Camilla S no doubt to who knows) to arranged dates for PR /gossip and who knows what else, (Princess Caroline) and on.
He was a PRINCE and The HRH Prince for God's sake!!!!!!!!!
I bet PAnne had her intimate times with boyfriends before she married MP. What, was there any man who would have not wanted to marry PAnne because of her past? No! She WAS PRINCESS via Blood. She still IS. Always will be!! HRH. Rules not apply to those BORN HRH as to those in the Kingdom of rank and peerage not born HRH!!! 600 or so years ago, then, now, forever!
-------------------------------
Quote from: lilibet80 on September 19, 2014, 06:18:18 PM
Quote from: sandy on September 19, 2014, 03:08:46 PM
That is not what Charles himself reported to his authorized biographer. He said he was not "ready" for marriage and did not tell Camilla to wait for him when he went to sea. When Charles cooperated on his bio with Mr Dimbleby he was not feeling very loving to his parents (to say the least) and if he felt his mother
There you go again describing his feelings and decisions and choices. There is a difference when a man in his twenties like Charles, and a man in his forties like the DOW. Camilla would never have been acceptable as a future queen in the 1970s and Charles knew it. He would never go on television and discuss what his mother and father would have said if he asked for Camilla to be his queen. He may have been angry and resentful but he knew his boundaries.
Well I think the queen was not 100% behind the marriage even in the 2000s, because of all the fuss. I think that she's very old fashioned, and while I think she was not totally against the marriage and wanted Charles to be happy, she DID feel ti wasn't the best idea and that she didn't really like the idea of his marrying anyone.. esp the woman who was his long time mistress during his marriage. But I thinks she realised that the general public didn't care very much now some years after Di's death, and that it was better given that the church would not crown him if he were living with Camilla, that he should marry her...
it was only probably because Charles DID push gradually for Cam to be accepted as his live in companion over the years and the public gradually came to accept it, that the queen gave in
Quote from: lilibet80 on September 19, 2014, 06:18:18 PM
Quote from: sandy on September 19, 2014, 03:08:46 PM
That is not what Charles himself reported to his authorized biographer. He said he was not "ready" for marriage and did not tell Camilla to wait for him when he went to sea. When Charles cooperated on his bio with Mr Dimbleby he was not feeling very loving to his parents (to say the least) and if he felt his mother would "never" allow the marriage he certainly would have added this to his grievances.
Charles can be stubborn but apparently he did not care enough to even try. Charles was not a baby he was an adult and he himself made the choice not to pursue Camilla Shand as a bride.
There you go again describing his feelings and decisions and choices. There is a difference when a man in his twenties like Charles, and a man in his forties like the DOW. Camilla would never have been acceptable as a future queen in the 1970s and Charles knew it. He would never go on television and discuss what his mother and father would have said if he asked for Camilla to be his queen. He may have been angry and resentful but he knew his boundaries.
There I go describing what Charles told his own biographer Dimbleby. If you don't choose to believe Charles reasons that's your choice.
Double post auto-merged: September 19, 2014, 11:08:59 PM
Quote from: Canuck on September 19, 2014, 07:47:35 PM
Quote from: cinrit on September 19, 2014, 06:02:30 PM
But no one is white-washing the past. Just saying it's in the past.
That's how I feel, Cindy. No one is whitewashing what happened back in the 1980s; the article that started this post certainly doesn't ignore it. But Charles and Camilla have both been divorced from their first spouses for 20 years. Not every single article about them is going to make Diana/their affair the focus, nor should it.
This is part of Camilla and Charles history like it or not. It could be 50 years but the past does not change or go away. Camilla is not going to be a beloved figure by everyone to put it mildly. People have memories and it is up to them not to ignore what happened with C and C and Diana.
I notice that despite Charles pals wanting to move on some keep rehashing what happened thirty years ago with Junor still trashing Diana. How come the "rules" don't apply to those who bash Diana? If C and C now have halos why do people like Junor need to dredge up the past to make them look like saints and Diana the devil. Some selective forgetting going on here.
Double post auto-merged: September 19, 2014, 11:11:26 PM
Quote from: amabel on September 19, 2014, 07:58:55 PM
Quote from: Canuck on September 18, 2014, 07:59:48 PM
Okay, so Charles wasn't convinced back in the 1970s that Camilla was the woman he wanted to marry. How does that possibly matter? That was literally 35-40 years ago. Today, Charles and Camilla seem very much in love and very happy together.
