Camilla 'Broke Prince Charles's Heart' and He Begged Her to Call off Her First Wedding, New Book Claims
New Biography of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall on Her Affair with Prince Charles (http://people.com/royals/camilla-duchess-of-cornwall-affair-prince-charles-princess-diana/)
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 01:05:17 AM
Camilla's side of the story: Her love affair with Prince Charles rocked the monarchy. Now friends reveal he begged her to call off her wedding, wept the night before he married Diana - and how she was convinced to go back to him 'to preserve his sanity'
Camilla's side of the story revealed in explosive new book | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4634144/Camilla-s-story-revealed-explosive-new-book.html)
How interesting that this book by guess who, Penny Junor, comes out on June 29th only a few weeks before the 20th anniversary of Diana's death and the two documentaries on her death and funeral in which her sons speak about it. Interesting and calculated, especially as it is being serialised in the Daily Fail.
This also makes clear what the feeler article in the press a little while ago about Camilla being a prisoner in her own home, getting bad publicity and dealing with it etc etc was all about.
How great that Junor was given the task of airbrushing this romance, and the adultery that came from it, to the British public. She, of course, has had the full cooperation of Clarence House and Camilla and Charles's friends for this.
A nice present, some reading material for the Queen and Prince Philip on the summer hols at Balmoral. They can recall those great days of the War of the Wales's, which in a funny way seems to be developing in another form nowadays!
I don't relaly see how this is going to be any good for Camilla.
I've read some of the excerpt so far featured in the Daily Fail and Penny Junor quotes friends of Camilla's, so I think it's pretty clear that this book has been cleared by Clarence House. Where is Mark Bolland when needed!! :wink: I expect those working for Charles want some publicity for Camilla before the 20th anniversary of Diana's death with its resulting spotlight by the media. :hehe:
Whether this book will be good publicity for C depends I suppose on the public reaction to the serialisation in the DM and to a lesser extent its reviews and the responses of people who buy it. I intend to purchase it if it's on kindle, not because I'm a Camilla fan, I certainly am not, but I'm curious as to whether more details will be disclosed of the C and C relationship in the lead-up to Charles and Diana's engagement and afterwards. I suspect it will be a whitewash of Camilla considering the author, but I live in hope.
@ Curryong I agree another fairytale spun by Penny Junor I'm surprised it's title isn't Victim or Villain. Of course the publishing date is also two days before Diana's birthday such impeccable timing. :thumbsdown:
Well Penny Junor does not like Diana, that much is clear. People can like or dislike someone. You can't force her to write things that you like or agree with. The best thing is that if you do not like what you see, don't buy the book. Simples.
She is obsessed with not liking Diana. She's a known Charles adorer.
She is not making her books subjects look good no matter how she tries. Charles comes out like a blubbering baby.
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 12:02:01 PM
Quote from: Curryong on June 24, 2017, 07:20:11 AM
I've read some of the excerpt so far featured in the Daily Fail and Penny Junor quotes friends of Camilla's, so I think it's pretty clear that this book has been cleared by Clarence House. Where is Mark Bolland when needed!! :wink: I expect those working for Charles want some publicity for Camilla before the 20th anniversary of Diana's death with its resulting spotlight by the media. :hehe:
Whether this book will be good publicity for C depends I suppose on the public reaction to the serialisation in the DM and to a lesser extent its reviews and the responses of people who buy it. I intend to purchase it if it's on kindle, not because I'm a Camilla fan, I certainly am not, but I'm curious as to whether more details will be disclosed of the C and C relationship in the lead-up to Charles and Diana's engagement and afterwards. I suspect it will be a whitewash of Camilla considering the author, but I live in hope.
So much for Camilla being discreet. With her confessions to the Sun in the eighties, she never really was. The author appears to have a crush on Camilla in another book she called her "sexy" and "endearing."
QuoteI intend to purchase it if it's on kindle, not because I'm a Camilla fan, I certainly am not, but I'm curious as to whether more details will be disclosed of the C and C relationship in the lead-up to Charles and Diana's engagement and afterwards
You are a devoted royal history fan
@Curryong so I'm not surprised that you'd read it. :thumbsup: Please share your review when you can.
Intellectual curiosity does not mean that anyone supports the behavior of people who are being profiled in a book. Indeed I would expect that a history buff would want to see many different view points so that they can get an accurate picture of their subject. If one only reads books that chime with their way of thinking then they will never really learn anything new. It just becomes a circle of confirmatory bias. I applaud Curryong for reading and will be interested in her reviews. Perhaps she can post them here if it is convenient for her.
As I said, when I read one Junor book I read them all. I have read her books. I was disappointed in her Will and Harry books, she spent about 100 pages in each trashing Diana but I wanted to know more about Will and Harry! She has an agenda.
I applaud
@Curryong for reading the book, its wise to keep up on what the other side is doing as far as ms. Junor's works. I fear from what ive read so far, her attempt to smooth things out for Camilla will only paint her into the corner Diana painted herself in the mid 90s when she went after married people.
According to this supposed non fiction, Camilla is supposed to be greatly stung by the pain of adultery and seeing her spouse step out on her, and with people close to them no less, yet rather than try to be a good example of what not to do, she goes out and joins Andrew in a race to the bottom.
What married people? Carling denied an affair. Hoare neither confirmed or denied. How come it's not the "married people" going after Diana?
Camilla and APB had as one writer put it a "Sexual competition." This is a throwback to the novel of Evelyn Waugh "Vile Bodies." That set did the same stuff as the Highgrove set.
APB is the new Ernest Simpson.
I actually do like the turn of phrase used by
@Duch_Luver_4ever. It is a race to the bottom, literally and figuratively. Penny Junor can be a tad irritating with her simpering. Camilla is a mature and pragmatic woman. I think she can deal with an objective biography instead of this sentimental nonsense that reads like a public relations announcement. "Oh, I was so hurt by my husband that I accidentally fell and found myself in the Prince of Wales's bed. Oh...I did it all to save the marriage but it went wrong on me". There ought to be some quality control on royal biographers. Some of their output leaves a lot to be desired.
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 05:26:15 PM
@sandy, I have actually never read vile bodies. I will download the film if it is there on Monday and watch it. Sounds promising, if the title is anything to go by.
Oh please Camilla and Junor are friends. They have been seen socializing together. Apparently Camilla enjoys Junor's writing. Junor uses so many superlatives about Camilla in her books. Even if Charles begged her Camilla probably had ambitions for herself. If she canceled the wedding I think she would still be Charles' mistress not wife. I think she was biding her time. And Charles did not deprive himself of Camilla after she had APB's wedding ring on her finger.
"How come it's not the "married people" going after Diana?"
Simple explanation. Some people are insightful enough to know that no marriage really breaks down because of a third party a lone. Nobody can "steal" your husband if he does not want to be stolen. Mrs. Hoare is a mature woman in her responses and soon realized that it takes two to tangle. Unlike some I will not mention, she did not blame all her marital problems on a third party. She realized that her husband was wrong to consort with another woman and behaved with dignity in the aftermath. Had Diana taken the same approach, she might have received a very different response from the queen and royal family.
Mrs Hoare has the purse strings in the marriage. They are still together. They live private lives and have moved on.
Camilla based her "defense" of being with Charles on APB cheating, is that behaving with dignity? I think not. She did it all by herself. Camilla blamed Diana for it all and I doubt she'll ever accept responsibility. Charles' party line is that he was rescued from the "mad wife" by the mistress. How convenient. It seems Charles buddies always call Diana "mad" as their very weak defense since they have no qualifications in diagnosing anybody.
My point is it takes two to tango.
The business of the husband "not wanting to be stolen" is a bit simplistic. There can be husbands who have been with their wives for decades but have midlife crises and sneak around. That is not the wife's fault, it is the husband's fault because he wants to be young again so sneaks around on his spouse. I think blaming the wife is a cop out.
So in other words, Diana had to be a nun for the rest of her life while her husband got to cheat. And divorce was not easy. I find that rather biased in favor of the Prince.
Mrs. Hoare behaved with dignity. She never went on television to pour her heart out to all and sundry. She acknowledged that her husband was as much to blame for the affair as Diana. Of course he does have some credit for not stalking Diana with crank calls and is also not a hypocrite for deriding adultery when he himself was committing it.
I rather suspect that there were members of the royal family who were not happy about what Charles and Camilla was doing. People are bound to bond with a new wife, no matter how incompatible she is with the family. However, the fact that Diana started to attack Charles and institution in a very personal way turned the rest of the family against her. i understand princess Margaret was so incensed that she actually wrote a letter to Diana explaining why everyone felt she had let them down. The person that was ultimately supposed to be the matriarch of the family had now turned into a fifth columnist and had to be removed from the fold.
Diana was eventually exposed as a hypocrite and perpetual complainer about how her millionaire lifestyle was such a chore for her. Very different from Mrs. Hoare. Mrs. Hoare developed a strategy for dealing with her husband's infidelity and it seems to have worked for her. Diana not so much. She lashed out and tried to destroy Charles but ended up losing it all in the end. Not a good strategy IMO.
why would he "stalk Diana with crank calls" when he finished the affair?
No I don't think the RF were happy with the Charles and Cam affair, because it was dangerous and might lead to scandal...and the queen certainly is too religious to approve.. but they tolerated it, because it was clear that the C and Di marriage was a mess and they were bound to be leading separate lives.. because they hated beign together, after a time. They ddi not mind Diana having her own lover, if it kept her quiet and happy, but they expected her to be discreet..and while she was careful, with Hewitt HE wasn't..and there was a very good chance that he would out the affair.
And I don't think they had much sympathy with Di, after the first year or 2. They didn't see her as "poor Diana the cheated on wife" but as "stroppy miseralbe Diana" whom they suspected of talking ot the press, as time went on.
That is just it
@amabel. I was merely pointing out the logical inconsistency of those who try to blame Hoare for somehow inspiring Diana to make crank calls to his wife. He never did and I do not really criticize him as much as I criticize Diana on this one because she was the one who went to the press and complained about her adulterous husband then went on to do the same thing. Many Diana fans try so hard to blame everyone else but her for the bad decisions she made. That is what I was trying to highlight with that comment.
well yes it is pretty stupid of Di to complain that her husband (a) had a close friendshsp with Camilla which affected their marriage in its early days and (b) had a full blown affair with Camilla. and then go on and have a close friendship with the newly married WIll Carling that drove his wife to ask for a divorce.. and then went on to have an affair with the married Ol Hoare.
which is why I point out that whatever Camilla is criticised for doing, DIana had done much the same thing.
Whoever initiated the Hoare affair, Diana was very attracted to him and they had an affair for some time. But when he went back to his wife, Di was the one who chased after him and clearly didn't want the affair to end. So she did not care that Diane H wanted her husband back home..
if she didn't want an affair with him even if he had chased her ardently.. all she ahd to do was say no.
Well once again, Diana did not have lovers watching her get married. Charles had two watching him get married including Camilla. Camilla was involved in the marriage from the get go. The Carlings had other issues and Julia did not name Diana as co-respondent in any divorce suit. Junor even thinks there was no affair. Carling denied an affair. Hoare neither confirmed or denied a physical affair. What is "some time"? I don't think Diana and Hoare lasted beyond 1994. She met Khan in 1995. Diana did not have to "chase" anybody she was a very attractive and iconic woman. It's like the men that pursued Jackie O. She did not chase them. All Hoare had to do was say no and resist any impulse to get involved with Diana. WHy is the woman always blamed? It is totally different than the Camilla scenario. Charles had dumped DIana after she had the heir and spare. Camilla systematically worked to undermine Diana.
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 07:27:38 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 24, 2017, 06:26:31 PM
That is just it @amabel. I was merely pointing out the logical inconsistency of those who try to blame Hoare for somehow inspiring Diana to make crank calls to his wife. He never did and I do not really criticize him as much as I criticize Diana on this one because she was the one who went to the press and complained about her adulterous husband then went on to do the same thing. Many Diana fans try so hard to blame everyone else but her for the bad decisions she made. That is what I was trying to highlight with that comment.
So why shouldn't Hoare be blamed? He had a track record of extra-curricular activities and no passive object. Diana had every right to complain about Camilla. She was spot on about Camilla. Camilla cries wolf now about how her husband APB "caused her" to sleep with Charles. Yet she gets a free pass.
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 07:29:16 PM
Quote from: amabel on June 24, 2017, 06:16:28 PM
why would he "stalk Diana with crank calls" when he finished the affair?
No I don't think the RF were happy with the Charles and Cam affair, because it was dangerous and might lead to scandal...and the queen certainly is too religious to approve.. but they tolerated it, because it was clear that the C and Di marriage was a mess and they were bound to be leading separate lives.. because they hated beign together, after a time. They ddi not mind Diana having her own lover, if it kept her quiet and happy, but they expected her to be discreet..and while she was careful, with Hewitt HE wasn't..and there was a very good chance that he would out the affair.
And I don't think they had much sympathy with Di, after the first year or 2. They didn't see her as "poor Diana the cheated on wife" but as "stroppy miseralbe Diana" whom they suspected of talking ot the press, as time went on.
What happened between Hoare and Diana is known only to them. He's going to keep quiet. She's dead.
The Queen tolerating Camilla sleeping with Charles was downright hypocritical.
Of course they would not sympathize with Diana, Darling Charles was born into that family. Blood is thicker than water.
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 07:32:19 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 24, 2017, 06:08:43 PM
Mrs. Hoare behaved with dignity. She never went on television to pour her heart out to all and sundry. She acknowledged that her husband was as much to blame for the affair as Diana. Of course he does have some credit for not stalking Diana with crank calls and is also not a hypocrite for deriding adultery when he himself was committing it.
I rather suspect that there were members of the royal family who were not happy about what Charles and Camilla was doing. People are bound to bond with a new wife, no matter how incompatible she is with the family. However, the fact that Diana started to attack Charles and institution in a very personal way turned the rest of the family against her. i understand princess Margaret was so incensed that she actually wrote a letter to Diana explaining why everyone felt she had let them down. The person that was ultimately supposed to be the matriarch of the family had now turned into a fifth columnist and had to be removed from the fold.
Diana was eventually exposed as a hypocrite and perpetual complainer about how her millionaire lifestyle was such a chore for her. Very different from Mrs. Hoare. Mrs. Hoare developed a strategy for dealing with her husband's infidelity and it seems to have worked for her. Diana not so much. She lashed out and tried to destroy Charles but ended up losing it all in the end. Not a good strategy IMO.
You think she was exposed as a hypocrite. She had every right to complain. She went into the marriage in good faith> Charles did not.
How do you know what Mrs Hoare "acknowledged?" She never said anything and you say she did not so how do you know what she thought?
Charles attacked Diana as you put it. He went to the honeymoon wearing cufflinks from the Mistress. He made fun of and put down Diana. He was and is no saint.
Too bad Camilla did not respond to his boo hooing, left APB and Diana would have been spared. Though I rather suspect he still would have kept her as the nanny mistress and found the suitable girl to marry.
Quotewhich is why I point out that whatever Camilla is criticised for doing, DIana had done much the same thing
And Charles and Andrew PB and Oliver Horare etc...There was quite a bit of bed hopping going on during those years. :wacko:
The bed hopping of C and C and A were going on for years. Camilla had to take time off from Charles to have babies with APB. But Charles was big baby himself. Hoare never confirmed or denied any "bed hopping" with Diana. Camilla was said to have had a lot of experience already before she met Charles. The three of them C and C and APB were never much to look at
Quote from: amabel on June 24, 2017, 06:38:34 PM
well yes it is pretty stupid of Di to complain that her husband (a) had a close friendshsp with Camilla which affected their marriage in its early days and (b) had a full blown affair with Camilla. and then go on and have a close friendship with the newly married WIll Carling that drove his wife to ask for a divorce.. and then went on to have an affair with the married Ol Hoare.
which is why I point out that whatever Camilla is criticised for doing, DIana had done much the same thing.
Whoever initiated the Hoare affair, Diana was very attracted to him and they had an affair for some time. But when he went back to his wife, Di was the one who chased after him and clearly didn't want the affair to end. So she did not care that Diane H wanted her husband back home..
if she didn't want an affair with him even if he had chased her ardently.. all she ahd to do was say no.
Not Exactly the same thing. If and it has never been proven that Carling and Diana had an affair and to be honest not one of Diana's former employees even confirmed it like Carling even after her death, Diana never tried to befriend the wife unlike Camilla. As for Hoare the only reference to that came from Wharfe not even Burrell acknowledged that.
Quote from: sandy on June 24, 2017, 10:08:40 PM
The bed hopping of C and C and A were going on for years. Camilla had to take time off from Charles to have babies with APB. But Charles was big baby himself. Hoare never confirmed or denied any "bed hopping" with Diana. Camilla was said to have had a lot of experience already before she met Charles. The three of them C and C and APB were never much to look at
Regarding Horare and Diana we'll have to agree to disagree
@sandy. Charles, Diana, Camilla, and Andrew PB were all committing adultery with a variety of lovers during those years.
It is extraordinary how selective some people are in their beliefs. Absolutely incredible. Not even a police report will convince them that Diana was having an inappropriate relationship with a married man. In some cases I have seen people here deny the truth in Diana's own words caught on record and even on camera. They say it is not true what she is saying. Not true. I was amused when someone suggested that Diana really wanted to say she wanted a divorce when she said she did not want a divorce or that she did not really mean that she threw herself down the stairs when pregnant, despite saying that very same thing on tape and in writing. Absolutely incredible.
The married man has kept his mouth shut for over twenty years. He did not arrest Diana or anything like that. Diana had no criminal record. Diana was not caught on camera calling Hoare. that seems to be a myth. Charles also said he never wanted to marry again (and he said this publicly). Absolutely incredible.
Whatever happened on the stairs Diana did not have any serious injuries so it was not a serious fall.
what are you talkig about Sandy. Of course Hoare did not "arrest Diana".. but he could have pressed charges. he chose not to do so, because he didn't want the embarrassment of his affair becoming publicly confirmed and her being charged.
I don't know what you men by this thing you've brought up about Diana being caught on camera. No she wasn't caught on camera, but the police traced the calls and it is obvious that it was her.
