So says the Daily Mail.
New article.
Google it yourself.
Who knows what is true or not.
I believe that in private , Elizabeth the Queen is just a regular ole English Mother. She wants her children to be good to people, happy, well, kind, successful, etc.
Same for her grandchildren.
Cammilla The Rotweiller has always been there in PC 's life and makes him happy.
Diana tried to be in his life and tried to make him happy.
What all has happened and time does not erase FACTS!!!
DIANA is STILL mother to W and H.
TPTB , the media fans of PC and C,etc. wil continue to put stories out like this.
I am waiting for the one to say, well, >(Diana died when the princes were very young little boys and Camilla with PC raised them to be the men there are. :mad7:
YOU KNOW that story is coming.
I think QEII has agood realtionship with Sophie because Sophie came with no baggage, works hard.
QEII has to be with Camilla for BRF things as Camilla is Queen Next.
( Formally Queen Consort, whatever. Common name, QUEEN.)
I read the article it sure does make Charles look like a child-man who gets jealous of his son and daughter in law's popularity. And Camilla has to "soothe" him. If this is true, very pathetic. I think the Queen is not lovey dovey with Camilla and made the best of a bad situation. There are many negative comments in the DM about this article.
When Diana married to Prince Charles in 1981-1996 and split in 1992 for four years no divorce and HM queen order divorce in tabloids and Diana strips titles as HRH because she no longer member royal family and when Diana passed away in 1997 world is so shocking William and Harry hard to lose on their mom and brave without mom for 17 years Londoners wanted to remind Diana very much..When Diana married Charles and he see Camilla lots and Diana insulted Camilla called Rottweiler and mores in tabloids but Charles admit he slept Camilla lots during Waleses marriages years and Diana is unacceptables! Charles told interview in 1994 he did affair with Camilla and mores they Diana's turn interview she admit affair with men include James Hewitt plus her bulimia,etc HM queen says enough on interview reviews! On Charles and Diana's
HM queen don't mind who favorite in laws but Sophie is because Sophie do obey queen before she married Edward in 1999 than Diana,princess of Wales and Sarah,duchess of York who don't obey queen must respect the monarchy..
My take on this article is The Queen is slowly starting to introduce the inevitable by allowing Camilla to be included in prayers as she knows this will be a reality once she is gone and Charles is King. IMO HM is smoothing the way for an easy transition of reigns not that she favors Camilla since it is usually Sophie who accompanies the Queen by car at Christmas not Camilla with this year being the exception since Zara was heavily pregnant. This whole article used sycophancy Camilla doesn't court the limelight who are they kidding and her soothing Charles out of his moods especially as William,Kate and George are more popular that I can believe however HM is probably relieved she doesn't have to hear Charles whining all the time.
Is there an article? I read references to an article... :coy:
^^ I tried googling the article and couldn't find anything. I'm sure it must exist, I just wish there had been a link included.
Cindy
^^^ Here you go Camilla's the only one who stops Prince Charles sulking | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608131/From-wicked-woman-Her-Majs-secret-weapon-Camillas-one-stops-Charles-sulking-Kate-Georges-popularity.html)
Double post auto-merged: April 20, 2014, 12:13:21 AM
Its Richard Kay so reader is warned lol
Quote from: sara8150 on April 19, 2014, 09:18:21 PM
When Diana married to Prince Charles in 1981-1996 and split in 1992 for four years no divorce and HM queen order divorce in tabloids and Diana strips titles as HRH because she no longer member royal family and when Diana passed away in 1997 world is so shocking William and Harry hard to lose on their mom and brave without mom for 17 years Londoners wanted to remind Diana very much..When Diana married Charles and he see Camilla lots and Diana insulted Camilla called Rottweiler and mores in tabloids but Charles admit he slept Camilla lots during Waleses marriages years and Diana is unacceptables! Charles told interview in 1994 he did affair with Camilla and mores they Diana's turn interview she admit affair with men include James Hewitt plus her bulimia,etc HM queen says enough on interview reviews! On Charles and Diana's
HM queen don't mind who favorite in laws but Sophie is because Sophie do obey queen before she married Edward in 1999 than Diana,princess of Wales and Sarah,duchess of York who don't obey queen must respect the monarchy..
Diana admitted no affair with "men" but with one man James Hewitt.
Camilla in a letter that came into the public domain called Diana "that ridiculous creature" and her then husband Andrew a stuffed stoat.
Sarah spent a lot of money and went into debt and had the embarrassing photos of herself with other men during the marriage.
Sophie did not have a Camilla in her life. Different from Diana.