I think he did know on one level that she was the right one for him. but she had other interest and she did not IMO want to be his wife. I think that he felt she was right for him as a person, albeit she wasn't pretty or glamorous and wanted a quiet life... but he probably reasoned that he was young enough to get over her and find someone else who would be accepted as a royal bride and that he and Cam would always be friends...Then as he got older, her marriage wasn't going so well, he was still lonely in spite of other girlfriends and they became lovers again....But I think hat the proof of the pudding si that in spite of separations, other people etc, they still loved each other and were always good friends...
Diana's marriage was not going well but she was expected to live like a nun when Charles started straying. But of course when Camilla's hubby cheats it gave her carte blanche to cheat too. Camilla could have gotten a divorce from APB but the arrangement suited both CPB and APB.
Charles and Camilla were friends with benefits and obviously could never be "just friends". Once he got engaged to another woman Camilla should have ceased contact with Charles and vice versa.
Double post auto-merged: September 19, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
Quote from: amabel on September 19, 2014, 10:09:38 PM
Quote from: lilibet80 on September 19, 2014, 06:18:18 PM
Quote from: sandy on September 19, 2014, 03:08:46 PM
That is not what Charles himself reported to his authorized biographer. He said he was not "ready" for marriage and did not tell Camilla to wait for him when he went to sea. When Charles cooperated on his bio with Mr Dimbleby he was not feeling very loving to his parents (to say the least) and if he felt his mother
There you go again describing his feelings and decisions and choices. There is a difference when a man in his twenties like Charles, and a man in his forties like the DOW. Camilla would never have been acceptable as a future queen in the 1970s and Charles knew it. He would never go on television and discuss what his mother and father would have said if he asked for Camilla to be his queen. He may have been angry and resentful but he knew his boundaries.
Well I think the queen was not 100% behind the marriage even in the 2000s, because of all the fuss. I think that she's very old fashioned, and while I think she was not totally against the marriage and wanted Charles to be happy, she DID feel ti wasn't the best idea and that she didn't really like the idea of his marrying anyone.. esp the woman who was his long time mistress during his marriage. But I thinks she realised that the general public didn't care very much now some years after Di's death, and that it was better given that the church would not crown him if he were living with Camilla, that he should marry her...
it was only probably because Charles DID push gradually for Cam to be accepted as his live in companion over the years and the public gradually came to accept it, that the queen gave in
Nobody cared how the general public felt. Charles wanted it his way or the highway. I would not speak about public opinion definitively since there were never any definitive surveys.
Charles could have been crowned and still had Camilla as a lover. He did not technically "have to" marry her but became obligated more or less when he outed her as his mistress (forcing the divorce of the PBs).
Charles reported a lot of things to Dimbleby that did not get on TV. He complained endlessly about his upbringing via the printed book.
I started reading this thread because it dealt with Charles' feelings about waiting so long to succeed. After page 2 it once again degenerated into another argument concerning his first marriage. As far as Charles having to wait is concerned, nobody really knows how he feels unless he speaks about it, which I doubt he does. He may be relieved not to have the burden of kingship as he has less rules and protocols to follow. He may be mad as hell that he has had to wait so long. He may not care one way or the other. The Queen, in my opinion, will never abdicate. She took a vow for life. She may or not enjoy her life as Queen, but unless she becomes too ill to reign Charles will have to wait his turn.
I find this topic interesting. I read these threads for information and an exchange of ideas. Yet just about every one of them becomes another boring rundown of a marriage that ended in the 1990s. I really wish those arguments and debates by those obsessed with the subject of proving Diana right or proving Charles wrong and consigning Camilla Parker Bowles to hell as a streetwalker could be kept in threads that concern them. Charles' long wait to be King of England has absolutely nothing to do with Diana, Camilla or his first marriage. It is a legitimate question and a good prospect for a discussion.
Hey Sandy, let me ask you?
How can Charles love a woman he only met 12 or 13 times?
How can Charles love a woman he had nothing in common with?
How can Charles love a woman who possible was not well in the head?
How can Charles love a woman and yet keep pictures of his ex in his notebook?