And she DID say on tape that she "threw herself down some stairs BEARING In mind that she was carrying a child"... so clarly she did not think that there was anything wrong with saying that she had tried to hurt or kill herself and her baby, to scare Charles.
But he did not. So why is this continually dredged up? The man was no saint. He and his wife are still together though and wisely he has kept his mouth shut. He pursued her and what business did HE have doing that. He had kept a mistress before she saw Diana. I think the man knew enough not to take the moral high ground.
If Diana wanted to kill herself she would have done so. She was never on "suicide" watch. she got bruised from falling down a few steps not the entire staircase.
In all honesty all of the battles of the War of the Wales are "continually dredged up" on various royal forums, the DM comment section etc.. Also the police have had the technology to trace calls for decades now.
The Horare family chose not to press charges in the end, but the information as to who was making some of the nuisance calls that they were receiving was made public. That was likely enough to curb the behavior from those involved.
Quote from: sandy on June 25, 2017, 11:36:56 AM
But he did not. So why is this continually dredged up? The man was no saint. He and his wife are still together though and wisely he has kept his mouth shut. He pursued her and what business did HE have doing that. He had kept a mistress before she saw Diana. I think the man knew enough not to take the moral high ground.
If Diana wanted to kill herself she would have done so. She was never on "suicide" watch. she got bruised from falling down a few steps not the entire staircase.
and can you not see the discrepancy between what Diana SAID happened..and what actually did happen
and again, the fact that Hoare pursued Diana does not mean that she had to say yes to him. Millions of women have men making a pass at thtem. if they don't want an affair, they say No...
Double post auto-merged: June 25, 2017, 02:52:04 PM
Quote from: TLLK on June 25, 2017, 02:05:23 PM
The Horare family chose not to press charges in the end, but the information as to who was making some of the nuisance calls that they were receiving was made public. That was likely enough to curb the behavior from those involved.
of course they were from Diana. IIRC the police suggested that Hoare speak to the "silent caller"...
Prince Charles wept before wedding to Diana after realising mistake, claims shock new book
Prince Charles wept before wedding to Diana after realising mistake, claims shock new book | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/821191/Prince-Charles-Princess-Diana-wedding-mistake-book)
Quote from: TLLK on June 25, 2017, 02:05:23 PM
In all honesty all of the battles of the War of the Wales are "continually dredged up" on various royal forums, the DM comment section etc.. Also the police have had the technology to trace calls for decades now.
The Horare family chose not to press charges in the end, but the information as to who was making some of the nuisance calls that they were receiving was made public. That was likely enough to curb the behavior from those involved.
The Hoare Family would not have pressed charges since HOare would have had to air his own dirty linen in the process.
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 12:10:24 AM
Quote from: amabel on June 25, 2017, 02:50:20 PM
Quote from: sandy on June 25, 2017, 11:36:56 AM
But he did not. So why is this continually dredged up? The man was no saint. He and his wife are still together though and wisely he has kept his mouth shut. He pursued her and what business did HE have doing that. He had kept a mistress before she saw Diana. I think the man knew enough not to take the moral high ground.
If Diana wanted to kill herself she would have done so. She was never on "suicide" watch. she got bruised from falling down a few steps not the entire staircase.
and can you not see the discrepancy between what Diana SAID happened..and what actually did happen
and again, the fact that Hoare pursued Diana does not mean that she had to say yes to him. Millions of women have men making a pass at thtem. if they don't want an affair, they say No...
Double post auto-merged: June 25, 2017, 02:52:04 PM
Quote from: TLLK on June 25, 2017, 02:05:23 PM
The Horare family chose not to press charges in the end, but the information as to who was making some of the nuisance calls that they were receiving was made public. That was likely enough to curb the behavior from those involved.
of course they were from Diana. IIRC the police suggested that Hoare speak to the "silent caller"...
As I said if she had wanted to commit suicide, she would have.
Hoare would not have dared to press charges and air his own dirty linen. He'd have to explain why he was calling the PRincess of Wales and going to her place at KP.
Hoare could have stayed faithful to his wife and not gotten himself involved with the mistress before he started seeing Diana. And he could have not encouraged DIana.
In all honesty, I can understand why Diana completely lost it. She had these expectations of a big romance and later was to learn that her husband did not want to even get married to her at all, was crying before the wedding about his mistake in proposing and had promised his eternal dying love to another woman. That can be demoralizing especially if you have been told you were drop dead gorgeous by everyone. That marriage was a disaster that turned into a tragedy.
HE did not want to get married to her at all? Then why on earth did he ask her out, propose to her, and marry her? He must be a weirdo. If Charles felt so strongly about it, he could have stopped seeing Diana at any time. He would have done her a favor if he had been honest. Diana was only 19. Charles own ineptness and being so wishy washy was the problem. Charles sounds like a big baby.
Marriage made in hell that actually harmed everyone involved including the institution of monarchy. Even the royal servants were caught up in the drama. Must have been a nightmare to live in that household. I bet the queen bitterly regrets not paying attention to all the clues about the forthcoming drama when they were all there. It is perplexing why Charles never broke it off when the problems started (and they did start before the actual marriage). Ostriching is the Windsor disease and they have suffered for it.
Quote
The Hoare Family would not have pressed charges since HOare would have had to air his own dirty linen in the process.
They could have chosen to press charges if they wanted to do so. Other than admitting to a romantic liaison with someone other than his/her spouse, there is no law that would have prevented them from doing so. I don't think that "dirty linen" would have been an issue for Oliver and Diane Horare if they decided to have their harasser(s) prosecuted. :shrug:
The Hoare's were the victims of a stalking campaign. It is a testament to the tunnel vision that surrounds all things Diana that somehow a critique of Diana's behavior is turned into a trial of the Hoare's. Oliver Hoare had an affair but that did not give Diana the right to stalk his wife and make those weird calls. No right at all. It is an outrage to say that since Hoare cheated or had other girlfriends; the family had to put up with Diana's antics of calling their family home obsessively.
It was Diana who made a fuss when her husband committed adultery before doing exactly the same. No amount of excuse-making is going to wipe that little fact away. We keep referring to it in the very same way that some Diana fans keep repeating all the transgressions that Camilla committed 20 years ago. It is some Diana fans and Diana herself who were on the high horse of condemning adultery until Diana did it herself, with a married man no less.
Hoare is no victim. Not by a long shot. WHy was he pursuing a married woman? You keep repeating the same phone call stuff. Hoare never went on about it as much as you do probably. DIana did not break up the HOares marriage.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 26, 2017, 02:17:57 AM
Marriage made in hell that actually harmed everyone involved including the institution of monarchy. Even the royal servants were caught up in the drama. Must have been a nightmare to live in that household. I bet the queen bitterly regrets not paying attention to all the clues about the forthcoming drama when they were all there. It is perplexing why Charles never broke it off when the problems started (and they did start before the actual marriage). Ostriching is the Windsor disease and they have suffered for it.
Charles wanted heirs. The Queen avoided the Camilla issue for years. She knew he was sleeping with her years before Diana. Charles was the problem.
No. The Hoare family were victims of stalking and silent phone calls made by Diana. It became so bad that the police had to be called in. No amount of attacks on Hoare, his family, messenger or the message is going to change that fact. A very public victim of adultery had been committing adultery and was also harassing another woman's family. I keep repeating that for the exact reason that Diana fans keep repeating Charles and Camilla's transgressions. And, I will keep bringing up that fact to counter the narrative that the villains are everybody but Diana.
Also if Charles was the problem, why did Diana want to remain married to him? Why did she not reject his proposals? Why did she not ask for a divorce earlier on? Why did she insist that she loved him despite doing everything her power to paint him as the devil incarnate? Whenever any outsider starts acting as investigator, judge, jury and executioner of people's private lives; they end up making indefensible statements. If Charles was the problem, Diana would have been the happiest person on earth after her divorce but she clearly wasn't. Allegedly she said it was the saddest day of her life...why? She was finally free of this unfeeling monster she had told us about?
In any case if Charles is a bad person, a problem; it is only right that he is with Camilla who appreciates him with all his alleged numerous faults. Diana never appreciated him. From the word go she was accumulating grievances against him. Perhaps it was all for the best that they divorced. It would have been better if they had never met or married at all.
Victims of what? The man had no business playing victim. I think his wife gave him a piece of her mind. What attacks on his family? He caused the mess by having a roving eye. Wharfe and Jephson reported that he pursued Diana.
Diana thought Charles married her for love. Why did Charles propose so DIana would have nothing to reject? If he did not propose then she could not accept or reject now could she? Why is she blamed for accepting and he not for asking? A breakup of a marriage is not getting one's nails done or a day at the spa. It is a big life changing event. No matter what the marriage was like.
Camilla is a big opportunist and a phony IMO. He deserves someone like her. DIana wanted to appreciate him but he wanted her as the wife and mother and keep Camilla on as his mistress. I wonder what Camilla thought when Charles said Kanga was the only woman who understood him. I think Charles would have liked a harem.
Hoare has never played a victim. He was a victim of stalking, although he did make a mistake by getting involved with Diana at all. His wife and family did not deserve to be stalked by Diana, no matter how much some Diana fans may want to justify her actions. The silent calls were weird and uncalled for. The man had broken up with her and she might have had the sense to just let him be instead of trying to contact him. Like I said; no amount of attacking Hoare or his family is going to change that fact. I am certainly not going to stop bringing up the issue as long as C&C's evil transgressions are brought up. It adds balance to the story.
Yes Charles and Camilla deserve one another. Their personalities complement one another and they are not in the business of harming one another in the press. They are now married for over 10 years and I think it is for the best. Neither of them have complained about the marriage and they are happy with their arrangement. It has very little to do with people outside their immediate family and friends.
Hoare was no victim. Diana should have avoided him. Diana was calling HIM not his family. He pursued Diana it was not one sided. The man stepped out on his wife earlier he is not a victim. Diana would have had the goods on him if he had ever tried to press charges.
I don't mean Charles and Camilla deserve each other in a good way. Both are self centered and self indulgent. I doubt Camilla would have given him the time of day if he was not the Prince of Wales. And if DIana moved on during the courtship, Charles still would not have married Camilla. Too bad he did not marry Anna Wallace, she would have given Camilla some competition. Why would Camilla complain? She's on the gravy train and all her work paid off. I think Charles real great love is himself. And I think the only person he really trusts is Fawcett.
I read that Charles wanted Anna back but she did not answer his calls or pleas. Charles is no prize
er yes it was one sided. Hoare had ended the affair, gone back to his wife and DIana pursued him.
I have now ordered the Junor book on Kindle and so await the 29th when it will be released! I've skimmed over the serialisation of the book in the DM, and while there is a lot of rehash, there appears to be SOME even handedness in that Junor criticises Charles for his hamfistedness during the engagement to Diana. She states that he was insensitive to Diana's concerns, and didn't tell her the truth about Camilla, though she asked, until after the engagement. She asked whether he loved Camilla and according to Junor never got a clear answer. She quotes a friend of Charles who says that he is not subjective when it comes to the emotions as he does not read fiction, only histories and essays, with Shakespeare being his only foray into imaginative territory.
Newfound respect for
@Curryong. You are true royal history buff :hi: :thumbsup:
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 01:10:29 PM
Whatever...whether good or bad, Charles and Camilla deserve one another. If he is no prize then I am puzzled as to why Diana was fighting to be with him? Sour grapes come to mind. :no:
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 01:12:06 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 26, 2017, 01:07:54 PM
Newfound respect for @Curryong. You are true royal history buff :hi: :thumbsup:
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 01:10:29 PM
Whatever...whether good or bad, Charles and Camilla deserve one another. If he is no prize then I am puzzled as to why Diana was fighting to be with him? Sour grapes come to mind. :no:
Plus that fawcett nonsense sounds a bit pathetic. If he is not into me, he must be gay...please :notamused: Wishing that Charles and Camilla are not happy will not make it so. It has the exact effect of wishing that Charles and Diana were meant for each other. It is all fantasy and projection.
DIana fell in love with him. She mistakenly thought the sudden interest meant he was falling in love with her. She was not cynical.
Charles can confide in Fawcett and that does not mean he is gay. Men can be friends and not jump in the sack with each other. I think they are close and it does not mean sexual.
Quote from: amabel on June 26, 2017, 11:44:53 AM
er yes it was one sided. Hoare had ended the affair, gone back to his wife and DIana pursued him.
He also moved out on his wife. Diana apparently did not leap right into his new home. So obviously she was not that 'obsessed'.
No it was not one sided. If it were Oliver would not have met up with Diana at KP and phoned her. There were plenty of witnesses to attest to that. YOu make it sound that she just ran after him the whole time. Not so.
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 02:33:37 PM
Quote from: Curryong on June 26, 2017, 12:45:03 PM
I have now ordered the Junor book on Kindle and so await the 29th when it will be released! I've skimmed over the serialisation of the book in the DM, and while there is a lot of rehash, there appears to be SOME even handedness in that Junor criticises Charles for his hamfistedness during the engagement to Diana. She states that he was insensitive to Diana's concerns, and didn't tell her the truth about Camilla, though she asked, until after the engagement. She asked whether he loved Camilla and according to Junor never got a clear answer. She quotes a friend of Charles who says that he is not subjective when it comes to the emotions as he does not read fiction, only histories and essays, with Shakespeare being his only foray into imaginative territory.
Junor has had to do that. But she is known to loathe Diana. I think that Charles loves himself. I think she appears to be sycophantic to CHarles but seems to have raised Camilla to sainthood. Blaming her first husband for the problems.
Interestingly in her book about Harry, she hinted she had something personal against Diana. So she is not unbiased in the least.
Quote from: Curryong on June 26, 2017, 12:45:03 PM
I have now ordered the Junor book on Kindle and so await the 29th when it will be released! I've skimmed over the serialisation of the book in the DM, and while there is a lot of rehash, there appears to be SOME even handedness in that Junor criticises Charles for his hamfistedness during the engagement to Diana. She states that he was insensitive to Diana's concerns, and didn't tell her the truth about Camilla, though she asked, until after the engagement. She asked whether he loved Camilla and according to Junor never got a clear answer. She quotes a friend of Charles who says that he is not subjective when it comes to the emotions as he does not read fiction, only histories and essays, with Shakespeare being his only foray into imaginative territory.
I read that same excerpt and guess what? there was a paragraph that was word for word what Lady Colin Campbell wrote in Diana in Private how Diana went after him single handedly. Again she put in word for word in her book Charles Victim or Villain regarding Diana having Borderline Personality Disorder. Seems old Penny cannot be bothered to be fair. It seems that if another author has trashed Diana why not put that in a book to make money I just wonder if Lady Colin is credited for providing the trash. Seems Penny can't be bothered to find new material.
Here you all go again.
Maybe I am just bored with the same subject being beaten to death with people omitting FACTS FACTS.
PC married LD because she was chosen by his inner circle which included Camilla. LD was selected at the top of the heap of desirable young ladies for him. PC WANTED to get married and NEEDED to get married to fulfill an important part of his duty of PofW, future KofE.
Heirs. His legacy. PAndrew was gaining in age and even PEward was even going to be gaining in age in the next 5-6 years.
How some echelons of society THEN got married is different from how Jane and John Doe date and get married.
Lovelove romantic love and timing of dating like W and K was just not all there was for PC and LD. They had some time and some love/romance, but not like modern times. Even though that was 1980-81, he was Heir , PofW and their timing was on the cusp on new change for the BRF. PAndrew and Sarah, different coupler. W and K decades later, totally different to have had that freedom.
PC could have loved her and he wanted her and LD really loved him .
They had lots of things in common.
Camilla PB was always there , always invited in PC and always in the shadows. TRUTH!! FACT!!
No marriage can stand a chance with another person in it. It is hard enough with the two people in it!!
I have posted before that I am sure many here have seen marriages go with a husband and wife and HER mother. Husband and wife and HIS mother.
All that about Hoare, Diana had lovers, Sweet Cammila, please people.
Curry and many of us here can allow ourselves to seek out information by other sides...others viewpoints, etc. Research. This is NOT that important of a subject.
I am thinking back to research, compare/contrast etc. , college years.
Junor's book. Oh boy.
The cause that she wants to make, Diana nuts. Camila a sweet , wounded dove. PC , a man caught between duty, family...
Junor defeats her purpose.
Her purpose and others is give Camila and Charles a good , softer light after all these years. It would be best to NOT have these books by Junor and the article TDM recently put out about Camilla.
It gives the opposite effect.
Junors ' books proves another very touchy subject the public knows some insight in. Little insight, but some.
This trash book by Junor and even any so-called new book by Morton is that it really digsdigs digs into PW and PH.
These give these adult men, DIANA's SONS, no comfort. No favors.
What we do know, very little is PW and PH LOVED their MOTHER and was very close to her and SHE was a GOOD MOTHER to them. A GOOD MOTHER cannot be replaced.
Although , PW is very close to "Mom and Dad" and he is not referring to PC and Camilla.
Carole IS the ONLY grandmother to DIANA's grandkids.
Marrying K, for W, K's close family and parents marriage had a lot to do with the type of woman K is and her family goals.
PH MIGHT marry MM and even though her parents are divorced, she seems ground as in she is older, mid 30's, his age group, and well, there is something there he likes within her spirit, person, goals.
PH has said some this things this week....ehhhh....gives the public a very small, yet poignant insight into his very personal life. It is not really comfortable to read that and like reading the "good stuff." PC and Camilla did not help that then boy cope with losing his MOTHER.
PC is going to be Kof England. Camilla, Queen Camilla.
QEII 91 and PP 96 have a good 8 and 4 years to live...at least.
Camilla and Charles will really be in their , what late 70's...I do not know, but they will have a good 10 years each, at least as K and Q of England.
The saddest part of Diana's life was that she died so young before finishing her work as in herself, her children.
To continue to trash a dead woman , to continue to hurt PW and PH and open the public wounds for them by the Penny Junors really gives the opposite effect.