Double post auto-merged: April 20, 2014, 12:48:19 AM
Quote from: Trudie on April 19, 2014, 10:43:43 PM
My take on this article is The Queen is slowly starting to introduce the inevitable by allowing Camilla to be included in prayers as she knows this will be a reality once she is gone and Charles is King. IMO HM is smoothing the way for an easy transition of reigns not that she favors Camilla since it is usually Sophie who accompanies the Queen by car at Christmas not Camilla with this year being the exception since Zara was heavily pregnant. This whole article used sycophancy Camilla doesn't court the limelight who are they kidding and her soothing Charles out of his moods especially as William,Kate and George are more popular that I can believe however HM is probably relieved she doesn't have to hear Charles whining all the time.
Camilla has another residence Raymill where she can escape listening to the whingeing. The tired old spin that Camilla didn't want anything is ridiculous. If she didn't want anything she would not have made herself available to Charles as his mistress and later would have turned down his proposal. I think she was going for the gold and wanted all that Diana had. She does not look unhappy grinning for cameras wearing expensive jewels and tiaras. She appears to revel in the attention and grins for the cameras.
^As I said Sandy Camilla doesn't court the limelight who are they kidding.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 20, 2014, 12:12:25 AM
^^^ Here you go Camilla's the only one who stops Prince Charles sulking | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608131/From-wicked-woman-Her-Majs-secret-weapon-Camillas-one-stops-Charles-sulking-Kate-Georges-popularity.html)
Double post auto-merged: April 20, 2014, 12:13:21 AM
Its Richard Kay so reader is warned lol
:thanks: PoP, is he angling for a knighthood? :nod:
WOW !!! Richard really got out of the wrong side of the bed why so nasty about everyone?
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on April 19, 2014, 06:18:19 PM
So says the Daily Mail.
New article.
Google it yourself.
There si no such person as Camilla Parker Bowels, and in any case Camila has been Duchess of Cornwall for several years....
Really amabel was Charles mistress/now wife Camilla Rosemary Shand Parker Bowles a figment of the imagination or a nightmare everyone who loves Diana has woken up from to find out she never existed and Diana is alive, well and still the Princess of Wales. :Lothwen:
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 20, 2014, 12:12:25 AM
^^^ Here you go Camilla's the only one who stops Prince Charles sulking | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608131/From-wicked-woman-Her-Majs-secret-weapon-Camillas-one-stops-Charles-sulking-Kate-Georges-popularity.html)
Double post auto-merged: April 20, 2014, 12:13:21 AM
Its Richard Kay so reader is warned lol
Thanks, Princess. :flower:
Cindy
Quote from: Trudie on April 20, 2014, 11:05:24 AM
Really amabel was Charles mistress/now wife Camilla Rosemary Shand Parker Bowles a figment of the imagination or a nightmare everyone who loves Diana has woken up from to find out she never existed and Diana is alive, well and still the Princess of Wales. :Lothwen:
No idea what you mean. Camilas been C's wife for 9 years now so I can't see why people go round calling her by her former husband's name. I'm sure if Di had remarried and people were still calling her Diana P of wales or "Di Spencer" you would think it was rude...
re: "called by her former husband's name".....
Camilla isn't the only one the press keeps calling by a former surname.... They do it to Kate too....
When I see this in articles it gives me the sense that the author of the articles (whomever it may be) hasn't accepted Camilla/Kate into the BRF. They don't seem to do it to Sophie - she's always referred to as Countess Wessex. or am I wrong?
[admin]Title of the topic has been edited to ensure accuracy. [/admin]
Quote from: DaFluffs on April 20, 2014, 02:35:59 PM
re: "called by her former husband's name".....
Camilla isn't the only one the press keeps calling by a former surname.... They do it to Kate too....
When I see this in articles it gives me the sense that the author of the articles (whomever it may be) hasn't accepted Camilla/Kate into the BRF. They don't seem to do it to Sophie - she's always referred to as Countess Wessex. or am I wrong?
You're probably right, DaFluffs. It might be a little bit, too, that we knew Camilla and Kate by their previous names for so long before they married into the Royal Family. I don't think we really knew much about Sophie before she married Edward. She wasn't in the news very often.
Cindy
Would not it be more correct to say alleged favorite daughter in law since the Queen never confirmed or denied who her "favorite is." She never made any such comments--this is all speculation.
I am sure Liz loves her family equally but given that the future of the Monarchy are Chuck and his family NOT Sophie the focus is on them no mater how unfair and hurtful it might seem it's the cold hard truth ... for example we will never see her make visits with Sophie like she did with Kate a couple of times or give Sophie's Charities the same support Walking with the Wounded got by her and Phil it is what it is ...
I think the Queen is able to separate her outlook on the future of the monarchy from "family feelings." She probably dotes on her three great granddaughters as much as George but George gets more attention in the media because he is a future King. Since there is more media interest in Kate, Will and other senior royals, probably the Queen's visits with royals not as far up in the pecking order are not covered as much or at all. The Queen Mum doted on her Bowes Lyon relatives and had frequent visits for instance but these visits were not covered as much as those encounters with the Charles, WIlliam, Harry, etc
Quote from: DaFluffs on April 20, 2014, 02:35:59 PM
re: "called by her former husband's name".....
