Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1

[Curryong]

^ Camilla took that risk, I believe, because she knew her man. She knew that Charles and she had an incredibly strong bond, memories, occasions, shared interests, mutual friends, stretching back over nearly a decade, and was something Diana couldn't match. She had also sized Diana up in the time leading up to the engagement and knew, in spite of her physical attractiveness, that Diana wasn't really Charles's cup of tea. I think she knew instinctively that Charles responded to her (Camilla's) sense of humour, buttering up, ego stroking etc, and she doubted Diana was up to it.

[sandy]

so how did she have an upper hand?  She knew she coud not marry Charles, (not that she wanted to) and he was marryng a much younger, pretty woman.  how did she know that he would not fall madly in love with Diana, and live happily ever after with her? 

She was the one he turned to no matter what.  She knew that. She also knew she could manipulate things. Camilla actually hosted Diana and gave her advice. I think Camilla knew instinctively that it would not work plus she was 12 years younger than Charles and used primarily to produce heirs for him.

I do think she saw off women she did see as a threat like Anna Wallace. She did not play safe married friend around Anna and she and Charles danced the night away in front of Anna, who then broke the relationship off with Charles. She was unsubtle in front of Anna.

[amabel]

^ Camilla took that risk, I believe, because she knew her man. She knew that Charles and she had an incredibly strong bond, memories, occasions, shared interests, mutual friends, stretching back over nearly a decade, and was something Diana couldn't match. She had also sized Diana up in the time leading up to the engagement and knew, in spite of her physical attractiveness, that Diana wasn't really Charles's cup of tea. I think she knew instinctively that Charles responded to her (Camilla's) sense of humour, buttering up, ego stroking etc, and she doubted Diana was up to it.

or perhaps she didn't do any of this, but knew that she'd have to lose Charles now because he had to get married. 

[Curryong]

That statement sounds like her friend, the romantic author Jilly Cooper's wailing, over Mrs PB's sorrow at watching Charles wed. 'Can you imagine how awful it was for her!' (Camilla.) No, I can't actually, because she put herself out there when she started cheating on Andrew with Charles. But  it says  an 'awful' lot, Jilly, about the general moral standards of the polo and Hunt crowd you and CPB hung around with.

My answer to you. Yes, perhaps she did, but considering how Camilla inserted herself into Charles's courtship of Diana, I doubt it.

[sandy]

Camilla never lost Charles. She became his married mistress after she delivered the 'spare' for Andrew. According to Smith and Dimbleby and other sources. Smith maintains she was pregnant with Laura when she called Charles for "counseling." It was not as if Camilla stopped seeing or contacting Charles (and vice versa) after he put the ring on Diana's finger at the wedding ceremony. Charles did not have enough sense to drop Camilla when he married Diana or maybe he felt he could do anything because he would be a future King. There are some really creepy photos of Charles "dating" the Parker Bowles, the three going out for a Night on the Town after Camilla married Andrew.

Here's one of them:
https://www.google.com/search?q=charles+and+andrew+and+camilla+parker+bowles&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTv77xvNLUAhUD5SYKHVGFD24Q_AUIBygC&biw=1670&bih=837#imgrc=9AfPEHMFWd8QzM:&spf=1498169666417

[amabel]

That statement sounds like her friend, the romantic author Jilly Cooper's wailing, over Mrs PB's sorrow at watching Charles wed. 'Can you imagine how awful it was for her!' (Camilla.) No, I can't actually, because she put herself out there when she started cheating on Andrew with Charles. But  it says  an 'awful' lot, Jilly, about the general moral standards of the polo and Hunt crowd you and CPB hung around with.

My answer to you. Yes, perhaps she did, but considering how Camilla inserted herself into Charles's courtship of Diana, I doubt it.

did she? 