'He Made a Huge Mistake': Prince Charles Was the 'Architect of the Disaster' of His Marriage to Diana
Prince Charles 'Architect of the Disaster' of His Marriage to Diana (http://people.com/royals/prince-charles-camilla-princess-diana-divorce-new-book/)
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 25, 2017, 12:41:40 AM
It is extraordinary how selective some people are in their beliefs. Absolutely incredible. Not even a police report will convince them that Diana was having an inappropriate relationship with a married man. In some cases I have seen people here deny the truth in Diana's own words caught on record and even on camera. They say it is not true what she is saying. Not true. I was amused when someone suggested that Diana really wanted to say she wanted a divorce when she said she did not want a divorce or that she did not really mean that she threw herself down the stairs when pregnant, despite saying that very same thing on tape and in writing. Absolutely incredible.
You have done the same thing. So good you see yourself here.
I always say, I do not know why you guys cannot stick to the FACTS FACTS!!
Ya'll , some of us here, allegiance to these people is just overboard.
This is like politics here in the US. Some people cannot see what is said to them by Trump. Facts can be twisted. Fox News can spin and sell any story. I LOVE IT!!!!
The story of this boy, Otto, last week, was totally void of facts. Loved it!! Very comical.
Very sad situation he found himself in and his death was brutal but the facts were omitted.
Event the facts of brutal death were omitted. CNN played the game and omitted facts.
Hoare. Was it an affair? No one because Hoare and wife never said. Diana , very immature, silly...to make crank calls. Talk about pure boredom. Sadsad. To be such a beautiful woman, a big life...actually, in her very real life off the world stage, she was a lonely girl.
Pardon me for repeating myself 100 xs here.
Falling down the steps. YES she did. How many steps? 2 steps. 32 steps and 2 flights in the castle? We none know. Sad sad.
The happiest time of her life was not even the happiest.
K had happy pregnancies with a doting husband, her family.
It is what it all was. It is too bad, too sad, unbelievable PD died so young with young children...her life not yet finished...so tragic.
'Diana cried, ranted and kicked the furniture for six hours': How Charles's new wife hit out when he left her alone and 'nearly knocked a flunky flying' when she found a bracelet for Camilla (before he ended the romance with a sad glance at their wedding)
Biography of Camilla lifts lid on affair with Charles | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4638024/Biography-Camilla-lifts-lid-affair-Charles.html)
So she kicked furniture for six hours. Sounds very implausible. Charles OTOH pulled out a sink at Highgrove (according to the HOusekeeper). I wondery if Penny Wenny mentioned that.
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 05:18:36 PM
I may save some money this week. I am not buying People if Junor is part of it.
Princess Diana kicked furniture after Charles bought Camilla bracelet days before wedding
Princess Diana kicked furniture after Charles bought Camilla bracelet days before wedding | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/821301/Diana-Princess-of-Wales-Royal-Camilla-Parker-Bowles-love-Prince-Charles-gave-bracelet)
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 05:22:57 PM
Prince Charles wept before wedding to Diana after realising mistake, claims shock new book
Prince Charles wept before wedding to Diana after realising mistake, claims shock new book | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/821191/Prince-Charles-Princess-Diana-wedding-mistake-book)
Ill have more to write later on it, but I was almost "kicking furniture" reading this, had to do it a few tries as id get so mad at work I had to close the tab. Petty Junor tried to serve her master but i think the timing and approach will only serve to put unwanted attention on Camilla during this summer of remembrance for Diana.
IDK why the RF isnt doing what they did last time, quietly take their lumps and work the media once the momentum had faded. This story would have been marginally better either a year ago or a year from now, timing is everything.
Just like the time Camilla wanted to walk into Diana's Memorial ten years ago. This year she lets poison Penny Wenny write "her side" of the story, consisting of playing victim.
Quote from: Curryong on June 26, 2017, 12:45:03 PM
I have now ordered the Junor book on Kindle and so await the 29th when it will be released! I've skimmed over the serialisation of the book in the DM, and while there is a lot of rehash, there appears to be SOME even handedness in that Junor criticises Charles for his hamfistedness during the engagement to Diana. She states that he was insensitive to Diana's concerns, and didn't tell her the truth about Camilla, though she asked, until after the engagement. She asked whether he loved Camilla and according to Junor never got a clear answer. She quotes a friend of Charles who says that he is not subjective when it comes to the emotions as he does not read fiction, only histories and essays, with Shakespeare being his only foray into imaginative territory.
what does that mean? not subjective about emotions because he doesn't read fiction? sorry but it doesn't make sense. Emotions ARE subjective.. what one person feels is never quite tehe same as what another person feels.
Perhaps he coudlnt' honestly answer Diana's questions about Camilla because he knew that he DID still love her.. but he did care for Di as well and was hoping that their marriage would work out and he would grow into a deeper love for her. and a lot of marriages DO work out that way. The initial sexual attraction or romance fades and you have to work on the bedrock feelings. and sometimes it comes right, other times it doesn't.
Yes I think that most people would say Charles is a bit slow with working things out, and he is bound to be spoiled by his high positon. but I think if he and Di had had more in common, if she had been a bit more mature a the time of the marriage and able to adapt, (and yes at the time, that was the way the RF worked that the outsider marrying in HAD to adapt more), I think that he and DI mgith have worked out.
but she was very young, she didn't like the Royal life when she got into it.. a nd Charles while he did try at first to make a few changes to fit in with her needs wasn't realy able to understand her.. and she couldnt' understand him.
Nobody should go into a marriage "hoping" to fall in love. Marriage involved love and commitment between the two parties.
Diana and Charles did not have Camilla in common. APB was amenable to the arrangement, DIana was not.
Diana adapted to royal life and was involved in it for 10 years pre separation. But had she lived she would have been involved in royal life because William her son will be King someday. Charles did not try very hard, calling Camilla up on his honeymoon and all that. What woman could be "understanding" about the husband having a "special" woman friend (with benefits)?
Expect Plenty of Diana and Prince Charles Gossip From Camilla?s Biography | Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/06/camilla-biography-prince-charles-princess-diana)
Vanity Fair's review of the biography.
I knew it! Junor is trying to portray Diana as the mad Bertha Rochester of Jane Eyre. How can it be proven Diana did this? Stephen Barry was Charles' valet and made no mention of the painting episode. And Conveniently he is dead. Junor can say anything about Diana since she's dead. I think Junor is worse than someone destroying a painting, she's destroying or trying to destroy a dead person's reputation. The book should be boycotted. Junor really is losing it. Maybe she watched that old Ida Lupino film, the Light that Failed, where she slashed Ronald COlman's paintings.
Charles pulled a sink out of the Highgrove bathroom but I doubt that will be mentioned by Junor
Well Junor is no worse than Julie Burchill or Anthony Holden. There is spite, mischaracterization and lies on both sides. It is sad that some people are fixated on hating people who really have nothing to do with them. Really pathetic in my view. Junor has not ordered Diana fans to read the book. Boycott by all means, it is your right and privilege. If she was not getting sales, she would shut shop; So go on...vote with your wallet. I hear some even send her hate mail, nice Christian people that they are (who hate adultery in all its forms apart from when it is committed by Diana).
Also remember, that some people are interested in seeing more than one side of the story so they will read the book and make their own minds about it. Why panic about a book? If it is without any credibility, it will fall flat on its feet. If not, then people will get a wider perspective on the issue (for those who are still interested after the event). Last week we had Morton, now we have Junor. You choose who to believe and who to ignore. The world will not fall in because of your choice. Unnecessary and uncalled for drama, drama, drama...the whole story of the Waleses tragedy with all and sundry sticking their oars in.
Burchill never accused Charles of shredding Diana's things or anything like that. But of course Charles is still alive.
I see much hatred of Diana by Junor.
I don't think she's worth the trouble of even sending a message to her. She likes attention probably.
Of course there are two sides to the story and there is criticism but Junor's attitude towards Diana is positively creepy. Stephen Barry who noted many things in his books and his interviews said Diana was very chipper and happy on the honeymoon. He and the Brittania Crew entertained them and she was seen giggling. Hardly the actions of a "Bertha Rochester." Barry noted that Charles would place calls to Camilla on the honeymoon. Diana's words were given to Morton. Junor relies on hearsay and her own odd hatred of Diana
Junor admitted it was personal with Diana in her Harry book. What else is there to know?
Dead people can be written about negatively. It happens and no amount of moaning is going to stop it. Not everybody supports Diana and nobody can force them to. That is just life. If you think the book is rubbish, just ignore and read the ones that you agree with. It is an open and free market.
Yes of course, but Junor is vicious when it comes to DIana. There was that incident where she stomped out of a radio studio when callers in criticized her about how she talked about the late Diana. IF she can't take the heat she needs to stay out of the kitchen.
Well Junor clearly doesn't like or support Diana. People are allowed not to like or not to support Diana. All that she is doing is putting her perspective out there. Those who are interested in knowing will buy. I am particularly interested in the educated reviews of someone like Curryong who intends to read the book. The other polemic attacks against Junor are just the signs of desperation by people who fear that their fantasies are being challenged by alternative views of the Waleses marriage.
Yes, but some who get the book may not have the background on her obvious loathing of Diana. WIlliam's book left much out about his life so Junor could devote 100 pages to DIana bashing with some of the same nastiness about her. She looks like she just cuts and pastes the same things in each book no matter what the subject. Junor is the one who lives in a fantasy world. She is so sycophantic with C and C it gets laughable. I see Junor as very desperate. It is not an alternative view it is a smear campaign.
I quite agree with Sandy her biographies of Charles, William and Harry were not so much about them as it was another excuse to wreck havoc on the memory of Diana. OK we all know Diana was no saint but she wasn't a mentally ill basket case i.e. somewhat as a sociopath as Junor wants all to believe. I haven't made up my mind yet as to purchase the book or not I am so busy I haven't much time for reading at the moment and I was disappointed in the William and Harry books as I thought I could learn so much more about them and not the copy paste of her previous books or as I said copying word for word what was in the Lady Colin Book Diana in Private.
"It is sad that some people are fixated on hating people who really have nothing to do with them. Really pathetic in my view."
I think this pretty much describes you, royalanthro. Describing yourself. Ok.
Others here, you too if this fts you.
It does not fit me.
I am a fan of PD, but I am objectionable and like sticking to the FACTS FACTS. Diana and PC told their stories. Their own words.
It is all there. Authors, R watchers and writers of the day, told their stories from insiders and PD and C own words and just good, investigative reporting.
FACTS ----Diana is dead and cannot defend herself. Authors like Junor are trying to get favor, stay in favor with the MONARCH which is PC (King) and Camilla (Queen). FACTS FACTS.
These types of boos , reheated old info and exaggerations and digs at PD only hurt and digdigdig into PW and PH.
These reheated books do not serve the purpose to put Camilla and PC in a good light. It does the opposite of what the Junors and TDM articles want to do.
It keeps the old stories going.
I know you, royalanthro, is a fan of Camilla and the pic there, a formal one from a BRF duty of PC, Camilla, and PH and PW is suppose to show how they are The Brady Bunch. They are not the Brady Bunch.
I know sandy is a fan od PD and still, she can read or not buy or others can boycott and not buy Junors book, still it will be published , sold , make Junor lots of money.
I do not agree with yiur post, kind of insulting, condescending that all you bruhahha about PD and C and PC will nit effect your life....
Wel, that goes for all of us .
That goes for everyone who is a subject of TheUK .
Some of us here do not even live in The UK. We got bigger problems, real ones in politics here on this side of the pond.
'I've sent someone to kill you. They're outside': Threatening phone calls from Diana in the middle of the night and how Charles's TV confession about their affair led to Camilla becoming Britain's most hated woman
Diana's threatening phone calls to Camilla in the night | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4641418/Diana-s-threatening-phone-calls-Camilla-night.html)
Double post auto-merged: June 27, 2017, 03:16:57 AM
Furious Princess Diana Made Threatening Calls to Camilla, New Book Claims
Furious Princess Diana Made Threatening Calls to Camilla, New Book Claims (http://people.com/royals/princess-diana-threatening-calls-camilla/)
Double post auto-merged: June 27, 2017, 03:17:42 AM
Charles, Diana and Camilla: A Timeline of Their Royal Love Triangle
Prince Charles, Princess Diana and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall Relationship History (http://people.com/royals/charles-diana-and-camilla-a-timeline-of-their-royal-love-triangle/)
The 'Diana making threatening calls' story is nothing new. Junor's written that before in previous books. Whether she has any back up to the allegation is another matter.
All this stirring up of old quarrels, betrayals, adulteries, by Penny Junor, is not doing any good whatsoever, whether the book was released to commemorate Camilla's 70th birthday celebrations, to queer the pitch for the dead Diana and her sons' tributes, or anything else. And, quite frankly, if Junor and/or Charles and Cam thought it would improve their reputations and cast a rosy glow over the C and C romance, then they've got rocks in their heads!
The DM comments are, as you might expect, insulting. I'm on the Internet and on Royal blogs, forums etc a lot and there's not much sympathy out there for the star crossed lovers ha ha, either, I can tell you!
Ha. Good old DM readers. The day people stop writing hateful comments on the DM is the day that rag will become a newspaper. It is pretty much known that the DM is a magnet for trolls in the comments section. Even the paper panders to them often with equally nasty articles so I am not surprised.
This is not the Soviet Union where books and articles are banned. People can publish and read what they wish. Indeed Diana got her chance to publish her own account. It seems that her former husband's side is also getting theirs out. People can read and decide what to believe. In any case it really does not matter. Diana could not care less what is said about her now. I also don't think Charles and Camilla are particularly awed by the nasty comments on the DM. These are just people who want to insert themselves into the drama of something that passed long, long time ago.
In my view a much more productive use of the pro Diana fans time would be to celebrate her life; particularly now that it is coming up to the 20th anniversary of her untimely death. Attacking, recriminations, tantrums etc. really achieve nothing of that. They just make them seem irrational, obsessed and a tad unhinged IMHO.
I also wonder: is Diana's legacy and reputation so flimsy and so nebulous that it cannot survive any criticism?
Why is it imperative that any critique of her story or life must be shut down with all manner of nasty troll comments and boycotts or hate mail and poison pen letters? I would appreciate an intelligent answer.
Double post auto-merged: June 27, 2017, 04:54:21 AM
Also I can see that
@FanDianaFancy has officially classified me as hating Diana :lol: Whatever rocks your boat. Not bothered in the least. If you know anything about my comments in this section, you will know that insults and projections do not really bother me. I will continue to comment and give balance to the saccharine views. That is just me. :hehe:
There you go.....again. Posting things that were not said. I never said you hated PD.
No one is saying no books should be written in a negative light about PD, QEII, Anne Boelyn or Jesus Christ.
We have said a dead woman cannot defend herself. This Junor book is same ole same ole. Quite nasty as if she doing a favor to PC or C, neither cares what the peasants think.
Camilla won it all.
Too sad PW has to hear indirectly ,if at all , these things....but he has his wife, kids, Mom and Dad and that is not PC and C, lol,and a very close family , the Midds, to get through it all. Poor PH....rumor has it MM is in England so good for him then.
I think most of us here are sort of done reposting the same ole Facts.Facts.
We all commented on the new story-Junior has written a book. Big deal.
Only you and sandy seem to take it to the next level.
Junors book is nothing new. Junor has some nastiness mixed in to put her leaders in a better light. I cannot think of a better word right now, 1:40 am CST in the USA, to describe her devotion to PC and C.
Boring!!
Double post auto-merged: June 27, 2017, 06:45:38 AM
Oh and Diana , her works, life, style, grace, sons , roles as a mother, a princess , icon, evolution from 19 year old to womanhood. , etc. are being celebrated on this 20th year since her death by her sons, an HBO show, ABC had something, commerative magazines...etc
Okay, I just read this entire thread here......question........why is anyone believing in this woman PJ? JMO in reading this it looks like sure she hated Diana, yet today Diana as we all know has past on,
1) so is this a ploy to make money as it is close to the death of Diana,
2) this book hurts lots of people and does not make anyone look good, so Charles, Camilla, Diana and of course the boys, everyone involved in this time period does not come out very good......JMO.
3) So do you all think that each and every year JP is going to write another book just repeating herself all over again and again and every will say the same thing over again and again
Diana is dead, period.......so why in the name of heaven is this JP still got a grudge and hate for her? It accomplishes nothing yet it seems that the ghost of Diana is a driving force in her life........why?
J.....?.....Just my opinion or it could be Penny Junor.......either way .......LOL :flower:
Why is Penny Junor so against Diana? It goes back, way back, IMO. Back to the days when she decided to write her book 'Charles: Victim or Villain?' Penny felt, rightly or wrongly, that Charles had been getting a raw deal as far as media, many authors and public opinion was concerned. She wrote the book I've mentioned to try to correct an inbalance (and to make some money of course) and give Charles' supporters a voice. While writing it she got to know the circle around Charles and Camilla and met the couple themselves, apparently, though not in interviews.
When that book was published word came to Junor that the couple were happy with her effort. When it was attacked by many for her bias Charles and Camilla, realising the bad publicity, put out a statement saying that the book had not been approved by them.
In once sense this was true, in another very much not, as doors had been opened to Junor as they hadn't been to any other writer. She inferred afterwards that she felt as if the rug had been pulled out from under her feet. (More evidence IMO of Charles giving the go ahead for things or facilitating them and then blaming others when there's a public backlash.)
Nevertheless, she had nailed her colours to the C-C mast by then, hooked on to the line peddled by Sally Bedell Smith and others, that Diana was a mentally ill and seriously unstable person, and stuck with it. She certainly believes it. Junor has become very close to the future King and his consort and Diana is dead, so she intends to remain in their camp.
IMO Penny Junor needs to watch out that (a) her book doesn't get mired in controversy and muck throwing again, causing Clarence House to retreat once more, leaving her like a shag on a rock. And (b) while it's fine and dandy to become really close to the next monarch and his wife, one should always keep a sea eye out for the future as well. Whether the next King after Charles will appreciate an author who characterises the mother he adored as an out of control mental case who kicked furniture around is debatable, to be frank.