Camilla isn't the only one the press keeps calling by a former surname.... They do it to Kate too....
Yes and its rude about Kate as well...
I know this is an unpopular opinion... My very personal though unpopular opinion, I know why people find it rude, but I don't find it rude and I find it disquieting that women feel insulted by people using their maiden names, which is the name of the human being, the woman who is married, regardless of where life takes her or who she marries... I understand wanting to have his last name, fine, but to feel insulted? It feels like women have been waiting for the chance to be reborn into someone else, a married woman, and no longer want to be the person they were before. It is not so much about feminism to me as much as it is about identity, the identity of a human being who is someone on her own right, not "was" because she married, but is part of a larger family, as she has been her entire life before and throughout her marriage, regardless of their desire to wipe the slate clean of who they were before and start again with a new name. Marriage, to me, is not a witness protection program, but, another part of the cycle of life, your life, which includes your parents, your childhood, your school years, Uni years and your own self, the self which has a name, legally, that cannot be taken away through divorce or death, the one that doesn't depend upon your being married... I don't see why Kate or anyone else should be offended by people calling her by her maiden name. If a woman wants to take her husband's name, that is great, but to feel it is wrong for people to use her maiden name... Kate married up, yes, that doesn't make her name, by birth, regardless of how many titles and names she has, offensive. Just my very personal humble opinion, of course... :flower:
:goodpost: Limabeany.
Quote from: cinrit on April 20, 2014, 04:35:56 PM
Quote from: DaFluffs on April 20, 2014, 02:35:59 PM
re: "called by her former husband's name".....
Countess Wessex. or am I wrong?
You're probably right, DaFluffs. It might be a little bit, too, that we knew Camilla and Kate by their previous names for so long before they married into the Royal Family. I don't think we really knew much about Sophie before she married Edward. She wasn't in the news very often.
Cindy
in a way it was a bit like that with Sarah Duchess of York. She was nicknamed Fergie by the press during her courtship of Andy, and it stuck. Sophie RJ was not that well known because she and Ed were always low level, and so when she married it was usually Sophie in the press or the Countess of Wessex. But while a nickname is one thing, if a bit impolite, I don't think that its the same as referring to a woman who's married by her former husband's name, when she's had a differnet title for many years...
Quote from: Limabeany on April 21, 2014, 03:18:22 AM
I know this is an unpopular opinion... My very personal though unpopular opinion, I know why people find it rude, but I don't find it rude and I find it disquieting that women feel insulted by people using their maiden names, which is the name of the human being, the woman who is married, regardless of where life takes her or who she marries... I understand wanting to have his last name, fine, but to feel insulted? It feels like women have been waiting for the chance to be reborn into someone else, a married woman, and no longer want to be the person they were before. It is not so much about feminism to me as much as it is about identity, the identity of a human being who is someone on her own right, not "was" because she married, but is part of a larger family, as she has been her entire life before and throughout her marriage, regardless of their desire to wipe the slate clean of who they were before and start again with a new name. Marriage, to me, is not a witness protection program, but, another part of the cycle of life, your life, which includes your parents, your childhood, your school years, Uni years and your own self, the self which has a name, legally, that cannot be taken away through divorce or death, the one that doesn't depend upon your being married... I don't see why Kate or anyone else should be offended by people calling her by her maiden name. If a woman wants to take her husband's name, that is great, but to feel it is wrong for people to use her maiden name... Kate married up, yes, that doesn't make her name, by birth, regardless of how many titles and names she has, offensive. Just my very personal humble opinion, of course... :flower:
In this case it's her former husband's name it's not even her name ... he remarried , she remarried for the life of me I don't get why she is called his name ...
Well Camilla was known as Parker Bowles, far longer then she was a Shand or has been a Windsor not to mention her son a Parker Bowles who constantly reminds the world he is her son and Sir's stepson.
Quote from: Limabeany on April 21, 2014, 03:18:22 AM
I know this is an unpopular opinion... My very personal though unpopular opinion, I know why people find it rude, but I don't find it rude and I find it disquieting that women feel insulted by people using their maiden names, which is the name of the human being, the woman who is married, regardless of where life takes her or who she marries... I understand wanting to have his last name, fine, but to feel insulted? It feels like women have been waiting for the chance to be reborn into someone else, a married woman, and no longer want to be the person they were before. It is not so much about feminism to me as much as it is about identity, the identity of a human being who is someone on her own right, not "was" because she married, but is part of a larger family, as she has been her entire life before and throughout her marriage, regardless of their desire to wipe the slate clean of who they were before and start again with a new name. Marriage, to me, is not a witness protection program, but, another part of the cycle of life, your life, which includes your parents, your childhood, your school years, Uni years and your own self, the self which has a name, legally, that cannot be taken away through divorce or death, the one that doesn't depend upon your being married... I don't see why Kate or anyone else should be offended by people calling her by her maiden name. If a woman wants to take her husband's name, that is great, but to feel it is wrong for people to use her maiden name... Kate married up, yes, that doesn't make her name, by birth, regardless of how many titles and names she has, offensive. Just my very personal humble opinion, of course... :flower:
Just a thought look at Henry VIII's wives. Anne Boleyn, Catherine Parr (who was Lady Latimer after the death of her husband at the time Henry courted her), Catherine Howard and Jane Seymour were born with those names but they are more often called by their birth names than Queen Anne or Queen Jane for example.