How can Charles love a woman, yet he wasn't sexually attracted to her? (we all know the story)
How can Charles love a woman and tell another woman, "whatever happens he'll always love her.
I get shocked when you say they loved each other and Camilla ruined it...noo..he was probably pretending, men do it. As you always say, he needed heirs only. Going by his biography by dimbleby is ridiculous, do you seriously think he will tell everything in just that book? did you seriously think Diana told everything in hers? i mean she refuse to mention, regardless of the situation she had affairs of her own...which no matter what made her an adulteress?
You say he had no choice to marry Camilla, he did, by the way in the dimbleby interview, he said Camilla was a great friend and will continue so and also said many friends were also there for him. When did he say in that interview straightly that he was with Camilla romantically? He didn't do any outing in that interview. it was outed when Diana did her so called true story and those tapes were recorded.
To say they were just friends with benefits is really insulting to the pair but then again you despise them with passion (its not normal) they were friends before they dated (believe it or not people get to know each other like that before dating), you should do more reading about them, nothing wrong with being friends with exes, it happens all the time.
In conclusion....
Im sorry your idol Diana died but life goes on, i assume you are American, Americans are those ones who get angry about this, i know a lot of Europeans who tell me the marriage shouldn't have happened. I agreed and still do (I mean look at who their first son married...a totally unsuitable woman) Very sad.
And lilibet i agree with you...its sad when some people always want to turn every conversation to be about Diana, like she was a helpless woman when she was alive, she did a whole lot of media manipulations and the impact is what we see now. the moderators or administrators on the royal insight forum should do something about this, it makes this forum very unprofessional, other forums are very strict on this.
I think Charles started out with a bang in the 60's - he seemed hopeful he could make an impact - but then he drifted and we got the angst filled doubtful Charles. Now he seems content with his status in life and the work he does - as if he surely derives great satisfaction from the Prince's Trust and know that whatever happens re: the Kingship he has left a legacy.
Charles surely - if just for a moment - faced the possibility he would never be King when all the marriage disaster stuff came out and they divorced and of course then when Diana died. I would venture to guess he also has had to consider that his mother could conceivably outlast him. He may have his pity party moments but he overall appears to be someone who is happy in his life.
Sheridan - re: the sexual attraction - the excerpt from Arbiter's book printed today claims Charles could not keep his hands off of Diana in the early times of their marriage.
QuoteSheridan - re: the sexual attraction - the excerpt from Arbiter's book printed today claims Charles could not keep his hands off of Diana in the early times of their marriage.
@ Cate1949, Early years I know...which implies to me it was nothing but infatuation, and that's not love.
Quote from: cate1949 on September 20, 2014, 06:09:33 PM
I think Charles started out with a bang in the 60's - he seemed hopeful he could make an impact - but then he drifted and we got the angst filled doubtful Charles. Now he
Charles surely - if just for a moment - faced the possibility he would never be King when all the marriage disaster stuff came out and they divorced and of course then when Diana died. I
Sheridan - re: the sexual attraction - the excerpt from Arbiter's book printed today claims Charles could not keep his hands off of Diana in the early times of their marriage.
I don't think he "drifted" I think he is a man who is very unsure of himself, and found it hard to accept that it would be a Long wait till he was doing the job he was born for, and sometimes he's felt depressed that his efforts to make something of his "waiting" role haven't gone well, and were overshadowed by his wife's looks and dresses and so on. but I think he's grown more settled as he got older made the best of his waiting time and is now settled in a marriage with a woman he is happy with. Of course he's older now, probably More willing to wait and do the best he can with what he has been given to do. it probably helps that he is now in a happier marriage. As for the sexual attraction to Diana, I think there was some, and that gradually faded because his marriage was so unhappy. Sex wont compensate for a lack of common interests and purpose and loneliness and I imagine they were both lonely in an incompatible union. they were probably both better out of it, if Diana did not want to make the best of things...
Double post auto-merged: September 20, 2014, 07:07:16 PM
Quote from: lilibet80 on September 20, 2014, 02:10:38 PM
. Yet just about every one of them becomes another boring rundown of a marriage that ended in the 1990s. I really wish those arguments and debates by those obsessed with the subject of proving Diana right or proving Charles wrong and consigning Camilla Parker Bowles to hell as a streetwalker could be kept in threads that concern them. Charles' long wait to be King of England has absolutely nothing to do with Diana, Camilla or his first marriage. It is a legitimate question and a good prospect for a discussion.