Charles and Camilla should have just continued what they were doing without all the books coming out smearing Diana to raise C and C to sainthood. They were doing fine but re-raking up the past just makes them look bad. Junor should look for other subjects to write about, maybe outside the royal family.
As I said previously Junor is obsessed in her hatred to Diana and I agree with Sandy she should look for other subjects to write about. I really can't understand why anyone would want to purchase this book as all it is IMO the same as every other book she has written different title. I wanted to learn about William and Harry's life and that included memories of Diana as their mother not the trashing of Diana which is what she did rehashing things that really had nothing to do with William or Harry.
Quote from: Curryong on June 27, 2017, 10:22:18 AM
Why is Penny Junor so against Diana? It goes back, way back, IMO. Back to the days when she decided to write her book 'Charles: Victim or Villain?' Penny felt, rightly or wrongly, that Charles had been getting a raw deal as far as media, many authors and public opinion was concerned. She wrote the book I've mentioned to try to correct an inbalance (and to make some money of course) and give Charles' supporters a voice. While writing it she got to know the circle around Charles and Camilla and met the couple themselves, apparently, though not in interviews.
When that book was published word came to Junor that the couple were happy with her effort. When it was attacked by many for her bias Charles and Camilla, realising the bad publicity, put out a statement saying that the book had not been approved by them.
In once sense this was true, in another very much not, as doors had been opened to Junor as they hadn't been to any other writer. She inferred afterwards that she felt as if the rug had been pulled out from under her feet. (More evidence IMO of Charles giving the go ahead for things or facilitating them and then blaming others when there's a public backlash.)
Nevertheless, she had nailed her colours to the C-C mast by then, hooked on to the line peddled by Sally Bedell Smith and others, that Diana was a mentally ill and seriously unstable person, and stuck with it. She certainly believes it. Junor has become very close to the future King and his consort and Diana is dead, so she intends to remain in their camp.
IMO Penny Junor needs to watch out that (a) her book doesn't get mired in controversy and muck throwing again, causing Clarence House to retreat once more, leaving her like a shag on a rock. And (b) while it's fine and dandy to become really close to the next monarch and his wife, one should always keep a sea eye out for the future as well. Whether the next King after Charles will appreciate an author who characterises the mother he adored as an out of control mental case who kicked furniture around is debatable, to be frank.
Very well said Curryong, Thank you. Time for Penny Junor to write about some thing else for this is a dead subject that has been rehashed time and time again......move on I say, let the past be just that *the past* for you can not change it.
Diana's honeymoon nightmare with Charles who honoured Camilla with secret keepsakes
Diana's honeymoon nightmare with Charles who honoured Camilla with secret keepsakes | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/821840/Princess-Diana-Charles-honeymoon-nightmare-Royal-wedding-1981-affair-Camilla)
Double post auto-merged: June 27, 2017, 04:32:52 PM
Princess Diana so distraught told Camilla Parker Bowles 'I've sent someone to kill you'
Princess Diana so distraught told Camilla Parker Bowles ?I?ve sent someone to kill you? | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/821813/Princess-Diana-Camilla-Parker-Bowles-kill-death-threats-shock-claims-Prince-Charles)
If Diana was alive today!! And unbelievable story!
Quote from: Nightowl on June 27, 2017, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: Curryong on June 27, 2017, 10:22:18 AM
Why is Penny Junor so against Diana? It goes back, way back, IMO. Back to the days when she decided to write her book 'Charles: Victim or Villain?' Penny felt, rightly or wrongly, that Charles had been getting a raw deal as far as media, many authors and public opinion was concerned. She wrote the book I've mentioned to try to correct an inbalance (and to make some money of course) and give Charles' supporters a voice. While writing it she got to know the circle around Charles and Camilla and met the couple themselves, apparently, though not in interviews.
When that book was published word came to Junor that the couple were happy with her effort. When it was attacked by many for her bias Charles and Camilla, realising the bad publicity, put out a statement saying that the book had not been approved by them.
In once sense this was true, in another very much not, as doors had been opened to Junor as they hadn't been to any other writer. She inferred afterwards that she felt as if the rug had been pulled out from under her feet. (More evidence IMO of Charles giving the go ahead for things or facilitating them and then blaming others when there's a public backlash.)
Nevertheless, she had nailed her colours to the C-C mast by then, hooked on to the line peddled by Sally Bedell Smith and others, that Diana was a mentally ill and seriously unstable person, and stuck with it. She certainly believes it. Junor has become very close to the future King and his consort and Diana is dead, so she intends to remain in their camp.
IMO Penny Junor needs to watch out that (a) her book doesn't get mired in controversy and muck throwing again, causing Clarence House to retreat once more, leaving her like a shag on a rock. And (b) while it's fine and dandy to become really close to the next monarch and his wife, one should always keep a sea eye out for the future as well. Whether the next King after Charles will appreciate an author who characterises the mother he adored as an out of control mental case who kicked furniture around is debatable, to be frank.
Very well said Curryong, Thank you. Time for Penny Junor to write about some thing else for this is a dead subject that has been rehashed time and time again......move on I say, let the past be just that *the past* for you can not change it.
Good post
@Curryong also ppl should recall the time he pulled the rug out from his press secretary, her names escaping me now no coffee (or covfefe :)) yet, Sandy something or other, reinventing the royals gives a good account of it regarding the media deal they had set up for Wills. One of the papers scooped the others with pics that were supposed to be shared with all the papers, due to the furor she offered her resignation figuring it wouldnt get accepted and Charles took it, as i recall theres a clip of Junor defending her, maybe fresh from the rebuke mentioned in your post over her book.
The book is very curious timing, and for this excerpt Princess Diana so distraught told Camilla Parker Bowles 'I've sent someone to kill you'
Princess Diana so distraught told Camilla Parker Bowles ?I?ve sent someone to kill you? | Royal | News | Express.co.uk
I laugh that Junor is left insinuating that the equipment Diana had and the few ppl that knew Charles mobile number was to record C&C, conveniently forgetting that the reason Diana had it was due to her phone calls being recorded years before. She should take a job at CNN, shed fit right in with their fake news...LOL
Don't like it, don't buy it. Don't believe it, don't read it. Simple as. Authors do not need pre approval on the acceptable subjects for Diana fans. They also do not need guidance on how to write their books. It is as if we are trying to live in the old soviet union with approved subjects for discussion.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 27, 2017, 05:39:46 PM
Don't like it, don't buy it. Don't believe it, don't read it. Simple as. Authors do not need pre approval on the acceptable subjects for Diana fans. They also do not need guidance on how to write their books. It is as if we are trying to live in the old soviet union with approved subjects for discussion.
Again, you are kind of way off topic. No one is making Junor or Morton (how many times can you tell Diana 's true story since the first true story book came out, LOL) to stop writing books. Wait. I KNOW , I PREDICT Junor and others of C and C will write another Diana scathing books when King Charles and Queen Camilla get up there on coronation day, LOL!! As if anyone can stop these people from rewriting books of facts, exaggerations, lies, innuendos...not even PH and PW could stop Junors, Mortons, etc.
We ALL know that if you want to buy the book, BUY 2 COPIES!!!!!!!!!! Soviet Union? What? LOL!!!
The points some of us are making is that it is yet anther Diana bashing book of lies, some FACTS, etc. all in attempt, at the very worst time, to up C and C in good pr and a positive light. The reverse is happening. Junor is a biased writer. She will get big book sales for this book and her next 3-4 books about PD and how that god awful creature tortured poor Sweet Camilla and PC.
Junor and others will continue to sign big million dollar book contracts . So be it.
As long as the market is there, so be it. Again, LOL, PD is the gift that keeps on giving and giving. A dead woman is giving and giving still. LOL!! Sad. True. Sad nonetheless.
Again, we , most of us, are discussing Junor and her motives. New subject instead of sweetheart C did this and poor PC did this and only wanted to share their love story and PD, crazy nut , took them away ....oh boy.
We, most of us , are discussing Junor's links and reasons for writing the same ole repeated trash again and again.
Most of us are discussing the present and future such as the toll , can one imagine , on PH and PW.
Most of us believe, cute avatar there you have of PC, C and PW and PH at a BRF DUTY, a must, which is not real,
for facts seems nether man is close to Camilla and she is NOT their mother and grandmother to the heirs of PW and YES, all seems cordial. Formal. Quiet. Respectful by all sides. Boundaries are not crossed. The public knows PW is close to Mom and Dad Midds. Carole is a dominant force in her grandkids lives being their only grandmother. PH's comments of recent..oh boy. Read between the lines.
PD is dead. Cannot defend herself. We have read the same ole several times from the Junors, the Mortons, etc.
@royalanthropologist No one said that Diana fans needed to pre-approve Junors books. However, why waste money on a book that has less to do with the subject of Camilla then an exercise to trash Diana using Camilla as the bait. It really doesn't take a genius to see what Junors motive is this is the 20Th anniversary of Diana's death and the 70Th birthday of Camilla she must desperately need money.
Also, a different take on NEW things, points most of us are talking abut and not Hoare and crank calls and who cheated first,.....
Closer to the Crown, closer to the Monarch, closer to Court is STILL in this class system of the Monarch and nobility. Not much has changed since the days of King Henry8th and before and after his reign.
As the time of day changes, one changes to stay in favor.
Ex. Junor wants to stay in favor..be at PC and C events. Private events.
Everyone loved Anne Boylen and fought every way HRH, KH8th wanted them to and she he wanted to rid of her, everyone else did too. Her family fell from grace and favor all but for Mary, but she separated herself from him, court life, etc. She had sense or good luck or both.
PD had no friends ,insiders NEVER, in the nobility because all were beholden to PC and his mistress, C.
PD's grandmother, Lady Fermoy, sided with the Monarch , nobility over her daughter. She literally threw , disowned Frances.
PD's grandmother, Lady Fermoy, formally apologized to the HRH, QEII, QMother, PC for PD's mental state and how wrong was it for her to marry HRH, PC etc. YES SHE DID!!
PD was scared , crazy scared of losing her sons , being banished from their lives during the divorce. That would not have happened during these modern times , but she was scared.
Sarah Fergs has been trying by all means to get in grace and favor since the toe sucking pix. he has received some scraps-Ascot, Balmoral.
Junor has re-released her book for precisely the same reasons that Morton released his. They both wanted to make money off the frankly disturbing Charles-Diana gossip industry. They also wanted to represent their respective partisan sides in this dispute. Junor probably dislikes Diana and Morton probably dislikes Prince Charles. Their work represents and reflects its biases.
However, each side has a right to say their piece and the public has a right to select what they want and what they believe. Without writers like Junor, Morton would be the authoritative author on the Wales marriage despite that fact that that book by written by an embittered scorned woman on a mission to destroy her husband's reputation as much as she could. Let people read the books and make up their minds.
Diana could not care less where she is. Charles and Camilla are largely insulated from the troll-fest that is the DM and its ilk. The kids might have preferred that more focus was placed on celebrating their dead mum, but it is their parents who failed to divorce amicably. They split people into camps and the chickens are coming home to roost.
I would also point out that Diana and Charles (to a letter extent) invited the public into their marriage with all those media exclusives. They provided the fodder for the gossip mongers and helped to whip up some delusional people into fits of partisan rancor. The release of these books are the results. That is why there are no similar books wrecking over the coals of other less than romantic royal marriages. The two principal parties here invaded their own privacy and the media vultures followed suit.
Moral of the story...deal with your marital problems in private. Do not invite every Tom, Dick, Harry and their uncle to take sides.
As for the ridiculous charge that I am off topic, the less said on that the better. :notamused:
well yes, I have to agree. I don't know if I will read the book but I might as i'd like to know more about Camilla. and I am sure it is not more biased that Morton's work abouot Diana.
Morton's work is from Diana herself. Charles' "Morton" was Dimbleby.
Junor likes to trash Diana. I see her as the most biased one. She admitted she cannot stand Diana. So much for fairness.
Double post auto-merged: June 27, 2017, 07:52:44 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 27, 2017, 06:48:42 PM
Junor has re-released her book for precisely the same reasons that Morton released his. They both wanted to make money off the frankly disturbing Charles-Diana gossip industry. They also wanted to represent their respective partisan sides in this dispute. Junor probably dislikes Diana and Morton probably dislikes Prince Charles. Their work represents and reflects its biases.
However, each side has a right to say their piece and the public has a right to select what they want and what they believe. Without writers like Junor, Morton would be the authoritative author on the Wales marriage despite that fact that that book by written by an embittered scorned woman on a mission to destroy her husband's reputation as much as she could. Let people read the books and make up their minds.
Diana could not care less where she is. Charles and Camilla are largely insulated from the troll-fest that is the DM and its ilk. The kids might have preferred that more focus was placed on celebrating their dead mum, but it is their parents who failed to divorce amicably. They split people into camps and the chickens are coming home to roost.
I would also point out that Diana and Charles (to a letter extent) invited the public into their marriage with all those media exclusives. They provided the fodder for the gossip mongers and helped to whip up some delusional people into fits of partisan rancor. The release of these books are the results. That is why there are no similar books wrecking over the coals of other less than romantic royal marriages. The two principal parties here invaded their own privacy and the media vultures followed suit.
Moral of the story...deal with your marital problems in private. Do not invite every Tom, Dick, Harry and their uncle to take sides.
As for the ridiculous charge that I am off topic, the less said on that the better. :notamused:
Junor did not re-release a book. It's a different book with a lot of the same material as in her earlier books.
Junor seems to want to destroy Diana's reputation after she's gone. She did not have the nerve to do it in Diana's lifetime.
Charles married Diana knowing he did not love her. I think if Charles and Camilla were not embittered they would let this go and not encourage Junor and others to do t hese hatchet jobs. Diana must have hit a nerve. She was right about both of t hem.
Charles whined to his friends when he noticed how popular Diana was. He was the one to first spill his guts.
Picture of Gal Pals Junor and Camilla:
https://www.google.com/search?q=junor+and+parker+bowles&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqnKr15t7UAhWEaT4KHcG8BR4Q_AUIBygC&biw=1280&bih=864#imgdii=dWu7r58uh5HXeM:&imgrc=dpqgz58j2FyQKM:
Junor has re-released her book for precisely the same reasons that Morton released his. They both wanted to make money off the frankly disturbing Charles-Diana gossip industry. They also wanted to represent their respective partisan sides in this dispute. Junor probably dislikes Diana and Morton probably dislikes Prince Charles. Their work represents and reflects its biases
[mod]No need to put Your point in Bold. Thanks.
[/mod]
My big question and concern all along has been the timing of the book..............I agree with the above statement by RE and anybody in their right mind can see that this is *nothing* but a money deal in the works by PJ and her publishers..........this book hurts lots of people and not for one second do I think that Prince Charles wants to hurt his sons by getting this book out to the public.....both the boys parents loved them dearly and they are family.
PJ is working I believe on trying to feather her nest with the royal family and to make her coffers grow bigger then ever.........Bet my last donut that this time next year there will be another book by PJ on the same subject with a different cover and a few different words........nothing new.
This woman I believe is being driven by the ghost of Diana........this is ALL she knows, there is no world outside of Diana even after all these years.........none. Her world is tiny and hateful and she is using the past to not just bash Diana but to hurt her sons, hurt the father of her sons and to now put even Camilla in a bad light.
Just ask yourself why do this now?............get down to the nitty gritty of this and find the truth........so I rely on the timing...........for me it is all about MONEY and for those that buy this book, well there are lots of people out there that have more money then brains..........me, I have more brains then money will never support this crap from PJ or anyone like her. So she gets another 15 minutes of fame and goes off to write the same book all over again so see you next year for the same topic. :lol:
Morton is not vicious about Charles the way Junor is about Diana.
Charles and Camilla and Junor socialize together. A quiet word ages ago from Prince Charles would have nipped Penny's poison pen in the bud. She adores Charles and would have said oh I'll stop. I think this has C and C's fingerprints all over it. They are not nice people and Charles should have left well enough alone by not getting involved. Camilla actually spoke to the press a few weeks ago claiming victimhood. If she wants to have some support she should have kept her mouth shut.
If Charles had nothing to do with it, now would be the time to speak up and disassociate himself from it.
Sooner or later, Harry and WIlliam should say something.
Quote from: amabel on June 27, 2017, 06:57:50 PM
well yes, I have to agree. I don't know if I will read the book but I might as i'd like to know more about Camilla. and I am sure it is not more biased that Morton's work abouot Diana.
To be honest here amabel from the excerpts I have been reading the book is more about the relationship of Charles, Diana and Camilla than learning more about Camilla. I highly doubt there would be anything new about Camilla that hasn't already been put out there.
Morton on the other hand had the full cooperation of Diana and her tapes to his questions. Apparently there are from what I have heard 300 new pages being added. I wonder if there were more tapes that weren't included in the first edition or has he been sitting on these in the hopes at the time of republishing more when Charles ascended the throne as who would have dreamed the first time it was published that Diana would be dead.
Same old, same old tired cliches and presumed simplistic models of what people did and why they did it. Getting boring now. Then the childish plagiarism of other people's words to throw them back at them...absolutely pathetic, like glorified kindergarten. The world is not going to fall in...maybe people should just get a life :notamused:
I received the Junor book in the middle of the night today and begin reading it in the early hours. A lot of what she says is rehash, especially from her Charles:Victim or Villain production. She states that Diana's appearance on Panorama was 'worthy of an Oscar.' Junor paints Charles too as needy and emotionally insecure, especially over his dithering about marriage, 'the architect of the whole disaster', according to a friend of his. They were both very needy people, Junor says, agreeing with us here to a great extent, but there are several instances where she characterises Diana as unpleasant and seriously unwell.
As might be expected Junor places much of Charles's lack of confidence at his parents' door. The first chapter has her going to the town of Poundbury, the place conceived by Charles as his dream of an ideal community, designed for civilised living. This was the occasion when the Queen and Philip went to inspect the town and C-and C were present. She observed that Prince Philip said little about the concept as they moved around and the Queen remained po-faced and silent except for an occasional smile at the gathered crowds. Junor said as the parents left Philip turned to his son and made a clapping gesture then got into the car beside his wife.