Good point Sandy. I've never referred to them by any other name.
wel since most of Hen's wives had the same names, obviously they are referred to by their birth names for clarity. They would not be so called, at the time.
Again Parker Bowles is not how she is called ...
Quote from: Trudie on April 21, 2014, 11:29:40 AM
Well Camilla was known as Camilla Parker Bowles far longer then she was a Shand or has been a Windsor not to mention her son a Parker Bowles who constantly reminds the world he is her son and Sir's stepson.
Quote from: Eri on April 21, 2014, 07:24:54 PM
Again Parker Bowles is not how she is called ...
Well Wallis Simpson was not how she was called She was The Duchess of Windsor however she was still referred to as Mrs Simpson so what really is your point?. I still want to find out how she went from being as quoted by The Queen as "That wicked woman" to suddenly becoming her favorite? especially as it is always Sophie who travels with her by car.
I don't think Camilla is the Queen's favorite daughter in law. For one thing she'd never go out and broadcast who her "favorite" is. I think she tolerates Camilla and they are cordial but I doubt it is a love fest. Both Elizabeth's mother and sister could not stand Camilla and would not be shy giving Elizabeth their opinions.
I agree that she'd never broadcast it. As for her favorite well that might never truly be known.
I think The Queen has come to like The Duchess during these ten Years why not?
I think she likes her, albeit she was probably very angry about her conduct during the marriage to Diana. I think she's likely to blame Cam more than Charles.. and probably felt that Cam should have kept away form him, or if they had to have an affair make damn sure they were discreet and not getting picked up by phone scanners.
But I think that over the years, she gets on pretty well with Cam and likes her, finds her congenial as a companion since she is' horsey and country. As Long as the marriage to Cam does not impact on the succession and Will and H get on OK with Cam, I think that the queen has come to feel that Cam makes Charles happy and that's good, and she fits in well with the RF's country lifestyle which is also good.
I don't know... The Queen doesn't strike me as a forgiving person, but more as someone who holds grudges... I think the Queen is doing what she feels needs to be done but I don't think she likes Camilla very much or will...
I certainly do not see the queen as a person who holds grudges. she's a sensible, non emotional woman. Why would she make herself miserable recalling old wrongs?
Quote from: sandy on April 21, 2014, 11:09:27 PM
I don't think Camilla is the Queen's favorite daughter in law. For one thing she'd never go out and broadcast who her "favorite" is. I think she tolerates Camilla and they are cordial but I doubt it is a love fest. Both Elizabeth's mother and sister could not stand Camilla and would not be shy giving Elizabeth their opinions.
I have no evidence or data to support this but: I can't see Princess Anne sitting quietly on the sidelines either...... even if she dated Parker Bowles previously.....
There is no evidence either way.It does however strike me that both Camilla and Sophie are intrinsically more to the taste of the Queen than Diana would have been..temperamentally and interests wise.
Also-the Queen is above all else a pragmatist.If she is able to swallow having Martin Mcguinness at her dinner table after the murder of Mountbatten I don't think one can say she holds grudges -at least not publically.She is not her mother mother or sister both of whom I think did have a nasty vengeful streak
Further-once people get very old-as HM is-they focus on their legacy and those things which are familiar .Camilla fits the bill on both
I think she loves both Cam and Sophie and is very happy with them ...but I gotta feel sorry for Sophie for Years she was the only one and now she has two women above her that will inevitably take all the attention away from her ...
Quote from: Felicia on April 22, 2014, 03:12:40 PM
There is no evidence either way.It does however strike me that both Camilla and Sophie are intrinsically more to the taste of the Queen than Diana would have been..temperamentally and interests wise.
Also-the Queen is above all else a pragmatist.If she is able to swallow having Martin Mcguinness at her dinner table after the murder of Mountbatten I don't think one can say she holds grudges -at least not publically.She is not her mother
I agree. I don't think she's an emotional person, unlike the QM, and she us as you say pragmatic and sensible She has lived too long I think to be foolish enough to hold grudges. and Camilla shares her interests, such as horses, country life etc and has been loyal to the RF. I think by now, she may well feel, after the dramas of the Diana yeasrs and the various things that DIana did, that her marriage to Charles was a complete disaster and that she wishes that it had been possible back in the late 70s for Charles to have married Cam and been with a woman whom he found congenial and compatible.