I think that it is a topic that really doesn't have THAT much legs, since the Queen will rule till she dies. Even if she gets ill, Charles will be regent, not King. I think he accepts that. Maybe he didn't so much years ago, but he does now. I think that he knows his mother and never believed that she'd abdicate.
I think his frustration was perhaps worse when he had a difficult marriage as well, and now it is better. But to me I don't mind discussions of his marriage, but I would like it if people did not immediately rush into condemnation of one side or the other and tried to see it as a marriage that sadly was a mistake and wet wrong and wasn't' handled in the best way by the people involved. Other Royal couples have had difficult marriages, Charles and Di, were the ones who in spite of knowing they weren't supposed to divorce ended up in a messy and acrimonious divorce. There's no point in rushing to blame. these things happen and people screw up. And I agree that it does not seem helpful that the same points tend to be made over nad again forcing people inot repeating their points, and never really having a free and interesting discussion....
Quote from: Sheridan on September 20, 2014, 06:17:55 PM
QuoteSheridan - re: the sexual attraction - the excerpt from Arbiter's book printed today claims Charles could not keep his hands off of Diana in the early times of their marriage.
@ Cate1949, Early years I know...which implies to me it was nothing but infatuation, and that's not love.
Basically Charles wanted the heir and spare. So he'd have to be "hands on" with the young wife. After that he could not be bothered.
Double post auto-merged: September 20, 2014, 09:47:04 PM
Quote from: lilibet80 on September 20, 2014, 02:10:38 PM
I started reading this thread because it dealt with Charles' feelings about waiting so long to succeed. After page 2 it once again degenerated into another argument concerning his first marriage. As far as Charles having to wait is concerned, nobody really knows how he feels unless he speaks about it, which I doubt he does. He may be relieved not to have the burden of kingship as he has less rules and protocols to follow. He may be mad as hell that he has had to wait so long. He may not care one way or the other. The Queen, in my opinion, will never abdicate. She took a vow for life. She may or not enjoy her life as Queen, but unless she becomes too ill to reign Charles will have to wait his turn.
I find this topic interesting. I read these threads for information and an exchange of ideas. Yet just about every one of them becomes another boring rundown of a marriage that ended in the 1990s. I really wish those arguments and debates by those obsessed with the subject of proving Diana right or proving Charles wrong and consigning Camilla Parker Bowles to hell as a streetwalker could be kept in threads that concern them. Charles' long wait to be King of England has absolutely nothing to do with Diana, Camilla or his first marriage. It is a legitimate question and a good prospect for a discussion.
Well there is the other side of the coin like Penny Junor in her recent book consigning Diana to hell and placing halos on Charles and Camilla (no doubt Penny expects honours for this down the road.
Double post auto-merged: September 20, 2014, 09:50:58 PM
Quote from: Sheridan on September 20, 2014, 03:10:02 PM
Hey Sandy, let me ask you?
How can Charles love a woman he only met 12 or 13 times?
How can Charles love a woman he had nothing in common with?
How can Charles love a woman who possible was not well in the head?
How can Charles love a woman and yet keep pictures of his ex in his notebook?
How can Charles love a woman, yet he wasn't sexually attracted to her? (we all know the story)
How can Charles love a woman and tell another woman, "whatever happens he'll always love her.
I get shocked when you say they loved each other and Camilla ruined it...noo..he was probably pretending, men do it. As you always say, he needed heirs only. Going by his biography by dimbleby is ridiculous, do you seriously think he will tell everything in just that book? did you seriously think Diana told everything in hers? i mean she refuse to mention, regardless of the situation she had affairs of her own...which no matter what made her an adulteress?
You say he had no choice to marry Camilla, he did, by the way in the dimbleby interview, he said Camilla was a great friend and will continue so and also said many friends were also there for him. When did he say in that interview straightly that he was with Camilla romantically? He didn't do any outing in that interview. it was outed when Diana did her so called true story and those tapes were recorded.
To say they were just friends with benefits is really insulting to the pair but then again you despise them with passion (its not normal) they were friends before they dated (believe it or not people get to know each other like that before dating), you should do more reading about them, nothing wrong with being friends with exes, it happens all the time.