[royalanthropologist]

It is all too easy to assign motives and thinking to people without really knowing them. How do we know that Charles really loved Camilla throughout out and was just unable to marry her due to palace pressures? How do we know that Charles did not want to commit to the marriage but gave up when it did not work? How do we know that Diana was a sympathetic and comforting wife? What do we know about their private lives?  I think most of it is speculative.
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 07:31:06 AM

BTW, the upper classes are not quite as worked up about adultery as the lower classes. That is just the way it is.

[tiaras]

BTW, the upper classes are not quite as worked up about adultery as the lower classes. That is just the way it is.

Ah the class obsession. I'm so glad not to be British for this very reason.

[sandy]

It is all too easy to assign motives and thinking to people without really knowing them. How do we know that Charles really loved Camilla throughout out and was just unable to marry her due to palace pressures? How do we know that Charles did not want to commit to the marriage but gave up when it did not work? How do we know that Diana was a sympathetic and comforting wife? What do we know about their private lives?  I think most of it is speculative.
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 07:31:06 AM

BTW, the upper classes are not quite as worked up about adultery as the lower classes. That is just the way it is.

It weakens the bond between a man and a wife when there is a third party, a married mistress that the man runs to for "counseling." I think adultery no matter what "class" is involved hurts. It is just wrong on many levels. Diana did not want an open marriage when she said her vows. Charles was involved with two couples who had a sort of "open marriage." He also was involved with Kanga Tryon. Children are involved and that hurts too.

Charles did not cite "palace pressure" when he moved on from Camilla Shand. He told his biographer he was not ready to marry and moved on. He did not even tell Camilla to wait for him. He would have fought for her if he really had been in love with her.

William appears to have learned what not to do in his marriage to Kate. No mistress around to "counsel" him. So everybody does not "do it." Charles also is to be Head of the Church so the Church condones what he did because he's in the "upper class." I would say it is still wrong.
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 11:04:20 AM

That statement sounds like her friend, the romantic author Jilly Cooper's wailing, over Mrs PB's sorrow at watching Charles wed. 'Can you imagine how awful it was for her!' (Camilla.) No, I can't actually, because she put herself out there when she started cheating on Andrew with Charles. But  it says  an 'awful' lot, Jilly, about the general moral standards of the polo and Hunt crowd you and CPB hung around with.

My answer to you. Yes, perhaps she did, but considering how Camilla inserted herself into Charles's courtship of Diana, I doubt it.

did she? 

Yes she did indeed. Way back when Camilla was called the "good friend" of Charles who approved or disapproved of his girlfriends. Even when all was not revealed it still appears that she did insert herself in the courtships not only of Diana but other girlfriends of Charles.

[Trudie]

I believe the real hold Camilla had over Charles was her ability to all things to Charles. Charles being quite the needy man needed a woman to mother him, be available at all times, not overshadow him and supporting his work, share his pursuits i.e hunting, fishing, horses and above all suit his sexual needs. Camilla being the experienced woman in bed suited Charles more so than the virginal Diana as Charles wrote that his sex life in the beginning was satisfying with Diana. Charles is basically lazy as Camilla taught Charles the physical aspects of love Charles in turn couldn't be bothered with his young bride. Diana due to her being immersed in royal work and raising the children couldn't be available at all time. If Charles had wanted a wife who wouldn't overshadow him surely why pick a beautiful woman with amazing Charisma?. The one woman Camilla knew she could never put one over on was Anna Wallace and as Sandy pointed out she was not subtle in breaking up that relationship.

[amabel]

BTW, the upper classes are not quite as worked up about adultery as the lower classes. That is just the way it is.