She does go into Camilla's childhood and family background. Although I knew some of it I didn't know other portions, such as the rather unusual schooling in Camilla's earlier childhood at a small school run by a strong minded elderly woman, who would read the English classics to a circle of pupils while they topped and tailed the fruit and vegs they'd collected from the school kitchen gardens.
She seems to have had an ideal childhood and grew up immensely self confident and sure of being loved, by a father with whom she had a special bond (they both loved horses and reading) and a mother, Rosalind, who was a bit of a character. Junor does state that Camilla sees things in terms of black and white, being the 'least imaginative of the three siblings'.
In the early chapters there is a description of APB as a debs' delight and a charming and 'rather beautiful' officer of the Household Cavalry. However, it's about the only compliment Junor pays him, and quite honestly, if I were him I'd consider suing! She describes him as cold, standoffish, cruel at times, deeply wounding his wife by tom-catting around every chance he got. When the family went on holiday to Italy a friend of his wife's rather cattily remarks that he stayed indoors much of the time 'writing postcards to his Duchess friends' as apparently he is also a roaring snob.
Camilla rarely retaliated to APB's adultery, according to Penny, and continued to remain friends with those of her pals he slept with throughout the marriage. Junor lays the PB divorce squarely as the fault of the Dimbleby interview and Charles's private Sec., who outed Camilla at a press conference the next day. According to Penny, Camilla didn't want a divorce and her friends were angry with Charles on her behalf. One friend in the book calls him 'a pig' for outing her!
(However, with regard to getting Cam's name out, what about the Camillagate tapes which became public before this, making it an open secret? Junor seems to hint that because Diana was one of only a few people with Charles's mobile number that she may have sent people out to record the two of them. This is bizarre however, as, although Junor says Camillagate was recorded at different times and spliced together, I've read that a private Govenment inquiry at the time found that the Eaton Hall (where Charles was staying at the time with the Duke of Westminster) land lines were compromised and it was one call.)
Camilla was determined to marry Andrew in spite of her mother's doubts. I think there was a fair amount of sheer animal attraction there, and Junor hints that though she was fond of Charles, Camilla may have initially dated him in the early 1970s in order to make APB jealous.
Lady Susan Hussey and Emilie Van Cutsem were, incidentally, in this book, so worried about Charles's depression by 1986 that they begged Camilla, who according to Penny had had minimal communication with Charles for years, (BS say I!) to meet with him. Therefore she, and the ever complaisant Andrew started going to Highgrove (where Diana rarely was.) And so the affair began!
Thanks for the summary
@Curryong. :goodpost:
Frankly speaking the marriage of C&D has been done to death (no pun intended). The same suppositions, speculations, simplistic diagnoses, partisan recriminations and fanciful could-have beens. It all gets a bit boring and repetitive...plus many of the commentators are nothing but pathetic trolls who have nothing better to do with their lives than pick over a dead and stale marriage.
I am however interested in the bits after 2005, particularly the family dynamics. I know it is not really my business but it arouses my curiosity to know what they really are like in private. Were there any revelations about the royal family in private? Did Junor actually interview any of them or did she just use third party sources? I am also intrigued by Lady Susan Hussey. Isn't she one of the queen's lady's in waiting? Was she acting as a go-between? Was the queen aware of it all? Wondering minds...and all that :thumbsup:
I'm a quick reader but I haven't had time to go into the second half of the book much yet.
Lady Susan Hussey has known Charles practically all his life and was/is a devotee. (Is she still alive? Don't know.) There aren't any revelations about the BRF as such. Junor observes that they have a lot of toadies around them, people who change because they are near royalty. Well, she should know! This makes them spoiled and petulant at times, she says, because people just hang off their every word and hurry to do their bidding. Earlier on she says how Charles didn't really need a wife as all his adult life his needs have been attended to.
PJ has spoken to members of Camilla's circle and friends and staff, followed her as a journalist on lots of engagements for nearly a year. She has not spoken to either Charles or Camilla directly for quotes about this book. You would like the second half of the book I think, Royal, as there's quite a bit on Camilla's interest in the arts and in her charities and she speaks to those connected with them.
Junor says that Camilla's age makes some engagements an endurance test, and that she was frankly frightened by the possible response of the public for many months after she married. She relied on Charles to guide her, tell her what to do and say, but not any more. Junor says she can be ruthless and she thinks Camilla is definitely the stronger of the two. They are both stubborn and fixed in their ways, though happy together. She escapes the Royal baggage at Ray Mill where she can relax and be as untidy as she likes.
As far as the royal family is concerned Junor follows the 'everything is tickety boo' (a favourite expression of Camilla's) line, stating that the Queen for instance really connects with Cam over horsey pursuits. She says the Queen and PP were not at C and C's wedding because it was a Civil affair, but that it was a shame. However the Queen gave a supportive speech during the reception. Interestingly, she says that there were a few boos from the crowd at the wedding but by then Camilla had regained her confidence. Earlier that day she had been so terrified that she literally could not get out of bed.
The only really large section I've read on family dynamics so far was the memorial service for the tenth year anniversary of Diana's death. PJ says that it was the 'inflammatory' press article by Rosa Monkton that persuaded Camilla not to go to the service. It seems that they may have felt there would be an even worse public response if she did, so she stayed away.
Junor describes the concert and then awkwardness over the seating arrangements for Charles at the Memorial Service. Penny observes that 'Discussions about their mother between the Princes and their father had always been very difficult.' She quotes a friend of W and H. 'There is no doubt that they love their father but from everything I've seen he is a complex man and difficult to be the son of sometimes, and his reactions to things aren't always as elevated as we might want them to be.'
He goes on (my guess is this friend is Mark Dyer, still close to Harry today) 'Anything to do with their mother is really tricky. Their sensitivity about being seen to say anything about their mother is very noticeable. 'Talk about our mother? Oh God, we don't talk enough about our dad!'
'They are very careful of Charles's sensitivities and dance around them a lot. Like at the service. He was very sensitive about where he sat and what was said.'
'The Memorial Service was to bring together the two sides of the family which had been divided since Diana's death. Charles made a meal of the seating arrangements according to Penny, via his aide Michael Peat. William gave up so Harry said 'F... this', phoned his father and said 'Right dad, you're sitting here, someone else is sitting there...blah, blah! Now, are you happy?' 'Oh Yes' Charles said, 'I suppose so'. William sat on one side with his father and the rest of the royals there, and Harry sat opposite with the Spencer relatives.'
What a dancing around on eggshells! If I find anything more on the subject of Charles, Camilla and W and H I'll post it.
Wow. What a summary. :goodpost: You are now tempting me to read it (the post 2005 period) but I am snowed under with work. I kinda feel a bit sorry for W&H caught between the cross fires and trying to ensure that they did not offend their father in any way. If I was Charles, I might just tell them..."look, just go for it. Celebrating your mum and remembering her does not offend us...just go for it". Otherwise the children are caught between a rock and a hard place. They know that anything they do that is being disloyal to their father will be picked up and exaggerated by the press and busybodies.
I always suspected that the queen would have a lot more in common with Camilla than Diana. They are both country women at heart and Camilla is never going to cause any difficulties so I suppose it is an easier task to handle. But thanks so much for the review. Much appreciated
@Curryong.
Charles has no business telling the boys not to pay tribute to their mother. Camilla's birthday is hardly a milestone event. It should have been kept low key. Junor showed poor taste having the Diana thrashing book out now.
Quote from: Curryong on June 29, 2017, 10:06:56 AM
I'm a quick reader but I haven't had time to go into the second half of the book much yet.
Lady Susan Hussey has known Charles practically all his life and was/is a devotee. (Is she still alive? Don't know.) There aren't any revelations about the BRF as such. Junor observes that they have a lot of toadies around them, people who change because they are near royalty. Well, she should know! This makes them spoiled and petulant at times, she says, because people just hang off their every word and hurry to do their bidding. Earlier on she says how Charles didn't really need a wife as all his adult life his needs have been attended to.
PJ has spoken to members of Camilla's circle and friends and staff, followed her as a journalist on lots of engagements for nearly a year. She has not spoken to either Charles or Camilla directly for quotes about this book. You would like the second half of the book I think, Royal, as there's quite a bit on Camilla's interest in the arts and in her charities and she speaks to those connected with them.
Junor says that Camilla's age makes some engagements an endurance test, and that she was frankly frightened by the possible response of the public for many months after she married. She relied on Charles to guide her, tell her what to do and say, but not any more. Junor says she can be ruthless and she thinks Camilla is definitely the stronger of the two. They are both stubborn and fixed in their ways, though happy together. She escapes the Royal baggage at Ray Mill where she can relax and be as untidy as she likes.
As far as the royal family is concerned Junor follows the 'everything is tickety boo' (a favourite expression of Camilla's) line, stating that the Queen for instance really connects with Cam over horsey pursuits. She says the Queen and PP were not at C and C's wedding because it was a Civil affair, but that it was a shame. However the Queen gave a supportive speech during the reception. Interestingly, she says that there were a few boos from the crowd at the wedding but by then Camilla had regained her confidence. Earlier that day she had been so terrified that she literally could not get out of bed.
The only really large section I've read on family dynamics so far was the memorial service for the tenth year anniversary of Diana's death. PJ says that it was the 'inflammatory' press article by Rosa Monkton that persuaded Camilla not to go to the service. It seems that they may have felt there would be an even worse public response if she did, so she stayed away.
Junor describes the concert and then awkwardness over the seating arrangements for Charles at the Memorial Service. Penny observes that 'Discussions about their mother between the Princes and their father had always been very difficult.' She quotes a friend of W and H. 'There is no doubt that they love their father but from everything I've seen he is a complex man and difficult to be the son of sometimes, and his reactions to things aren't always as elevated as we might want them to be.'
He goes on (my guess is this friend is Mark Dyer, still close to Harry today) 'Anything to do with their mother is really tricky. Their sensitivity about being seen to say anything about their mother is very noticeable. 'Talk about our mother? Oh God, we don't talk enough about our dad!'
'They are very careful of Charles's sensitivities and dance around them a lot. Like at the service. He was very sensitive about where he sat and what was said.'
'The Memorial Service was to bring together the two sides of the family which had been divided since Diana's death. Charles made a meal of the seating arrangements according to Penny, via his aide Michael Peat. William gave up so Harry said 'F... this', phoned his father and said 'Right dad, you're sitting here, someone else is sitting there...blah, blah! Now, are you happy?' 'Oh Yes' Charles said, 'I suppose so'. William sat on one side with his father and the rest of the royals there, and Harry sat opposite with the Spencer relatives.'
What a dancing around on eggshells! If I find anything more on the subject of Charles, Camilla and W and H I'll post it.
There is an article with Penny quoted as meeting with C and C regarding the book. I think they were very much involved in it. CHarles and Camilla's friends are often mouthpieces for Charles and Camilla.
Rosa Monckton was not the only who had trouble with Camilla showing up. Miss Penny is clueless or in denial
Junor thought it appropriate for Camilla to be there. Case closed.
She should have interviewed people loyal to Diana for another perspective. Obviously she did not.
How would she know that Diana "threatened" Camilla there is no proof, no recordings of the call, no nothing. It could be Camilla making trouble or Junor saying anything she wants against a dead woman.
I don't see how Penny can call APB "cruel" he was very accommodating with his wife's affair and she turned a blind eye to his affairs. It would be like labeling Mr Simpson "cruel." How ridiculous.
Double post auto-merged: June 29, 2017, 01:51:23 PM
Quote from: Curryong on June 29, 2017, 05:48:53 AM
I received the Junor book in the middle of the night today and begin reading it in the early hours. A lot of what she says is rehash, especially from her Charles:Victim or Villain production. She states that Diana's appearance on Panorama was 'worthy of an Oscar.' Junor paints Charles too as needy and emotionally insecure, especially over his dithering about marriage, 'the architect of the whole disaster', according to a friend of his. They were both very needy people, Junor says, agreeing with us here to a great extent, but there are several instances where she characterises Diana as unpleasant and seriously unwell.
As might be expected Junor places much of Charles's lack of confidence at his parents' door. The first chapter has her going to the town of Poundbury, the place conceived by Charles as his dream of an ideal community, designed for civilised living. This was the occasion when the Queen and Philip went to inspect the town and C-and C were present. She observed that Prince Philip said little about the concept as they moved around and the Queen remained po-faced and silent except for an occasional smile at the gathered crowds. Junor said as the parents left Philip turned to his son and made a clapping gesture then got into the car beside his wife.
She does go into Camilla's childhood and family background. Although I knew some of it I didn't know other portions, such as the rather unusual schooling in Camilla's earlier childhood at a small school run by a strong minded elderly woman, who would read the English classics to a circle of pupils while they topped and tailed the fruit and vegs they'd collected from the school kitchen gardens.
She seems to have had an ideal childhood and grew up immensely self confident and sure of being loved, by a father with whom she had a special bond (they both loved horses and reading) and a mother, Rosalind, who was a bit of a character. Junor does state that Camilla sees things in terms of black and white, being the 'least imaginative of the three siblings'.
In the early chapters there is a description of APB as a debs' delight and a charming and 'rather beautiful' officer of the Household Cavalry. However, it's about the only compliment Junor pays him, and quite honestly, if I were him I'd consider suing! She describes him as cold, standoffish, cruel at times, deeply wounding his wife by tom-catting around every chance he got. When the family went on holiday to Italy a friend of his wife's rather cattily remarks that he stayed indoors much of the time 'writing postcards to his Duchess friends' as apparently he is also a roaring snob.
Camilla rarely retaliated to APB's adultery, according to Penny, and continued to remain friends with those of her pals he slept with throughout the marriage. Junor lays the PB divorce squarely as the fault of the Dimbleby interview and Charles's private Sec., who outed Camilla at a press conference the next day. According to Penny, Camilla didn't want a divorce and her friends were angry with Charles on her behalf. One friend in the book calls him 'a pig' for outing her!
(However, with regard to getting Cam's name out, what about the Camillagate tapes which became public before this, making it an open secret? Junor seems to hint that because Diana was one of only a few people with Charles's mobile number that she may have sent people out to record the two of them. This is bizarre however, as, although Junor says Camillagate was recorded at different times and spliced together, I've read that a private Govenment inquiry at the time found that the Eaton Hall (where Charles was staying at the time with the Duke of Westminster) land lines were compromised and it was one call.)
Camilla was determined to marry Andrew in spite of her mother's doubts. I think there was a fair amount of sheer animal attraction there, and Junor hints that though she was fond of Charles, Camilla may have initially dated him in the early 1970s in order to make APB jealous.
Lady Susan Hussey and Emilie Van Cutsem were, incidentally, in this book, so worried about Charles's depression by 1986 that they begged Camilla, who according to Penny had had minimal communication with Charles for years, (BS say I!) to meet with him. Therefore she, and the ever complaisant Andrew started going to Highgrove (where Diana rarely was.) And so the affair began!
Wow Miss Penny gives Charles a free pass. He was the one who opened his mouth and blabbed about the affair. Did he think Dimbleby a ventriloquist or something. Charles could have refused to answer the question or have it included. This makes Charles really weak looking not accepting responsibility. Camilla's father scolded Charles not Dimbleby
What is? Are you referring to Junor's book or my post? Put downs of another's posts are indeed boring and repetitive.
Junor is really making C and C look worse, blaming everybody except them: the list grows and those blamed re: Diana, Andrew Parker Bowles, Charles secretary, Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth II, Lord Mountbatten among others all tossed under a bus to try to elevate C and C.
roaylanthro, stop it please. The jabs...yes, we, know, you know what you are doing.
sandy, do not respond. stop responding please.
The boards here have ben pretty easy, fun since I joined that I know of, 2014. I think. We post. We move on. We laugh. I, speaking for myself , come here to post, laugh, gossip about BRF. If I want CONFRONTATION, COMBATIVE BEHAVIOR, CONDECENDING ATTITUDES , oh gosh, might as...well real life.
CURRY, thanks for the summary. Real journalist skills there, girl!!!
Junor's books, Mortons' 24th True Story with more real truths, LOL, and all of these authors, again I repeat myself is same ole same ole.
What can be said about a dead woman who cannot defend herself?
What can be said when PD and PC said it all ..they...themselves?
Again, Junor defeats her purpose of propping up C and PC to a good light. wrong timing for this books. Same ole same info. Nothing new.
Junor is in their favor and good graces so she really does not have to go on and on again and again with yet another same ole same ole book. When it comes to staying in favor and graces with the HRH Monarchs , as it has been proven over 500- 1000 years, one has to not overdo it and remember one can be in grace and favor today and not tomorrow.
Again, PH and PW, I feel sorry for , but then , they have thick skins and have good family and friends and their work to isolate them as much as possible.
gain, what we know about today is PC before and after PD's death , Camlilla was NON-REGOTIABKE. She was there. He invited her there ..always. FACTS FACTS.
After PD died, that sealed the deal.
PH and PW are cordial, respectful to them , their father included, as he AND CAMILLA are friendly, cordial, respectful of them too. Ex. Camilla does not , will not, never will advise, over step, voice an opinion about PW and his family and PH and MM , if she is the one or his life.
Everyone in BRF is happyhappyhpapy!!! So it seems...
I would like the Mortons, Junors, royal watchers to wrote NEW books about NOW in the BRF, the good gossipy stuff. Yet again, I guess there is no reason too, because it is all there for everyone to see...see and read between the lines. PW loves Mom and Dad and Carole is the ONLY grandmother to the next two heirs. PH is a man doing his life.
If, lets say, PH marries MM, glowing reports will be PC and Camilla give their blessings ....yeah yeahyeah.
Anything PW and PH , Camilla is neutral on, quiet as she should be.
Cammilla way back wanting to attend PD's memorial would have been bad taste. Actually, for PC to be there was bad taste, but it was his opportunity to present a certain look.
He is HRH so he is handed differently even by the media.
PC and C will be K and Q and will live almost forever , LOL, at least until their mid 80s' They are not reckless with their lives so unless fate throws them something of God's will, they will live forever practically to the 90's even.
PD died due to reckless behavior -no personal security, not having the right security, a drunk chaffuer going too fast and he was not suppose to be on duty anyway.