Exactly-I agree
Quote from: amabel on April 22, 2014, 09:49:40 AM
I think she likes her, albeit she was probably very angry about her conduct during the marriage to Diana. I think she's likely to blame Cam more than Charles.. and probably felt that Cam should have kept away form him, or if they had to have an affair make damn sure they were discreet and not getting picked up by phone scanners.
But I think that over the years, she gets on pretty well with Cam and likes her, finds her congenial as a companion since she is' horsey and country. As Long as the marriage to Cam does not impact on the succession and Will and H get on OK with Cam, I think that the queen has come to feel that Cam makes Charles happy and that's good, and she fits in well with the RF's country lifestyle which is also good.
The Queen tended to ostrich over the years and did not interfere though she was said to have heard from a courtier who said that there were complaints from military people about Charles having an affair with a fellow officers wife.
I think she made the best of a bad situation but I think though she is cordial to Camilla and wants to project a united family she does not care that much for Camilla on a personal basis.
I don't think the boys are that crazy about Camilla either but their father is high maintenance and they accepted her for their father's sake and the woman did not raise them.
I don't get why the be all and end all is making Charles happy. It makes him sound like a spoiled brat that doesn't think of making others happy, just himself. Camilla IMO is out for herself too so they deserve each other.
Double post auto-merged: April 22, 2014, 05:25:26 PM
Quote from: amabel on April 22, 2014, 03:50:19 PM
Quote from: Felicia on April 22, 2014, 03:12:40 PM
There is no evidence either way.It does however strike me that both Camilla and Sophie are intrinsically more to the taste of the Queen than Diana would have been..temperamentally and interests wise.
Also-the Queen is above all else a pragmatist.If she is able to swallow having Martin Mcguinness at her dinner table after the murder of Mountbatten I don't think one can say she holds grudges -at least not publically.She is not her mother
I agree. I don't think she's an emotional person, unlike the QM, and she us as you say pragmatic and sensible She has lived too long I think to be foolish enough to hold grudges. and Camilla shares her interests, such as horses, country life etc and has been loyal to the RF. I think by now, she may well feel, after the dramas of the Diana yeasrs and the various things that DIana did, that her marriage to Charles was a complete disaster and that she wishes that it had been possible back in the late 70s for Charles to have married Cam and been with a woman whom he found congenial and compatible.
Diana did? What about what Charles did? He trashed her and Philip via his authorized biography. Charles and Charles alone chose not to marry Camilla back in the early seventies. . If he had the be all and end all love for her he would have fought to marry her. The man could not even be bothered to tell Camilla to wait for him when he went on a navy tour of duty. Diana went into the marriage with no baggage and Charles clinging to the mistress caused Diana to be upset and have "drama" and I surely don't blame Diana. Camilla has not been "loyal" to the royal family since she interfered in a royal wife's marriage even usurping Diana's place as hostess as Highgrove. A loyal woman would have backed off and not trashed the wife. Camilla's predecessors were never so nervy. Lily Langtry would not trash the wife or try to undermine her.
Double post auto-merged: April 22, 2014, 05:27:35 PM
Quote from: Eri on April 22, 2014, 03:13:07 PM
I think she loves both Cam and Sophie and is very happy with them ...but I gotta feel sorry for Sophie for Years she was the only one and now she has two women above her that will inevitably take all the attention away from her ...
By all accounts Sophie's marriage to Edward is happy and they have two healthy and happy children. What's to be bothered about? Also nobody knows how the Queen "treats" Sophie--this is only an article by a reporter.
Quote from: amabel on April 22, 2014, 09:49:40 AM
I think she likes her, albeit she was probably very angry about her conduct during the marriage to Diana. I think she's likely to blame Cam more than Charles.. and probably felt that Cam should have kept away form him, or if they had to have an affair make damn sure they were discreet and not getting picked up by phone scanners.
But I think that over the years, she gets on pretty well with Cam and likes her, finds her congenial as a companion since she is' horsey and country. As Long as the marriage to Cam does not impact on the succession and Will and H get on OK with Cam, I think that the queen has come to feel that Cam makes Charles happy and that's good, and she fits in well with the RF's country lifestyle which is also good.
Excellent summary!!!
Quote from: amabel on April 22, 2014, 03:50:19 PM
I agree. I don't think she's an emotional person, unlike the QM, and she us as you say pragmatic and sensible She has lived too long I think to be foolish enough to hold grudges. and Camilla shares her interests, such as horses, country life etc and has been loyal to the RF. I think by now, she may well feel, after the dramas of the Diana yeasrs and the various things that DIana did, that her marriage to Charles was a complete disaster and that she wishes that it had been possible back in the late 70s for Charles to have married Cam and been with a woman whom he found congenial and compatible.