In conclusion....
Im sorry your idol Diana died but life goes on, i assume you are American, Americans are those ones who get angry about this, i know a lot of Europeans who tell me the marriage shouldn't have happened. I agreed and still do (I mean look at who their first son married...a totally unsuitable woman) Very sad.
And lilibet i agree with you...its sad when some people always want to turn every conversation to be about Diana, like she was a helpless woman when she was alive, she did a whole lot of media manipulations and the impact is what we see now. the moderators or administrators on the royal insight forum should do something about this, it makes this forum very unprofessional, other forums are very strict on this.
I can ask you:
How come Charles who later admitted to his authorized biographer that he felt "forced" to marry Diana proposed to Diana and married her?
How come Charles had the "civilized" arrangements with the Parker Bowlese and the Tryons?
How come Charles could not have done the right thing and stopped seeing or contacting Camilla once he married Diana?
Your questions make me feel more that Charles was a cad towards Diana. He wanted the heir and spare and married her for expediency's sake.
Charles said in the interview that he cheated on his wife. The next day his secretary confirmed publicly it was Camilla. Why would APB divorce her if Charles considered her "just a friend.?
Sheridan can you possibly post something without getting personal? Seems you can't.
It has started again. Why is the Dimbleby book being brought into a discussion we are having? What does it have to do with Charles waiting to succeed? I am not clear if the above was written by Sandy or by Sheridan or both, but if it was I ask why? Why is this happening and being allowed to happen in almost every discussion we have. The world of royalty does not revolve around what happened to Charles and Diana 20 years ago. If it is such an ongoing obsession that certain people cannot disconnect it from their thinking at least keep it within specified threads having to deal with the subject.
The Dimbleby book is Charles authorized biography. Since the thread is about Charles why is it irrelevant? It gives a background of Charles and his work as POW in addition to his personal life.
I must pose the question if it is not "relevant" how come two authors who have just had books released (Arbiter and Junor) are dredging up the past and going back more than 20 years.
Because they have written biographies. This is not a book. It is a thread with a subject. The subject is Charles having to wait to be king. It does not involve a biography written about him, his marriage to Diana or anything else except his possible reactions to waiting so long to be king.
So it can only be talked about when someone writes a book? There are other venues besides books and there are journal articles.
I brought it up that it refutes the premise that events of 20 years ago are not "relevant." The fact that there is attention paid to this shows there is still interest in the topic.
Charles authorized biography is very relevant since it talks of the work he did and his first efforts to carve a role for himself. It is very relevant and yes has an impact on his possible reactions. To me it shows that Charles did not sit and wait, and was quite productive. I found his biography informative and very relevant to bring into the discussion. His personal life also had an impact. His sons for instance were born 32 and 30 years ago and the two are not ancient history.
This thread is to do with a specific subject. It is not a general discussion about Charles and his life. If the thread has run out of steam, it is not necessary to once again start an argument about his marriage. It is not relevant to the subject of the thread. An authorized biography of Prince Charles belongs in a thread concerning said authorized biography, not in a different specific subject. I am sorry if you cannot accept that the subject of Diana and Charles' marriage is inappropriate and irrelevant in certain threads, but that is my take on it. No doubt you will argue the point until everyone gets bored, the thread is abandoned, and you have had the last word (probably about Camilla).
It is about CHarles and his wait. The biography tells us some part of his "wait" and how he is dealing with it.
Charles personal life did impact how he is viewed by the public. He is not in some vacuum.
Of course his biography covers this subject and he of course is not in a vacuum. However, this thread is about one subject, his waiting to be king. Since the biography covers some part of his wait, start a thread discussing the biography. Just because Charles has something to do with a thread gives you no call to introduce Diana, Camilla and his first marriage into it.
[mod]Title of this thead is "Nightmare for Charles Succession Wait!" Please get back to the topic![/mod]
[mod]Please use these threads for continued discussions on :
Charles' latest biography : Prince Charles' 'anger' as former press secretary to the Queen releases book (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=71352.0)
The Charles, Diana, & Camilla triangle : Charles, Diana and Camilla: General Chat / The History (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=71782.0)
Thanks... :flower:[/mod]