I have been wanting to bring up and will in PD's section, that JFK,JR too has been dead for the same number of years now. How? Due to his reckless own choices-not know how to read the instruments, too late, too dark, casted leg, etc.
Which brings me back to Junor's new-old book is of old news, nothing new and just nasty gossip really.
PC and C will be here for decades to come and more of these old books will written by their BRF journalist wanting favor and grace.
None of them would DARE write a new book about PC and C in relationship to PW and PH....now and what is to come like Camilla's children being more in public view once QEII dies.
Quote from: sandy on June 29, 2017, 01:45:18 PM
Charles has no business telling the boys not to pay tribute to their mother. Camilla's birthday is hardly a milestone event. It should have been kept low key. Junor showed poor taste having the Diana thrashing book out now.
Quote from: Curryong on June 29, 2017, 10:06:56 AM
I'm a quick reader but I haven't had time to go into the second half of the book much yet.
Lady Susan Hussey has known Charles practically all his life and was/is a devotee. (Is she still alive? Don't know.) There aren't any revelations about the BRF as such. Junor observes that they have a lot of toadies around them, people who change because they are near royalty. Well, she should know! This makes them spoiled and petulant at times, she says, because people just hang off their every word and hurry to do their bidding. Earlier on she says how Charles didn't really need a wife as all his adult life his needs have been attended to.
PJ has spoken to members of Camilla's circle and friends and staff, followed her as a journalist on lots of engagements for nearly a year. She has not spoken to either Charles or Camilla directly for quotes about this book. You would like the second half of the book I think, Royal, as there's quite a bit on Camilla's interest in the arts and in her charities and she speaks to those connected with them.
Junor says that Camilla's age makes some engagements an endurance test, and that she was frankly frightened by the possible response of the public for many months after she married. She relied on Charles to guide her, tell her what to do and say, but not any more. Junor says she can be ruthless and she thinks Camilla is definitely the stronger of the two. They are both stubborn and fixed in their ways, though happy together. She escapes the Royal baggage at Ray Mill where she can relax and be as untidy as she likes.
As far as the royal family is concerned Junor follows the 'everything is tickety boo' (a favourite expression of Camilla's) line, stating that the Queen for instance really connects with Cam over horsey pursuits. She says the Queen and PP were not at C and C's wedding because it was a Civil affair, but that it was a shame. However the Queen gave a supportive speech during the reception. Interestingly, she says that there were a few boos from the crowd at the wedding but by then Camilla had regained her confidence. Earlier that day she had been so terrified that she literally could not get out of bed.
The only really large section I've read on family dynamics so far was the memorial service for the tenth year anniversary of Diana's death. PJ says that it was the 'inflammatory' press article by Rosa Monkton that persuaded Camilla not to go to the service. It seems that they may have felt there would be an even worse public response if she did, so she stayed away.
Junor describes the concert and then awkwardness over the seating arrangements for Charles at the Memorial Service. Penny observes that 'Discussions about their mother between the Princes and their father had always been very difficult.' She quotes a friend of W and H. 'There is no doubt that they love their father but from everything I've seen he is a complex man and difficult to be the son of sometimes, and his reactions to things aren't always as elevated as we might want them to be.'
He goes on (my guess is this friend is Mark Dyer, still close to Harry today) 'Anything to do with their mother is really tricky. Their sensitivity about being seen to say anything about their mother is very noticeable. 'Talk about our mother? Oh God, we don't talk enough about our dad!'
'They are very careful of Charles's sensitivities and dance around them a lot. Like at the service. He was very sensitive about where he sat and what was said.'
'The Memorial Service was to bring together the two sides of the family which had been divided since Diana's death. Charles made a meal of the seating arrangements according to Penny, via his aide Michael Peat. William gave up so Harry said 'F... this', phoned his father and said 'Right dad, you're sitting here, someone else is sitting there...blah, blah! Now, are you happy?' 'Oh Yes' Charles said, 'I suppose so'. William sat on one side with his father and the rest of the royals there, and Harry sat opposite with the Spencer relatives.'
What a dancing around on eggshells! If I find anything more on the subject of Charles, Camilla and W and H I'll post it.
There is an article with Penny quoted as meeting with C and C regarding the book. I think they were very much involved in it. CHarles and Camilla's friends are often mouthpieces for Charles and Camilla.
Rosa Monckton was not the only who had trouble with Camilla showing up. Miss Penny is clueless or in denial
Junor thought it appropriate for Camilla to be there. Case closed.
She should have interviewed people loyal to Diana for another perspective. Obviously she did not.
How would she know that Diana "threatened" Camilla there is no proof, no recordings of the call, no nothing. It could be Camilla making trouble or Junor saying anything she wants against a dead woman.
I don't see how Penny can call APB "cruel" he was very accommodating with his wife's affair and she turned a blind eye to his affairs. It would be like labeling Mr Simpson "cruel." How ridiculous.
Double post auto-merged: June 29, 2017, 01:51:23 PM
Quote from: Curryong on June 29, 2017, 05:48:53 AM
I received the Junor book in the middle of the night today and begin reading it in the early hours. A lot of what she says is rehash, especially from her Charles:Victim or Villain production. She states that Diana's appearance on Panorama was 'worthy of an Oscar.' Junor paints Charles too as needy and emotionally insecure, especially over his dithering about marriage, 'the architect of the whole disaster', according to a friend of his. They were both very needy people, Junor says, agreeing with us here to a great extent, but there are several instances where she characterises Diana as unpleasant and seriously unwell.
As might be expected Junor places much of Charles's lack of confidence at his parents' door. The first chapter has her going to the town of Poundbury, the place conceived by Charles as his dream of an ideal community, designed for civilised living. This was the occasion when the Queen and Philip went to inspect the town and C-and C were present. She observed that Prince Philip said little about the concept as they moved around and the Queen remained po-faced and silent except for an occasional smile at the gathered crowds. Junor said as the parents left Philip turned to his son and made a clapping gesture then got into the car beside his wife.
She does go into Camilla's childhood and family background. Although I knew some of it I didn't know other portions, such as the rather unusual schooling in Camilla's earlier childhood at a small school run by a strong minded elderly woman, who would read the English classics to a circle of pupils while they topped and tailed the fruit and vegs they'd collected from the school kitchen gardens.
She seems to have had an ideal childhood and grew up immensely self confident and sure of being loved, by a father with whom she had a special bond (they both loved horses and reading) and a mother, Rosalind, who was a bit of a character. Junor does state that Camilla sees things in terms of black and white, being the 'least imaginative of the three siblings'.
In the early chapters there is a description of APB as a debs' delight and a charming and 'rather beautiful' officer of the Household Cavalry. However, it's about the only compliment Junor pays him, and quite honestly, if I were him I'd consider suing! She describes him as cold, standoffish, cruel at times, deeply wounding his wife by tom-catting around every chance he got. When the family went on holiday to Italy a friend of his wife's rather cattily remarks that he stayed indoors much of the time 'writing postcards to his Duchess friends' as apparently he is also a roaring snob.
Camilla rarely retaliated to APB's adultery, according to Penny, and continued to remain friends with those of her pals he slept with throughout the marriage. Junor lays the PB divorce squarely as the fault of the Dimbleby interview and Charles's private Sec., who outed Camilla at a press conference the next day. According to Penny, Camilla didn't want a divorce and her friends were angry with Charles on her behalf. One friend in the book calls him 'a pig' for outing her!
(However, with regard to getting Cam's name out, what about the Camillagate tapes which became public before this, making it an open secret? Junor seems to hint that because Diana was one of only a few people with Charles's mobile number that she may have sent people out to record the two of them. This is bizarre however, as, although Junor says Camillagate was recorded at different times and spliced together, I've read that a private Govenment inquiry at the time found that the Eaton Hall (where Charles was staying at the time with the Duke of Westminster) land lines were compromised and it was one call.)
Camilla was determined to marry Andrew in spite of her mother's doubts. I think there was a fair amount of sheer animal attraction there, and Junor hints that though she was fond of Charles, Camilla may have initially dated him in the early 1970s in order to make APB jealous.
Lady Susan Hussey and Emilie Van Cutsem were, incidentally, in this book, so worried about Charles's depression by 1986 that they begged Camilla, who according to Penny had had minimal communication with Charles for years, (BS say I!) to meet with him. Therefore she, and the ever complaisant Andrew started going to Highgrove (where Diana rarely was.) And so the affair began!
Wow Miss Penny gives Charles a free pass. He was the one who opened his mouth and blabbed about the affair. Did he think Dimbleby a ventriloquist or something. Charles could have refused to answer the question or have it included. This makes Charles really weak looking not accepting responsibility. Camilla's father scolded Charles not Dimbleby
@royalanthropologist your above post regarding this one suggests Sandy is boring an repetitive? Well it appears that Junor has finally told some sort of truth of what Sandy has been saying for years. Sandy is often in her posts and I quote " I don't believe there is one big love fest" meaning the Princes and Camilla and another " Their father is high maintenance" Now Junor is admitting the Princes walk on egg shells around their father. What is boring and repetitive is you refusing to see the obvious as has been played out for the last 12 years.
Diana's memorial again if Rosa and the others hadn't spoken out re Camilla being there she would have happily plopped her rear end in a pew with that Cheshire grin on her face. As it happened on the steps of the church in full view of all as Harry greeted his father Charles had to look over what Harry had to say. Why? Harry was by then an adult and he was honoring his mother the woman chosen by Charles to have his children. Think about it.
:hi: Curry, thank you :hug?: for the great summaries :goodpost: reviews.
Great journalistic skills there girl :notworthy:
Junor keeps writing the same things over and over. I wonder if she will become a Dame and get honors by C and C. Probably.
Thanks FanDianaFancy. :blowkiss: I have a busy couple of days coming up but if there is anything else pertinent and interesting in the book I'll post it.
There is a pattern in her royal books. She has about 100 pages each time consisting of trashing Diana and she has a "sensational" revelation that makes the headlines that Diana did this or that. She just repeated the same thing about the "threatening" phone call to Camilla in a book published 5 years ago. I guess she hopes people have short memories.
I agree that these Authors are adding to their coffers, but these books will be points of reference long after we are gone.
The making of a royal mistress and why opposites have rarely been so attracted: How Camilla was confident, flirty and adored at home while Charles was tortured, miserable and never felt truly loved by his parents
How Camilla was confident, flirty and adored at home | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4652314/How-Camilla-confident-flirty-adored-home.html)
@Trudie. To be honest I am kinda bored with the whole War of the Waleses stuff now. It happened decades ago and really has no relevance to the current royal family. I asked for a review and was interested in the post 2005 era because much of it is speculative since no royal is ever going to open up again to the press in the style of "Diana, Her True Story" or even Panorama. I assumed that since Junor is a friend of C&C, she would have better access to the royals and what they were really like in private. The likes of Bashir, Morton or Holden or Burchill will never ever get any royal access again. They are effectively on a banned list of media non-grata. The other old stuff about who did, said, through what etc. is made up of the same arguments, the same squabbles, the same recriminations, the same excuses, the same compromises. I find it boring and repetitive so I am just detaching from it. Those who enjoy raking over the coals are quite welcome to do so, I am now focusing on the modern royal family in my commentary.
^
@royalanthropologist while it may be boring and repetitive to you it is a shame that Diana was killed not even a year after her divorce and one cannot talk about her, Charles and Camilla without bringing up the war of the Wales and Charles and Camilla's part in it.
I have to say that Junor is somewhat rewriting the royal love story first Charles and Camilla have been in love for 40 years now she is saying Camilla broke the Princes heart well what is the real story? Camilla didn't want to get out of bed on her wedding day? ridiculous I say she couldn't wait IMO especially when you look at her flashing the ring when they got engaged the story regarding that too she needed to see a familiar face that night? again from the look of her she was excited.
The only thing Junor has not rewritten is her hatred for Diana and lets face it does she have to devote so much time to trashing Diana in a book designated to learning something new about Camilla and who she supposedly really is?. Much of the book is just bringing up the war of the Wales and using the same old tired passages from previous books and those of Lady Colin Cambell another Diana detractor word for word. If you want to check out from it all then why are you on these threads ? after all there are many threads that are not boring or repetitive you need to remember it was Charles and Camilla who caused the war of the Wales in the first place so therefore any discussion of Diana or Camilla is going to bring this up.
Naturally the likes of Bashir, Morton Holden etc will never get access to the royals again they were sympathetic to Diana . This goes to show just how petty these people really are if you are not yessing and agreeing with them.
@Trudie. In my view it is ridiculous to suggest that Diana was a neutral and objective commentator on matters pertaining to her marriage. Clearly that is without any basis given the fact that she was caught out on many occasions either exaggerating, mis-characterizing or outright lying about events. That is normal. Warring couples do that. The difference here is that a section of the public thinks they know it all based on the biased accounts of one party.
People may like or dislike any of the parties involved (Charles, Camilla and Diana). Logic suggests that they will write according to their partisan slants. The public are then free to read and make what they will of it. The thing that disturbs me is yet that same section of the public that seems to be intent on ensuring that only the Diana version is heard and that everybody should just let it go unchallenged. That is not how the world works. There will be many, many more books about each party. Some will be positive, some will be negative. You just have to lump it or ignore it if it is not to your tastes. Complaining that an author is not writing what you want to hear is hardly going to change her mind or even the attitudes of any of the principals involved. They just do not care any longer (one because she is dead and the other because they have moved on with their lives).
Who is to blame for Diana's death? It is neither Charles nor Camilla nor the royal family. The word accident comes to mind. Those people she found so boring and insulated were actually protected by their boring and insulated lives. As Diana was being chased by the paparazzi in Paris; dull old needy Charles and his stuffy family were safely ensconced in boring old Scotland. Camilla was at home with her family. It is nothing to do with them.
Then you have these frankly ridiculous assumptions that had he loved her, she would not be looking for love in all the wrong places. Simultaneously that she stood up for herself. Yes, she said she was not going to accept Charles as he is and decided to move on. Even the actual divorce was precipitated by her horrendous Panorama interview which was a direct attack on Charles. Before that the family had allowed her a separation, access to her children and a home. She was not satisfied and still wanted to have the last word. Well, she had the last word and in her attempt to revenge on Charles; Diana ended up destroying herself.
Any decisions that she made after the divorce were entirely up to her. This was a grown up woman in her 30s. She gave up her title and dismissed the royal protection officers. Those two decisions turned out to be disastrous for her own safety but nobody forced her to make them (although yet that same section of the public wants to make out that the queen stripped of her title, removed her body guards and arranged for her to be killed).
I find it boring because there is nothing new. Same old, same old. "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them". Never any variation, insight or introspection. You can only repeat that mantra for so long before it puts people off. I am one of those that have checked out of that particular paradigm. The people that consider themselves to be super fans of Diana are quite free to send messages to one another on forums saying how "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them". I have nothing more contribute to that which I consider to be a groundhog day echo chamber.
Naturally the likes of Bashir, Morton Holden were not objective journalists but partisans who tried to destroy Charles and his family. The royals would be absolute fools to let them anywhere near. It would be as silly as getting your sworn enemy to cook your food. I find it logical and entirely justified that those people were frozen out. The royal family has enough enemies without inviting them to their doorstep. Let them continue writing about how "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them". Those who are interested can continue buying their books.
There is a very simple solution to Penny Junor if you find her work distasteful. Do not buy or read it. I am sure if she does not have readers, she will close shop. The fact that she hasn't closed shop by now indicates that there are clearly many people that believe in her work and want to read it. Just like many bought into Diana's account.
@royalanthropologist I never said Charles and Camilla were responsible for Diana's death. I said that Diana died one year after her divorce so there will never be anything new regarding her life and to talk about Diana her whole adult life was that of POW. One cannot help in a conversation of all three about bringing up the war of the Wales and Charles and Camilla's part in it.
For the record I have read Junor's books and instead of learning about William I felt like I was rereading Charles victim or villain as it was the same trashing of Diana that I am now reading in the excerpts of this new book. So what is the point of buying this book if I am going to read the same exact things?. As for enemies there is an old saying keep your friends close and your enemies even closer the RF would do well to remember that.
I agree with you on one thing
@Trudie. The pre 2005 stuff is just repeated stuff, that is why I wanted some real insight into what the royals are really like. But the same can be said about Morton. He has simply pulled out an old book and added bits to it to resale. Those who find it distasteful and wasteful, might be well advised to give it a miss. I am grateful for Curryong's reviews because they save me the trouble of having to read the same book twice. She has highlighted a few things I did not know about so I am grateful for that. If there is anything new in the book, I am more than happy to discuss or even read it.
I was disappointed in the William and Harry books. For one thing in her zest to bash Diana she left out the story of another falling out where Carole got Kate and William back together at a bonfire party and in the Harry book she barely mentioned anything about his girlfriends Cressida and Chelsy and reasons he broke up with each one. Junor seems to have a cottage industry of bashing DIana after Charles Victim or Villain came out. She has personal issues against Diana.
Double post auto-merged: June 30, 2017, 11:27:38 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 30, 2017, 10:15:49 AM
@Trudie. In my view it is ridiculous to suggest that Diana was a neutral and objective commentator on matters pertaining to her marriage. Clearly that is without any basis given the fact that she was caught out on many occasions either exaggerating, mis-characterizing or outright lying about events. That is normal. Warring couples do that. The difference here is that a section of the public thinks they know it all based on the biased accounts of one party.
People may like or dislike any of the parties involved (Charles, Camilla and Diana). Logic suggests that they will write according to their partisan slants. The public are then free to read and make what they will of it. The thing that disturbs me is yet that same section of the public that seems to be intent on ensuring that only the Diana version is heard and that everybody should just let it go unchallenged. That is not how the world works. There will be many, many more books about each party. Some will be positive, some will be negative. You just have to lump it or ignore it if it is not to your tastes. Complaining that an author is not writing what you want to hear is hardly going to change her mind or even the attitudes of any of the principals involved. They just do not care any longer (one because she is dead and the other because they have moved on with their lives).