-
:goodpost:
very very good post
What does the "country lifestyle" have to do with anything? Camilla does not ride anymore because of her bad back for one thing. And I am skeptical that the Queen has grown "fond" of Camilla but she is one to show unity in the family despite what happens privately and she is cordial but I doubt it is a big lovefest between Camilla and the Queen. Again, "making Charles happy" as being the be all and end all makes him sound like a spoiled brat. Making him happy apparently involved letting him have his cake and eat it too--have the suitable wife, the heirs and keep the mistress about to make him happy. Never mind making Diana happy or trying to be a good husband to her. The marriage was doomed because Charles felt that he should be made happy at other people's expense. Camila IMO is a selfish manipulative woman and got what she wanted. So it's come to Little Chuckie happy at last. If she made him so happy he should have not married Diana to get heirs, forced a divorce and the two could run around being happy doing country pursuits. Charles technically did not have to produce children but he was ego driven to have his own flesh and blood succeed him. Diana had the children for him then he ditched her like a peach pit. If this is indeed the Queen's mindset (being oh so joyous that her son is happy at last with the woman who helped break up his first marriage,) then she richly deserves homewrecking Camilla as her daughter in law. Charles should have been given a choice being happy with Camilla or being happy on the throne. Chuck would have chosen the throne in a heartbeat. The man could not even tell Camilla Shand to wait for him all those years ago when he went to sea but it was OK to bed her after she married somebody else.
Hmmm... "the Queens mindset"
In my thoughts I look to the examples that other royals set for the Queen in her growing up years and well into the 1970s. Most British royal men (uncles, cousins, husbands of her girlfriends, etc.) had mistresses. When I read bits of history (not just royal family history) it seemed like mistresses were common, not unexpected. Perhaps in the era of 1900-1970s the aristocracy was still arranging marriages to fit peerage, aristocracy and money needs and less concerned about "love"? And it was acceptable to have a mistress as long as the mistress played by the rules of discretion & silence.
Camilla didn't follow the rules of other royal mistresses. Charles did not curb Camilla's behavior. In terms of the Queen's mindset I suspect the Queen was confused & flummoxed as to what to do - both publicly and within the privacy of the palace walls..... If there is an invisible wall between the Queen & Camilla I wonder if it has to do with this?
Of course, Not all British royal men had mistresses. The Queen's father and granddad did not. And the percentage of those who have mistresses is not definitively known.
And you are right Camilla did not play by the rules. Mistresses were supposed to be respectful of the wives not try to usurp their places nor badmouth them to the royal husbands. The Queen IMO was horrified at Camilla and Charles behavior--she and Philip in letters that came into public domain expressed sympathy to Diana and were surprised that Charles could prefer Camilla. The situation got a lot worse and finally the Queen forced the divorce. But now she is stuck with Camilla--her son is spoiled and self centered and even lashed out at his mother via his authorized biography. He is high maintenance and rather than have tensions the Queen decided to make the best of a bad thing. I don't think she is so hung up on making Charles 'happy" just wants to avoid listening to his whingeing and his tantrums. She and her mother did not like unpleasant situations. Her mother did indicate that she didn't want Charles marrying Camilla in her lifetime and Charles did wait. I think the Queen tolerates Camilla but it is not a big lovefest. I think she and Will and Harry know how temperamental Charles in and preferred tolerating Camilla to watching Charles sulk and make scenes.
Perfectly said Sandy. As for grudges She had to swallow having Martin MC Guinness at her table for the sake of relations with Ireland publicly she as Queen was probably seething at the government for organizing this state visit. That said he is not a permanent member of her family that caused so much trouble and sorrow he went back to Ireland not a royal residence with an HRH
Quote from: sandy on April 22, 2014, 06:18:16 PM
Of course, Not all British royal men had mistresses. The Queen's father and granddad did not. And the percentage of those who have mistresses is not definitively known.
Agreed - perfectly said Sandy. I have a question - I'd like your opinion. I don't know the answer to this question as I do not have a firm grip on british royal history.
Here goes:
Somewhere it is quoted that Prince Charles said he did not want to be the first Prince of Wales who did not have a mistress.
The Queen's uncle Edward womanized w/o regard to how it affected the BRF privately or publicly.
If Prince Charles said he didn't want to be the 1st, and Edward was quite the womanizer (where did he 'learn' his womanizing from) I wonder if in fact the Queen's grandfather also had a mistress??
My theory above is full of holes and probably grossly outside of the true facts of history. If you have a better grip on the history I'd be interested in what you think.
To all posters out there: although I am responding directly to Sandy I am interested in what you think as well.
DaFluffs
Charles was encouraged by his great Uncle Mountbatten to sow wild oats and marry a suitable girl. Charles followed his advice and later, there is a letter that came out in the public domain where Mountbatten scolded Charles for getting to be like his Great Uncle Edward (enjoying sowing wild oats too much).