Ah the class obsession. I'm so glad not to be British for this very reason.

why?  Its noting to do with obsession, its just an observation that the upper classes are more relaxed about infidelity and don't rush to the divrorce courts.  If it comes to that most classes have affairs, lots of them... its just a matter of how they handle them
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 06:55:55 PM

It is all too easy to assign motives and thinking to people without really knowing them. How do we know that Charles really loved Camilla throughout out and was just unable to marry her due to palace pressures? How do we know that Charles did not want to commit to the marriage but gave up when it did not work? How do we know that Diana was a sympathetic and comforting wife? What do we know about their private lives?  I think most of it is speculative.
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 07:31:06 AM

BTW

well precisely my point. I notice that while people claim Camilla had a cunning plan, it is quite simply impossible that she could have ben sure it wuodl work.  whatever she did, she could not marry Charles, at that time. So she either had to give him up as a lover, and just be good friends.. or give up even his friendship.. or she cuodl HOPE that he would come back to her, in time.  And I can't see how on earth she could be even passably sure that would happen.  He was marrying a beautiful young girl, many years her junior.  Anyone seeing him with Di in the first few months of marriage can see that he was attracted to her.  It was very possible that He would find her so attractive that he'd fall for her, once they had time together to get closer..

[sandy]

It was not as if she "could not" marry Charles. He just plain did not pursue her as a prospective wife. If he had feelings for her then, it was not enough for him to want to settle down and get married. He told his biographer he felt "too young" to get married so as I see it he could be free to still pursue other women. Not the material of great love stories IMO. Diana IMO was used for Charles to get his heirs.Charles admitted he thought he could "learn" to love Diana. And he told his biographer he still preferred Camilla. I don't think that is the true spirit for anybody to go into a marriage. Being attracted to someone is not a firm commitment particularly since Charles never was out of contact with Camilla. He even called her on the honeymoon according to Stephen Barry.

Infidelity is not some "game" it is downright serious and harmful to children from the marriages. Diana's mother had an affair and later married her lover and she lost much access to her own children.

[royalanthropologist]

I repeat: the upper classes are not as obsessed about adultery as the lower classes. It is what it is. Assigning middle class values of fidelity and going on about that Church of England  moralizing is a total failure to understand why and how that Church was established. The Church of England exists for no other reason than to ensure that a king could divorce and remarry. That is not my opinion but right there in the history books. There is absolutely no requirement on the monarch of Britain to be faithful or loving to his wife. That is what some people might want but it is no requirement for being king. Charles is not and has never been the most serial adulterer Prince of Wales or royal in our history. The obsession with his love life is alarming in my view. It has gone on for so long with so limited information that it is now bordering on a pathology.

Those who say that adultery is not a game and is a serious character flaw, fail to see the hypocrisy in trying to airbrush the multiple adulterous affairs that Diana had (one with a married man and whose distraught wife had to deal with crank silent calls from Diana) . First they said Charles cheated first. I seriously doubt that because even Diana herself never said he cheated on her first. Charles said he left after the marriage had broken down and never has she challenged that version despite all the things she tried to do to destroy him. So who cheated first and who cheated many times? Those are the kinds of conundrums you get for trying to be the judge, jury and executioner of people's marriages where the details are not fully known.

The other interesting thing. Some Diana fans (they don't like me saying so but that is what they are in reality) suggest that Charles is a very bad man, not particularly handsome, weak, pathetic, evil, wimp etc. Fair enough. That means that Diana was well rid of him. After all; the people that worshiped her would have not wanted her to remain to someone that is as bad as that? Others say that he should not have married her at all if he did not love her. Fair enough then that means that Diana would be better off married to some anonymous person with no Prince William and Harry? I don't get this obsessive dislike of Charles and the puzzling simultaneous insistence that he should have remained married to Diana or worked on the marriage. If he is a bad man, then Diana was better off when he left her. He did not love her, she did not love him. They divorced. That is what most normal people do.

Saying should have, could have, must have etc. goes back to that thing about fate. Unless you are saying that the entire marriage and the children that came from it plus the title and celebrity that followed should not have happened? If that is people's position then it makes some sense, at least being logically consistent. Far better than this confusing: "I hate him so much but want to remain married to him" nonsense. If we accept Charles and Camilla are very bad people, then by all means they deserve one another. Diana was well rid of them since they were so beastly to her.  What then is this nonsense about "working on the marriage"?