Who is to blame for Diana's death? It is neither Charles nor Camilla nor the royal family. The word accident comes to mind. Those people she found so boring and insulated were actually protected by their boring and insulated lives. As Diana was being chased by the paparazzi in Paris; dull old needy Charles and his stuffy family were safely ensconced in boring old Scotland. Camilla was at home with her family. It is nothing to do with them.
Then you have these frankly ridiculous assumptions that had he loved her, she would not be looking for love in all the wrong places. Simultaneously that she stood up for herself. Yes, she said she was not going to accept Charles as he is and decided to move on. Even the actual divorce was precipitated by her horrendous Panorama interview which was a direct attack on Charles. Before that the family had allowed her a separation, access to her children and a home. She was not satisfied and still wanted to have the last word. Well, she had the last word and in her attempt to revenge on Charles; Diana ended up destroying herself.
Any decisions that she made after the divorce were entirely up to her. This was a grown up woman in her 30s. She gave up her title and dismissed the royal protection officers. Those two decisions turned out to be disastrous for her own safety but nobody forced her to make them (although yet that same section of the public wants to make out that the queen stripped of her title, removed her body guards and arranged for her to be killed).
I find it boring because there is nothing new. Same old, same old. "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them". Never any variation, insight or introspection. You can only repeat that mantra for so long before it puts people off. I am one of those that have checked out of that particular paradigm. The people that consider themselves to be super fans of Diana are quite free to send messages to one another on forums saying how "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them". I have nothing more contribute to that which I consider to be a groundhog day echo chamber.
Naturally the likes of Bashir, Morton Holden were not objective journalists but partisans who tried to destroy Charles and his family. The royals would be absolute fools to let them anywhere near. It would be as silly as getting your sworn enemy to cook your food. I find it logical and entirely justified that those people were frozen out. The royal family has enough enemies without inviting them to their doorstep. Let them continue writing about how "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them". Those who are interested can continue buying their books.
There is a very simple solution to Penny Junor if you find her work distasteful. Do not buy or read it. I am sure if she does not have readers, she will close shop. The fact that she hasn't closed shop by now indicates that there are clearly many people that believe in her work and want to read it. Just like many bought into Diana's account.
No, DIana did not give up her title. Charles and the Queen wanted the HRH removed though she kept her title Princess of Wales. No way would the QUeen have let her keep that title. DIana was dependent on what the royals want. IT is just trying to cast blame on Diana for "giving up" the title. THe Queen took it from her and no way would she have let her have that title no matter what Diana said to the press.
I don't think "many" people believe Junor's work. Some people read it for curiosity and some really wanted to read about WIlliam and Harry but got a lot of Diana bashing. The Harry book got bad reviews, people who are not naive or are not ardent Charles fans will not believe what she writes.
As long as she has that axe to grind about Diana, Junor will continue the books. Until she ages out or retires.
When WIlliam becomes King I think there will be books praising Diana.
Junor makes a mistake by not making Camilla look like a flawed human being (like everybody else) but instead tries to make her a plaster saint. Junor must have a bit of a crush on Camilla or maybe envies her for bagging her idol Charles.
Double post auto-merged: June 30, 2017, 11:31:14 AM
Quote from: sara8150 on June 30, 2017, 02:31:19 AM
The making of a royal mistress and why opposites have rarely been so attracted: How Camilla was confident, flirty and adored at home while Charles was tortured, miserable and never felt truly loved by his parents
How Camilla was confident, flirty and adored at home | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4652314/How-Camilla-confident-flirty-adored-home.html)
This article is so sweetly saccharine. Junor must be losing it. Trying to depict Camilla as a saint is not a good idea. And so tired of Charles whining about his childhood. He made his point hundreds of times. It's like beating a dead horse.
Now you all know that I am a great admirer of Diana, not of Camilla or Charles. Therefore I had great feelings of trepidation when I bought The Duchess that I was (a) going to read a whole heap of re-hashing of The War of the Wales's retold from Junor/Camilla's point of view, and (b) that I was going to be seriously annoyed by her partisanship and would end up throwing the book out of the window!
While there are in some later chapters a lot of the same old, same old, and PJ certainly loves her Camilla and thinks she is absolutely marvellous, there are also some early chapters and several later ones where Junor goes into her charities, rape victims, abused animals, domestic violence etc and her friendship with an artist who was commissioned to paint her portrait that are genuinely quite interesting. There is some Diana-bashing, and Camilla and Charles-worshipping (and frustratingly little on Charles and Camilla's years at St James with William and Harry.)
However-- the first eight chapters don't mention Diana at all. In Chapter 1 The Problem. PJ visits Poundbury, Charles's personal vision of community town planning and observes his parents' noncommittal visit to it. This sets the narrative for Charles for the rest of the book, actually, that Charles's parents never encouraged him, never really appreciated him, were never demonstrative, the Queen was detached and Philip a bully. This stunted Charles's emotional growth, making him disconcertingly weak, and insecure, according to Junor, until he settled down with Camilla who has been balm to a wounded soul. (This is PJ's take on the POW, remember, not mine!)
Chapter 2 Debs Delight sets a cracking pace, beginning with C and C's introduction in the summer of 1971 by Lucia Santa Cruz, who was a great friend to both, but not a girlfriend to Charles it seems. Then there is a description of Andrew Parker Bowles and his meeting with Camilla in London when he was a Debs Delight, and she 'came out' as a deb at Queen Charlotte's Ball. His womanising around town is covered but Camilla becomes, at least nominally, his girlfriend.
In the same chapter we get Charles's exploits as Action Man, his devotion to Mountbatten, who gives advice about women, and we also read about Charles's naval career. Charles sees Cam again at the polo and, while APB is away in Northern Ireland begins to date her late in 1972. Camilla is in love with Andrew and is determined to land him but early in 1973 Andrew is elusive, he's dating Princess Anne. Charles falls in love with Cam but does not propose. Anne goes on to date Mark Phillips and in March 1973, Andrew proposes. Charles is away with his ship in the West Indies and is heartbroken when he hears the news, writes to Camilla begging her to reconsider, but she goes ahead and marries APB.
Chapter 3 Medals not Money is all about Camilla's father, his distinguished military record and his very strange family background with a much married father, well known in Society circles, that he doesn't really get to know until he's an adult.
Chapter 4 History. This chapter goes into the family background of Cam's mother Rosalind Cubitt, whose family had a property fortune. There is info, most of which I knew already, on Alice Keppel and her daughter Violet Trefusis, who loved Vita Sackville-West.
Chapter 5. The Foundation Years. This deals with Camilla's parents, their happy marriage and home in the country, their sociability, Camilla's closeness to her sister, and her devotion to ponies. Her father hunted.
Chapter 6. The Stuffed Stoat. Camilla attended a small boarding school with an eccentric headmistress. She liked it there but the education except for English Lit was only passable.
Chapter 7. Swinging Sixties. This reveals later years as a boarder in a girls school at Kensington. As Camilla grew up PJ states that she had no desire to go to University. She wished to be like her mother, an upper middleclass wife and mother in the country with horses and dogs. She discovered boys. There was a cookery course, then a finishing school in Switzerland, then time in Paris perfecting her French. PJ says that although she and her friends partied and drank they weren't part of the Swinging Sixties. She had boyfriends and temporary jobs, one of which she lost within days after partying late the night before and falling asleep. There are descriptions of a colourful Cubitt uncle.
Chapter 8. Mrs PB. Rosalind Shand doesn't like APB's offhand manner with her daughter, but Camilla finally nabs him and they marry. We learn of the Parker Bowles family background. Bolehyde, their first marital,home, is described. The children are born. AJB continues extra marital activities. Camilla becomes increasingly unhappy.
You see from this that there is nothing of Diana for eight chapters and very little of Charles. It is only in Chapter 9 The Attentions of A Prince: that he comes back into the story once more. There is the story of his life and girlfriends following Camilla's marriage, the gradual orbits of the Parker Bowles and of Charles coming together, with other mutual friends in the polo and hunting crowd, and the story of girlfriends and Amanda Knatchbull, Dale Tryon and Sarah Spencer and the others that we know so well.
So I think that with at least four chapters in the second half of the book dealing with charitable enterprises and the people that run them, and at least eight chapters not going over old territory if one didn't know about Alice, Violet and Vita, I don't think there is too much beating of dead horses!
@Curryong Thank you if that is the case I just may read the book it would be interesting to see just what makes Camilla tick as it is obvious given her ambitions Mark Bolland just may have been right when he said she was essentially the most lazy woman.
Quote from: Curryong on June 30, 2017, 01:48:40 PM
Now you all know that I am a great admirer of Diana, not of Camilla or Charles. Therefore I had great feelings of trepidation when I bought The Duchess that I was (a) going to read a whole heap of re-hashing of The War of the Wales's retold from Junor/Camilla's point of view, and (b) that I was going to be seriously annoyed by her partisanship and would end up throwing the book out of the window!
While there are in some later chapters a lot of the same old, same old, and PJ certainly loves her Camilla and thinks she is absolutely marvellous, there are also some early chapters and several later ones where Junor goes into her charities, rape victims, abused animals, domestic violence etc and her friendship with an artist who was commissioned to paint her portrait that are genuinely quite interesting. There is some Diana-bashing, and Camilla and Charles-worshipping (and frustratingly little on Charles and Camilla's years at St James with William and Harry.)
However-- the first eight chapters don't mention Diana at all. In Chapter 1 The Problem. PJ visits Poundbury, Charles's personal vision of community town planning and observes his parents' noncommittal visit to it. This sets the narrative for Charles for the rest of the book, actually, that Charles's parents never encouraged him, never really appreciated him, were never demonstrative, the Queen was detached and Philip a bully. This stunted Charles's emotional growth, making him disconcertingly weak, and insecure, according to Junor, until he settled down with Camilla who has been balm to a wounded soul. (This is PJ's take on the POW, remember, not mine!)
Chapter 2 Debs Delight sets a cracking pace, beginning with C and C's introduction in the summer of 1971 by Lucia Santa Cruz, who was a great friend to both, but not a girlfriend to Charles it seems. Then there is a description of Andrew Parker Bowles and his meeting with Camilla in London when he was a Debs Delight, and she 'came out' as a deb at Queen Charlotte's Ball. His womanising around town is covered but Camilla becomes, at least nominally, his girlfriend.
In the same chapter we get Charles's exploits as Action Man, his devotion to Mountbatten, who gives advice about women, and we also read about Charles's naval career. Charles sees Cam again at the polo and, while APB is away in Northern Ireland begins to date her late in 1972. Camilla is in love with Andrew and is determined to land him but early in 1973 Andrew is elusive, he's dating Princess Anne. Charles falls in love with Cam but does not propose. Anne goes on to date Mark Phillips and in March 1973, Andrew proposes. Charles is away with his ship in the West Indies and is heartbroken when he hears the news, writes to Camilla begging her to reconsider, but she goes ahead and marries APB.
Chapter 3 Medals not Money is all about Camilla's father, his distinguished military record and his very strange family background with a much married father, well known in Society circles, that he doesn't really get to know until he's an adult.
Chapter 4 History. This chapter goes into the family background of Cam's mother Rosalind Cubitt, whose family had a property fortune. There is info, most of which I knew already, on Alice Keppel and her daughter Violet Trefusis, who loved Vita Sackville-West.
Chapter 5. The Foundation Years. This deals with Camilla's parents, their happy marriage and home in the country, their sociability, Camilla's closeness to her sister, and her devotion to ponies. Her father hunted.
Chapter 6. The Stuffed Stoat. Camilla attended a small boarding school with an eccentric headmistress. She liked it there but the education except for English Lit was only passable.
Chapter 7. Swinging Sixties. This reveals later years as a boarder in a girls school at Kensington. As Camilla grew up PJ states that she had no desire to go to University. She wished to be like her mother, an upper middleclass wife and mother in the country with horses and dogs. She discovered boys. There was a cookery course, then a finishing school in Switzerland, then time in Paris perfecting her French. PJ says that although she and her friends partied and drank they weren't part of the Swinging Sixties. She had boyfriends and temporary jobs, one of which she lost within days after partying late the night before and falling asleep. There are descriptions of a colourful Cubitt uncle.
Chapter 8. Mrs PB. Rosalind Shand doesn't like APB's offhand manner with her daughter, but Camilla finally nabs him and they marry. We learn of the Parker Bowles family background. Bolehyde, their first marital,home, is described. The children are born. AJB continues extra marital activities. Camilla becomes increasingly unhappy.
You see from this that there is nothing of Diana for eight chapters and very little of Charles. It is only in Chapter 9 The Attentions of A Prince: that he comes back into the story once more. There is the story of his life and girlfriends following Camilla's marriage, the gradual orbits of the Parker Bowles and of Charles coming together, with other mutual friends in the polo and hunting crowd, and the story of girlfriends and Amanda Knatchbull, Dale Tryon and Sarah Spencer and the others that we know so well.
So I think that with at least four chapters in the second half of the book dealing with charitable enterprises and the people that run them, and at least eight chapters not going over old territory if one didn't know about Alice, Violet and Vita, I don't think there is too much beating of dead horses!
I already read quite a bit about Camilla in two biographies that came out in the late nineties. Plus I read Alice Keppel and her Daughters which was a detailed account of that family. And Andrew and Camilla cheated on each other when they dated. So it should have been no surprise to the couple after they exchanged vows that they would stray. Charles is rather strange. He never told Dimbleby he wanted to marry Camilla back then, he just said he was "too young" to marry when he first met Camilla. So if he knew that Camilla was interested in Andrew, then it makes no sense that he did not tell her to wait for him when he boarded the ship.
The details about Charles' complaints are in the Dimbleby book.
So this seems like a rehash, plus the anti Diana spin.
If Camilla had merely "dated" then there would have been no controversy about her as a choice. But her first lover did come forward and she did have relationships with men other than Andrew. Though her intense relationship with Andrew alone may well have caused the controversy. I don't think Camilla loathed Andrew, I think the two still have affection for one another and it was not that the two could not stand each other.
@Curryong you have done a great service to those of use who are unable to find time to peruse the book. I have to say that I find Rosalind Cubbitt and even Shand to be very interesting parents. Another side to the upper class, very different from the cold indifferent sorts of things.
As for the queen and prince Phillip, I have always felt that each in their own ways was a terrible parent to Charles. Without the QM, he would have had a horrendous childhood. The queen is cold even at this late stage. Phillip likes to bully and hector but age has caught up with him. They do not come across as the warmest parents who imbue their children with confidence and support.
I was also rather interested in the idea that Diana used to actually do housework when she visited the Parker Bowles home and was good with the children. That is not something that I would have expected of an Earl's daughter. That side of her was sometimes drowned out by all the victimhood stuff. It would be nice if a good biography by a distinguished and objective person was done to bring out those parts of her life that were not sensationalist but nevertheless helped to explain her character.
As per usual, the DM has picked out the click bait and virtually ignored the rest of the book knowing that its gullible readers will take the bait and spill their bile. I know the commercial reasoning behind it so perhaps it is to be expected.
The Queen gave permission for Charles (a divorced man) to marry Camilla (a divorced woman). Queen Mary would not even receive Wallis after her son married her. Plus oddly enough, there was a PBS special where Charles wiped away a tear of joy and chuckled at home movies taken when he and Anne were toddlers. The Queen, Philip, and Margaret and the Queen Mum looked quite affectionate with Charles and Anne. So was Charles trying to retract the "bad parenting" story then? It was on PBS a short time ago. So it gave evidence that Charles was not treated 'badly" during the private time of the royals. Charles thanked his father for sending him to that school in Australia he is on record saying he very much enjoyed it there. So again it could not have been "all bad." I don't see the Queen as "cold" and none of Charles siblings claimed she was. And their father was not considered "cold" by Charles siblings. THe Queen MUM IMO overly indulged Charles to the point where he had a sense of entitlement and was "special." She went too far in the other direction.
Diana did not do housework for the Parker Bowleses--she never said she did. She did housework for her sister Sarah when they briefly shared a flat, did housework in the flat she shared with her friends. THe Parker Bowleses were hosts to her so I doubt they would expect her to work. Diana never really mentioned at any length the PB children and Tom never talked about DIana being in the home (Laura would probably have been too young to remember.
The part about Diana still is there as it has been in the last few books by Junor. If she had only toned this down and not gone on the bashing the book I think would have been much better. Also, making Camilla appear to be saintly is really biased reporting. I don't think readers are gullible people are allowed to form their own opinions about a book. I see a lot of bile from Junor who admits she does not like Diana.
It would have been better had Junor also reached out to DIana's friends (although they might not have returned her phone calls) to talk about Diana and not make her look like a walking basket case. I am very leery about the story of Diana destroying Charles art supplies. Stephen Barry was very candid about what went on with Charles and Diana but never mentioned this episode. I think Diana would have mentioned it to Morton if it had happened.
There is one thing that I will agree with. When doing a biography about someone, it is a good idea to consider and even incorporate the views of both supporters and detractors. Otherwise it becomes a partisan hagiography or alternatively a hatchet job. That is a criticism that all biographers (including Junor and Morton) might want to take on board.
Did Britain's most hated woman SAVE the monarchy? Biographer PENNY JUNOR says Camilla is far from being the mistress who destroyed the Royal Family - and is actually their salvation
Penny Junor: Camilla the mistress who was the salvation | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4655924/Did-Britain-s-hated-woman-SAVE-monarchy.html)
Penny waxes large in her book about Cam being the glue between Charles and his sons, (It's seems to me the super adhesiveness seems to be wearing off) her perfection at Royal engagements, putting everyone she meets at ease, including the journalists, and about being THE GREAT MAN's saviour, his help, balm, encouragement and support, and the one person who can laugh with him, bring him up when he's down, (actually I believe that last bit, as Charles still indulges in anguished moods and C apparently can bring him out of them.)
The most important bit to Charles of course is that his wife doesn't outshine him on engagements. This must be because she artfully turns her giant charisma lamp to OFF when they have joint engagements so the spotlight remains firmly on HIM, lol. Because of course, according to Penny, who never met a Diana follower she didn't loathe on sight, Camilla has ten times the warmth and understanding of her predecessor and people understand that.