Edward fell for a married woman around the time of WW I, Freda Dudley Ward and decided that he could not be a good husband to a "suitable girl" since he preferred Freda. He could not marry Freda if she got a divorce (she was married but estranged from her husband at the time she got involved with the Prince). Then he had other liaisons with married women and met Wallis whom he decided was the one for him and he never looked back. A problem for Edward was that he came of age about the time other royal houses were fighting against Great Britain and some were eventually deposed i (e.g. Russia, Germany). He could have married a Grand Duchess or the Kaiser's daughter if the war had not broken out before he had a chance to meet Freda. Under normal conditions this sort of marriage would have been arranged or planned for him. Mountbatten had fallen in love with one of the ill-fated Grand Duchesses (daughter of Nicholas II) before WW I and kept her picture until the day he died.
George V did not have a mistress he was devoted to and in love with Mary. George VI did have a time that he sowed wild oats before he became Duke of York and courted and married Lady Elizabeth. He was involved with a married woman estranged from her husband. George V had a talk with his son and advised that he drop the married woman. George VI did so he was able to marry Lady Elizabeth with no "third parties" interfering.
Why oh why does this all have to be about Diana and the past?
Diana died in 1997-a very long time ago.Camilla has been de facto Princess of Wales for 9 years and is donig a good job.The Queen I am sure feels comfortable around her.
Diana is the mother of William and Harry and grandmother of George. Her dying in 1997 does not erase that fact. Her memory won't go away. Camilla did not have royal children and she married Charles when William and Harry were grown up.
It has everything to do with the past--the writer of the article talks about Diana so she is relevant to the discussion and is not to be airbrushed.
The Queen will be cordial to Camilla but I doubt it's a love fest.
Maybe not-but I suspect that she certainly wasn't having a love fest with Diana!
In any event it doesn't matter-the brand is fixed now-The Queen, Philip, then Charles and Camillla and the Cambridges and Harry.
There is no scaled down monarchy yet since Charles is not King. The Queen has her own "brand" not Charles. And unless Charles is in dreamland, he most likely will need more relatives to help out with royal work. Camilla is not exactly a ball of fire.
William and Harry did not emerge from Charles head and they are not Camilla's kids. They are still Diana's and she is part of the brand since the boys carry half her DNA. And George is her grandson. That's something Camilla can never have. The Queen was protective of Diana at first and she matter what is the mother of the future King and Prince Harry. Philip wrote to Diana in a letter now in the public domain that he and the Queen could not understand how Charles could prefer Camilla.
Diana will never be airbrushed and she is indeed still very much a "brand."
Well said sandy. Nicely put, factual, and really, without biasiam.
Quote from: Felicia on April 23, 2014, 02:12:18 PM
Maybe not-but I suspect that she certainly wasn't having a love fest with Diana!
In any event it doesn't matter-the brand is fixed now-The Queen, Philip, then Charles and Camillla and the Cambridges and Harry.
The brand is fixed relating to Queen Victoria. The Queen is the great great granddaughter of Queen Victoria through Edward VII with Phillip being a great great grandson through Queen Victoria daughter and Edward VII 's sister Princess Alice by the Hesse and Rhine. Charles by these lines as well as William and Harry are the brand Camilla does not even enter the equation as she is not their mother. The only brand that matters is the royal blood and to be honest Diana Princess of Wales also had royal blood something Camilla never possessed.
Quote from: sandy on April 23, 2014, 01:38:46 PM
Diana is the mother of William and Harry and grandmother of George. Her dying in 1997 does not erase that fact. Her memory won't go away. Camilla did not have royal children and she married Charles when William and Harry were grown up.
It has everything to do with the past--the writer of the article talks about Diana so she is relevant to the discussion and is not to be airbrushed.
The Queen will be cordial to Camilla but I doubt it's a love fest.
She has her own section on this forum ...
Camilla is Charles' wife, and the Queen's daughter-in-law. The fact that she did not give birth to Charles' children, which we all know, doesn't enter into this particular equation.
Cindy
Re the "royal blood"-both Camilla and Diana are descended from Charles II by various mistresses
And there is more than a chance that via Alice Keppel Camilla actually has more recent Royal blood from Edward VII
Not that I think it makes an iota of difference!
Re the "Brand"-in the next reign Camilla will be de facto Queen Consort-of course she is part of the brand!
Nobody ever proved or disproved that Camilla is descended from Edward VII. So it is not a fact. No DNA testing was done it is not known if her grandmother was Edward's "love child."
The thing is Diana not Camilla got chosen to be the mother of the royal children and she is part of the brand and always will be through William and Harry and their descendants. That's something Camilla can never have. Diana's memory is not going to be usurped by Camilla.
Diana was from an old established family and had a title and had more distinguished ancestry than Camilla had. Charles chose her not Camilla to marry and have his children.
Diana is part of the brand--since Charles did not have the kids all by himself and they are not Camilla's children.
The royal family are not a cereal or product they are an institution not a "Brand." That diminishes them IMO. But that said Diana will be always part of the brand and there is nothing that can be done about it.
Double post auto-merged: April 24, 2014, 02:58:46 PM
Quote from: cinrit on April 24, 2014, 10:03:57 AM
Camilla is Charles' wife, and the Queen's daughter-in-law. The fact that she did not give birth to Charles' children, which we all know, doesn't enter into this particular equation.