[amabel]

well you're way off base about the Church of England. It divided from the ROman church because of complex reasons, which had to do with the politics of marriage and also with the desire for independence of Rome.  but it is a church with a long history, has produced saintly people, and it is idiotic to dismiss it as if its moral teaching was different in essence ot that of other churches.
but that NOt in any case the issue.
I agree that I can't understand the stuff about "working on the marriage".  if Charles was even half as bad as people make him out to be on this forum no woman except someone "just as bad as him" would want to be married to him.  it would be imposislbe to "work on the marriage" because he would be such a selfish monster that he wouldn't/couldn't ever be a decent husband.
If Diana was fed up with him, had grown out of love for him, as he was so selfish, why not be glad that she was able to get a divorce and find a new love. ther was no prospect that such a man wuiold ever be a hsubadn to her.

[royalanthropologist]

Authors are entitled to state their opinion and write books. They do not need clearance from the pro-Diana partisans. I doubt that this book is intended for them because they picked sides in that marriage and it is impossible to penetrate their deeply held views. They will never forgive and will never forget. They hate Charles and Camilla and worship Diana. It is what it is and I think everyone has pretty much accepted it. I doubt Charles, Camilla or the palace are interested in courting or convincing the pro-Diana partisans as that is a pointless exercise.

The book is another perspective on the Charles and Camilla story. Those who want to read it will, those who don't can ignore it. I hate it when people complain about reading an article they have searched for, opened up and read. If you don't like it, ignore it. If you are not convinced by its PR, ignore it.

Also not everything that happens in July and August is an attack on Diana. Camilla was born around that time and many many things happen in those months. At this rate, we will be demanding that nobody writes anything around the months because they belong to Diana.

[Curryong]

Well, I did say I was going to buy the book, and read it, even though I'm classed as a pro-Diana partisan I guess!

However, you don't think that the article a little while ago was a taster for the Camilla book, or that it's a mere coincidence that this book is coming out at the end of this month, before a massive amount of publicity on Diana and her death 20 years ago in August? Boy, have I got a bridge to sell you, Royal!

Seriously though, and just forget my Diana allegiance for a few moments, I do wonder whether something is happening with Charles and his sons. Both sons are partaking in tribute docos about their mother, shortly. That's quite natural in one way, in another, however, what if Charles isn't pleased about it or is a bit hurt? 

There was the latest Charles biography that discreetly hinted that the Cambridges aren't exactly regular visitors to Highgrove.

Also, on another forum, a poster who specialises in Royal social occasions just commented out of the blue, (she's neutral as per Charles and William afaik) that in the videos and photos she'd seen of the first day of Ascot this year the Cambridges spent very little time with C and C and an awful lot of time walking around with Mike and Carole Middleton. Again, natural in one way but...?

Then there was Harry's remark about asking a child or allowing a child (as he was) to partake in his mother's funeral cortège. Also, this Junor book. All just tiny points, but it just makes me think there might be a bit of strain just recently.

[royalanthropologist]

Actually @Curryong, I did feel the tension. A few things stood out:

1. Not once did Harry mention his father. He talked about his mum, grandma, brother and sister in-law but not his dad.
2. Camilla was glaring at the trooping of the color and I could see some real steel in the gaze.

I hope we are not going to have a new war of the waleses but with father and children. I know that Charles does not take sleights lightly and will most likely react. It would be a pity if after all these years, the family is permanently splintered with Charles going off with Camilla and the children forming their own new family. That would be a real shame.

At the same time I respect the rights and decisions of children to detach from their parents once they are 18. If that is what the boys have decided then Charles should just let it go. They are now grown up and can do as they please. He should just focus on his work and his own life. Like I said, if the Cambridges do not want him near their children I am sure Laura and Tom would have no objections to having him around. There are many options. If I was him, I would even consider adopting. There are many kids out there that need parents and guardians. Even Beatrice and Eugene are nice girls who might want to have the attentions of their uncle. He should not fret or engage in counter reprisals. Just let them be.

Unfortunately I always think that revenge is a dish best served cold. In isolating and diminishing Charles's part in their lives, the children could be writing their own downfall. Today it is Charles, tomorrow it is William and Harry. I hope they remember that. There will come a time when Charles is dead and gone forever. It would be hypocritical and rather pointless to cry over him then when in life they have chosen to ignore him.
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 09:08:31 AM

On the PR front, I would actually advise Camilla (if she is actually involved) to simply ignore the whole game of interviews, counter interviews and passive aggressive gestures. She can go visit her own family and children during the memorials or even go on a holiday abroad. Silence has served her well over the years, despite repeated provocations. She should revert back to time. Turn up where required, smile, do your duty and go home. Never complain, never explain.

[tiaras]

Then why did the Percy daughter's get divorced so fast after being married, if the upper classes are more or less relaxed about cheating?
I think however you sugarcoat it in the real world very few people hold infidelity as a forgivable thing after done to someone they've married.

[royalanthropologist]

@tiaras. Fair enough about cheating being unforgivable in all classes. Hopefully you believe that the same standards of not forgiving apply to all cheaters and adulterers including Diana? If not, then those are double standards.

[amabel]

Then why did the Percy daughter's get divorced so fast after being married, if the upper classes are more or less relaxed about cheating?
I think however you sugarcoat it in the real world very few people hold infidelity as a forgivable thing after done to someone they've married.

I didn't say More or less relaxed. I said More relaxed. they do get divorced.  and middle and working class people also have affairs, or are promiscuous..
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 09:28:42 AM

@tiaras. Fair enough about cheating being unforgivable in all classes. Hopefully you believe that the same standards of not forgiving apply to all cheaters and adulterers including Diana? If not, then those are double standards.

I woudlnt' say that. Sexual matters are or should be private.. and who is to say how many marriages involve discreet infidelity while still holding together.  you don't know, I don't know.
but I agree that it is odd that people condemn chalres ofr his affairs with married women but find excuses for or deny Diana's affairs with married men.

[tiaras]

Of course they should never have been married in the first place.

[amabel]

well then, I don't think that the affairs with Camilla mattered at all. if you feel they were very very incompatible and didn't have anyting to make a good marriage, between them..then it would have pretty much ended the same way that it did.. that both of them would have found other lovers and spent more time with them in private.  If Camilla had enver existed, Charles and Di would stil hve had a bad marriage and have had affairs.

[royalanthropologist]

I agree with and sympathize with those who argue that the personalities were so incompatible that the marriage should never have happened in the first place. That is at the very least a logically consistent position. What I find puzzling are those who say Charles is a horrendous human being but he should have remained married to Diana or not remarried at all. Very strange thing to say someone is bad and then insist that he ought to have remained married to your idol. It is almost as if people need to have their villain and victim in this story such that any effort to end the story is strongly resisted.

[amabel]

It is because he has gotten a "happy ending"..and poor Di didn't.  so some people try and undermine his "happy marriage to Cam" by saying that "its not that happy" or that he and she and the boys don't get on.

[royalanthropologist]

I actually thought that was the case at Amabel. Some people reassure themselves e.g. "he does not really love her, it is an obligation", or "he is too selfish to love anyone anyway" or "he is so bad and ugly, she got the wrong end of the stick" or "they deserve one another" or "they live in separate houses so they must be on the way to a divorce" or "she was just the last woman standing" etc. It all sounds hollow like sour grapes. Bad, selfish, "narcissistic", ugly, wimpish Charles has found someone who wants to be married to him...warts and all. I think that is the best outcome rather than staying with someone you do not love or like, just for the sake of satisfying the public's belief in a fairy tale.

But we all know that we don't always get what we wish for. Charles has had a longer life span than Diana so the chances are that he got more opportunities to find someone he wanted to be with. Again the personalities and circumstances are different. Charles would never have been in Paris on that trip under any circumstances. His lifestyle is very different. The holidays at Balmoral which Diana found so boring actually do protect the royal family from the press.