Cindy
Of course it does Cindy. Some are wanting to airbrush Diana out. It is not possible since she not Camilla is the mother of William and Harry. Why not read my posts and see why Diana was brought into it.
Double post auto-merged: April 24, 2014, 02:59:30 PM
Quote from: Eri on April 24, 2014, 07:40:49 AM
Quote from: sandy on April 23, 2014, 01:38:46 PM
Diana is the mother of William and Harry and grandmother of George. Her dying in 1997 does not erase that fact. Her memory won't go away. Camilla did not have royal children and she married Charles when William and Harry were grown up.
It has everything to do with the past--the writer of the article talks about Diana so she is relevant to the discussion and is not to be airbrushed.
The Queen will be cordial to Camilla but I doubt it's a love fest.
She has her own section on this forum ...
Eri am I not allowed to answer somebody who wants to airbrush out Diana. How come you don't go after her. Oh it's because I defend Diana not slam her.
Double post auto-merged: April 24, 2014, 03:02:49 PM
Quote from: Trudie on April 24, 2014, 02:00:57 AM
Quote from: Felicia on April 23, 2014, 02:12:18 PM
Maybe not-but I suspect that she certainly wasn't having a love fest with Diana!
In any event it doesn't matter-the brand is fixed now-The Queen, Philip, then Charles and Camillla and the Cambridges and Harry.
The brand is fixed relating to Queen Victoria. The Queen is the great great granddaughter of Queen Victoria through Edward VII with Phillip being a great great grandson through Queen Victoria daughter and Edward VII 's sister Princess Alice by the Hesse and Rhine. Charles by these lines as well as William and Harry are the brand Camilla does not even enter the equation as she is not their mother. The only brand that matters is the royal blood and to be honest Diana Princess of Wales also had royal blood something Camilla never possessed.
I totally agree.
Quote from: Felicia on April 23, 2014, 10:35:12 AM
Why oh why does this all have to be about Diana and the past?
Diana died in 1997-a very long time ago.Camilla has been de facto Princess of Wales for 9 years and is donig a good job.The Queen I am sure feels comfortable around her.
I have to agree Felicia. :) IMHO it would be better to go back on topic.
Back to topic: I am not so sure the Queen feels all that comfortable with Camilla much less that she is her "favorite" daughter in law.. One part of the thread though is that it is not a fact that Camilla is related to Edward VII. Some biographer wrote she could be descended from Alice Keppel and a banker that she had an affair with not the King.
Thank you for going back on topic.
I never said it was a fact that Camilla was descended from Edward VII-I said there was a chance that she was
She and Diana do however both appear to descend from Charles II-where you claimed that only Diana had Royal descent
I did not say that. I said she came from an old and distinguished family the Spencers-- descended from John and Sarah Churchill, she is related to Winston Churchill, and she has more Stuart Lines of descent than Camilla has. Diana's father was also an Earl.
You said "more than a chance" that Camilla was descended from Edward VII. There is speculation and no proof and Alice Keppel had several liaisons not just the one with Edward and this is a fact.
Sorry Sandy you are right-it was Trudie that said Camilla had no royal blood
Re the Edward VII connection-yes pure speculation no proof -but still a possibility.
Quote from: Felicia on April 24, 2014, 04:31:57 PM
Sorry Sandy you are right-it was Trudie that said Camilla had no royal blood
Re the Edward VII connection-yes pure speculation no proof -but still a possibility.
Yes it was me and Diana does possess more royal blood then Camilla as I believe her lineage goes back even further I misstated that here but in actuality from William on it will also be Spencer blood running through the BRF not Camilla's so really what is your Point? Her title is just that a title just words it does not make up the people or their DNA. As for Camilla being a favorite It is well documented how The Queen feels about Sophie.
Quote from: sandy on April 23, 2014, 02:42:12 PM
There is no scaled down monarchy yet since Charles is not King. The Queen has her own "brand" not Charles. And unless Charles is in dreamland, he most likely will need more relatives to help out with royal work. Camilla is not exactly a ball of fire.
William and Harry did not emerge from Charles head and they are not Camilla's kids. They are still Diana's and she is part of the brand since the boys carry half her DNA. And George is her grandson. That's something Camilla can never have. The Queen was protective of Diana at first and she matter what is the mother of the future King and Prince Harry. Philip wrote to Diana in a letter now in the public domain that he and the Queen could not understand how Charles could prefer Camilla.
Diana will never be airbrushed and she is indeed still very much a "brand."
I'm agreed with you
Well put sandy.
Still another Camilla thread hijacked by the Diana fanatics.
^ :nod: ...
Quote from: Queen Camilla on April 25, 2014, 02:42:17 AM
Still another Camilla thread hijacked by the Diana fanatics.
It's not hijacking though when the bashing of Diana takes place. I never see any complaints about that by some.