Camilla was never the glue that held the monarchy together. Ever. She was darn lucky to get into the family. Junor admits she spoke to Camilla so no doubt she is trying to flatter Camillla (and Charles) to the nth degree. If Camilla is truly the glue she would have told Junor to wait until after her stepsons William and Harry pay tribute to their mother instead of butting in like she usually does. If Camilla is truly the glue, then why did WIlliam start spending so much time with his in-laws. Charles even complains that he does not see much of his grandchildren. So how come "Super Camilla" did not glue the family together so Charles would see them often and WIlliam would not spend most of the time with the Middletons. This book in itself is really making the divisions even worse and opening up old wounds. Junor's mistake is trying to make Camilla this superior being. Camilla was darn lucky as I said to even get in. Wallis Simpson and her royal husband were practically exiled. I don't think there was even a tiny bit of glue. I doubt Will and Harry spent much time with Camilla. And I have to laugh when Junor talks about all the "sacrifices" Camilla made, I must have missed something, what sacrifices did she make? She got bling and perks and could manipulate the heir to the throne. What planet does JUnor live on. All this and Diana bashing too. How can she be the glue when she obviously has absolute contempt for her stepsons's mother. This sounds like a joke now. Junor's hyperbole to me is hugely counterproductive. I think even Camilla's parents had they been around today would be embarrassed. And how come if Camilla was such "glue" did the Queen Mum make it clear she wanted no C and C wedding in her lifetime.
In thee earlier part of the week the serialization part talked how the Queen wanted her gone a few days later she is super glue? which is it Penny? Sorry but Camilla never sacrificed anything all she ever wanted she has had.
Well the proof is in the pudding about the impact of Camilla on the royal family. The great thing is that there are actually two "reigns" as wives of the current prince of wales which make it easier to do a comparative analysis. Specifically we can compare 13 years from 1981 to 1992 then from 2005 to 2017. The things that might give us a clue are as follows:
a) What is the state of the monarchy?
b) How do members interact with one another?
c) How effective are the members in their work?
My own view is that the monarchy has settled down considerably since 2005. There are less press briefings against one another and competitions as to who is getting the most publicity for their work. The queen is visibly less stressed and this is no annus horribilis.
Perhaps the person that has benefited most is Charles. He has a wife who loves him unconditionally and wants to support him. He has blossomed and is visibly happy. There are no more glares and public spats that embarrass hosts at state visits. The likes of Morton and Bashir do not have any chance of ever getting an interview from any member of the royal family again.
On balance I think that Camilla's reign is very peaceful when compared to what happened in the past. So peaceful in fact that those who were caught up in the heady days of royal scandal are finding it hard to cope without juicy stories of family discord. In their absence, they just make up the stories; looking for any sign that the royal family is at as dysfunctional as it was once portrayed in the 1980s and 1990s.
At the same time it is very easy to say that all the problems in the royal family were caused by Diana or that all the solutions in the royal family were provided by Camilla. That is not true. There are many members that contribute to the well being of the firm. It is just that the personalities of the two women had very opposite effects on the family dynamics. In Diana's case, what was wrong with the family was more magnified and more publicized. In the case of Camilla, what was wrong with the family was minimized and hidden or mitigated, instead promoting what was good about the family.
In my view two of Charles' biggest mistakes were: 1) not marrying Camilla when he first met her 2) Proposing to and marrying Diana Spencer. Those two mistakes have brought him and his family grief for many, many years. I think in hindsight, even he would admit that he should have married Camilla and never proposed to Diana. It all ended up being a disaster that has divided his people and caused his family untold stress, let alone his own unhappiness.
As for Diana, those two mistakes meant that she spent the better part of her adult life trying to fight for a man and marriage that was forever beyond her reach. One can only imagine the torment and feelings of rejection; knowing that Charles did not love her, had never loved her, would never love her and was in love with someone else.
The Mark Bolland period, in which there were constant spats, jealousies and disputes between the different Royal households, some of which leaked to the public, occurred until Bolland's resignation as consultant to the POW's staff in 2002. Charles was solely responsible for employing that mischief maker in the late 1990s and keeping him on a a special consultant, simply because he had worked at rehabilitating Charles's reputation and building up Camilla's.
Admittedly Mark Bolland was very aggressive, sometimes too aggressive. However, he had to be in order to do the job that he was hired for. Charles had been repeatedly traduced and ostracized by Diana and her allies. He was ineffective in the PR game and loathed to engage with the press which he (quite rightly in my view) considered to be the scum of the earth.
His family was never really supportive of him in his difficulties with the exception of the QM. Hence the decision to hire Bolland. Bolland did what he had to do. His tactics were aggressive, manipulative and ruthless. However, those are the very same tactics that Diana and her allies had used to try and destroy Charles. He would have been a fool to let their charges go unanswered.
For all its worth, I think that Charles made a big strategic mistake (after the monumental one of marrying Diana in the first place)...he dithered about the divorce. The time when the marriage "irretrievably broke down" was the time he should have told his mother and Diana that he wanted out of the marriage. I imagine that if they had divorced in 1985, Bolland and his ilk would not have been necessary. Diana would have gone on with her life and Charles with his. It is the dithering and indecision that allowed a situation to fester when it should have been nipped in the bud right from the word go. I think in hindsight, the queen too realizes that preventing or discouraging a divorce was a very bad idea especially when the couple in question were so incompatible as to make any compromise arrangement impossible.
I know I've said this before, but there was no way that a divorce would have been permitted In the 80s. Charles and Diana were stuck in the marriage and both of them took a lover, to give them compainionship and affection.
Charles was willing to put up with that, I think and to see Camilla quietly, but Diana wasn't very happy with being stuck with a bad marriage and her only outlet as she saw it being a furtive affair with J Hewitt. when the Hewitt affair ended, she got depressed and crazy and began to hunt around for some way out of the marriage. She started a flirtation with James Gilbey..in the late 80s... She realised that JH wasn't very trustworthy and that he was hinting about their affair to the press and she probably worried that if the relationship got out, the public might turn on her and dislike her.
boht of them were in a difficult positon, but I think that charles was willing to abide by the rules and keep going, have Camilla as a companion and ignore Diana's relationships.. and hoped she would do the same. But she was jealous of Camilla and angry that she was not able to have an open relationship.. and began to get wild ideas...
Diana did not get "crazy" that is Penny Junor spin. She was unhappy. But for ten years she and Charles kept up appearances and did royal work. She was not some raging "maniac". Hewitt just sold her out and it did not give him a bit of good he lost the $$$ and he never really settled down. Camilla was more than a companion. What rules did Charles play by? I see it as doing what he wants and thinking himself entitled to do so. Diana had no 'wild ideas'--she complained about Camilla so Charles' pals leaked stories about her and Camilla phoned the Sun Editor for ten years. It was a lot more complicated than Diana being called "crazy." Charles should have had more brains than to bring DIana into this mess so he could have his heirs.
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 11:05:55 AM
Quote from: Curryong on July 01, 2017, 05:59:20 AM
The Mark Bolland period, in which there were constant spats, jealousies and disputes between the different Royal households, some of which leaked to the public, occurred until Bolland's resignation as consultant to the POW's staff in 2002. Charles was solely responsible for employing that mischief maker in the late 1990s and keeping him on a a special consultant, simply because he had worked at rehabilitating Charles's reputation and building up Camilla's.
CHarles used his own son Harry's brief involvement with drugs for his PR. Mark Bolland suggested Charles try to promote himself as a "great father" and Charles complied.
Oh Sandy for goodness skae.. we know it was a mistake,.,. we know it was a mess, but ther'es only so many times one can say that. isn't it more interesting to try and discuss them as people, instead of contantly complaining about Charles part in the "mess". he was at fault but so was Diana.
I do noticed amabel you referred to Diana as "crazy." That's part of the problem now, Charles spin is labeling her that way and you just enable it calling the dead woman "crazy." So please do not preach to me.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 01, 2017, 05:25:44 AM
Well the proof is in the pudding about the impact of Camilla on the royal family. The great thing is that there are actually two "reigns" as wives of the current prince of wales which make it easier to do a comparative analysis. Specifically we can compare 13 years from 1981 to 1992 then from 2005 to 2017. The things that might give us a clue are as follows:
a) What is the state of the monarchy?
b) How do members interact with one another?
c) How effective are the members in their work?
My own view is that the monarchy has settled down considerably since 2005. There are less press briefings against one another and competitions as to who is getting the most publicity for their work. The queen is visibly less stressed and this is no annus horribilis.
Perhaps the person that has benefited most is Charles. He has a wife who loves him unconditionally and wants to support him. He has blossomed and is visibly happy. There are no more glares and public spats that embarrass hosts at state visits. The likes of Morton and Bashir do not have any chance of ever getting an interview from any member of the royal family again.
On balance I think that Camilla's reign is very peaceful when compared to what happened in the past. So peaceful in fact that those who were caught up in the heady days of royal scandal are finding it hard to cope without juicy stories of family discord. In their absence, they just make up the stories; looking for any sign that the royal family is at as dysfunctional as it was once portrayed in the 1980s and 1990s.
At the same time it is very easy to say that all the problems in the royal family were caused by Diana or that all the solutions in the royal family were provided by Camilla. That is not true. There are many members that contribute to the well being of the firm. It is just that the personalities of the two women had very opposite effects on the family dynamics. In Diana's case, what was wrong with the family was more magnified and more publicized. In the case of Camilla, what was wrong with the family was minimized and hidden or mitigated, instead promoting what was good about the family.
In my view two of Charles' biggest mistakes were: 1) not marrying Camilla when he first met her 2) Proposing to and marrying Diana Spencer. Those two mistakes have brought him and his family grief for many, many years. I think in hindsight, even he would admit that he should have married Camilla and never proposed to Diana. It all ended up being a disaster that has divided his people and caused his family untold stress, let alone his own unhappiness.
As for Diana, those two mistakes meant that she spent the better part of her adult life trying to fight for a man and marriage that was forever beyond her reach. One can only imagine the torment and feelings of rejection; knowing that Charles did not love her, had never loved her, would never love her and was in love with someone else.
Charles was turned down by two other women and he turned down a women (Davina Sheffield) because her ex spoke to the press. So he did not just go from Camilla to Diana. Any one of the other ladies could have been his bride. Charles had no business marrying Diana if he did not love her. If he were more serious about any of the other ladies and felt he loved them, is subject to speculation.
I think there are some issues with the Firm. IT is all not hearts and flowers. The fact that Charles and Camilla were in touch with and spoke to Junor (she admits this) shows they condoned the book. The fact that Charles' torment from his parents is still part of the book also speaks volumes. ANd William's going to spend his time with the Middletons also shows all is not well and healthy. I can't imagine William and Harry being thrilled with this book coming out which rips Diana to shreds, they loved her and spoke out about her during the year and are planning tributes to her. Camilla appeared to just sabotage this and I don't believe the woman could not at least have told Junor to wait. It shows there are big cracks in the facade.
I am not convinced Charles is "happy." Camilla surely is.
Charles truly shows he just does not get it and so does Camilla. Camilla giving that interview was very stupid since it raked up the past and reminded people of it.
Poor charlres so now he's not happy?
I don't think he's the type to ever be happy. He is not satisfied apparently that Camilla is married to him and will be his consort when he's King. He appears to want "everybody" to love Camilla and also believe that DIana was the cause of the marriage breakdown and not himself and Camilla. Charles was doing fine until he started this latest barrage of PR for himself and Camilla. HE still complains about his "miserable" childhood so I do think he's a malcontent and always has been.
I like you all.
I really do, but Awwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!! :orchid:
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 08:25:52 PM
Big yawn...awwwww!!!!!!
where has he ever said that he wants everyone to love Camilla or to demonise Diana?
Charles has PR people that speak for him. IF he did not want Diana "demonized" he would have made her non-negotiable. I think Junor is his mouthpiece. She is very friendly with C and C and even vacationed with Camilla and she sees them socially. Charles will hardly do it himself. That's why he hired Bolland for example.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2017, 06:05:34 PM
The Duchess: The Untold Story by Penny Junor ? digested read | Books | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jul/02/the-duchess-the-untold-story-by-penny-junor-digested-read-camilla-parker-bowles)
Another take on the book
Quote from: sara8150 on June 30, 2017, 02:31:19 AM
The making of a royal mistress and why opposites have rarely been so attracted: How Camilla was confident, flirty and adored at home while Charles was tortured, miserable and never felt truly loved by his parents
How Camilla was confident, flirty and adored at home | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4652314/How-Camilla-confident-flirty-adored-home.html)
True. Camilla , like K, had a good strong family unit. Camilla's parents were hands on, hands on for that time and their station in life. She was not a poor kid. She was connected. Home and family gives people a base to make them or break them.
I do NOT Camilla , do NOT like Camilla. I find NEW and some same ole info about her home life and ups bringing interesting.
PC, I do not think his life was so bad. QEII was QofE. He had dear nanny and QM. QEII worked outside of the home, if you look at it that way. QEII had a very close family and hands-on parents, according to their times and station in life, in her mother and father , even if he was K eventually.
I think PD's home life was most cold, empty, disconnected. A mother who left and was not really there. An aristo dad who was adoring it says, but....not PW type of father. Nannies. Schools. to say this, PD was a GOOD MOTHER and hands-on and in her children's lives.
Camilla, do not like her, but she is , by all accounts ,a good hands-on mother and grannie, mother-in-law TO HER CHILDREN, T and L PB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the sarcasm in the article I posted. Of course Camilla was from an upper middle class family not 'poor.'
I do think Charles enjoys complaining about his "lot".
I do think Camilla made sure her children and family (even her ex husband) benefitted from her association with Charles. I don't think she's an especially nice person and Junor isn't making up stories about DIana. LIke a nasty old gossipy person with time on her hands.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 30, 2017, 03:48:40 AM
@Trudie. To be honest I am kinda bored with the whole War of the Waleses stuff now. It happened decades ago and really has no relevance to the current royal family. I asked for a review and was interested in the post 2005 era because much of it is speculative since no royal is ever going to open up again to the press in the style of "Diana, Her True Story" or even Panorama. I assumed that since Junor is a friend of C&C, she would have better access to the royals and what they were really like in private. The likes of Bashir, Morton or Holden or Burchill will never ever get any royal access again. They are effectively on a banned list of media non-grata. The other old stuff about who did, said, through what etc. is made up of the same arguments, the same squabbles, the same recriminations, the same excuses, the same compromises. I find it boring and repetitive so I am just detaching from it. Those who enjoy raking over the coals are quite welcome to do so, I am now focusing on the modern royal family in my commentary.
Pardon me from repeating myself again, but I have been posting I am BORED with you guys back and forth and OMITTING FACTS . THE FACTS FACTS re there and it is NOT my opinion or even Junors, who is wrong on many points in her sensational, gossipy, one-sided, ulterior motivated , Diana slamming book, # 34th copy. LOL!!
Why continue to make false and just really attempts to elevate PC and C at a dead woman's expense, Junor, kind of weird. It also defeats her and authors like her, the purpose they really make to make. Dead girl cannot talk back. All that WAS TRUE was said by PD and PC.
YET, I keep posting because ugh...I cannot help myself. You guys draw me back. I will blame it on you all. LOL!! :-)
PD has relevance to the current and future BRF . SHE WAS MOTHER TO PW , the heir, his children who are future heirs, and PH. Again, I repeat myself. It is impossible to make PC and C a romantic live story of the ages because there was one more character in their "love." Again , I repeat myself.
Any milestones in PW;s life, his kids, PH and his family one day, media and people will reference back to PD.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Shand family was definitely a world away from the dysfunction of the Spencers and Windsors. It actually shows in Camilla's relationship with her children and siblings. That is not a family in which you sense particular hang ups. Camilla is so close to her sister that she even accompanied her on her second honeymoon.
To me the queen is an uncommonly cold mother. It is so strange because Princes Margaret was not like that and the queen mother was definitely not like that. I think the queen takes after May of Teck...very cold and distant. Prince Phillip is really the father from hell if you are a sensitive child. He is incredibly brash and has been known to bully if given half a chance.
The Spencers were just in a league of their own. The royals did like Johnny so I am not too sure that the coverage of him as a gentle giant with a shrewish wife is entirely accurate. Diana said he did knock her about so perhaps there was another side to the marriage. The other Spencer sisters seem to have come out ok but Charles and Diana had such fraught relationships throughout their lives. I mean Charles Spencer's marital life is just outrageous, even by aristocratic standards. You would be hard-pressed to find a bigger misogynist. The divorce papers were amazing. I could not quite believe what I was reading.
I disagree. The Queen did allow Charles to marry the mistress. Mary would not even meet with Wallis after the wedding! Charles did not act like she was "cold" when he watched those home movies on a PBS special, smiling and with tears in his eyes. He did not revile her then. His siblings strongly disagreed that their mother was "cold." Princess Margaret and her husband did not exactly provide the best home life--their marriage was dysfunctional. I am sure though the children loved their parents. Charles does not seem to be a sensitive person to me. A sensitive person would not have married a person he did not love. The other children also have gotten along with their father. Charles constantly gripes and complains about everything that's his way.
Camilla based her life dreams on being like the great grandmother of a mistress of Edward VII. Andrew Parker Bowles' brother criticized Camilla in various interviews.
Which wife was "shrewish." Raine got praised (by Diana!) for looking after John Spencer after he had his stroke. Frances had moved on. I don't see Raine as a "shrew". Not in the least.
Charles Spencer has apparently settled down with his third wife. There ARE multiple marriages among aristos. It is not anything "shocking." He was not the best husband in the world but then again, neither was Charles Windsor to his first wife.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 30, 2017, 10:15:49 AM
@Trudie. In my view it is ridiculous to suggest that Diana was a neutral and objective commentator on matters pertaining to her marriage. Clearly that is without any basis given the fact that she was caught out on many occasions either exaggerating, mis-characterizing or outright lying about events. That is normal. Warring couples do that. The difference here is that a section of the public thinks they know it all based on the biased accounts of one party.
People may like or dislike any of the parties involved (Charles, Camilla and Diana). Logic suggests that they will write according to their partisan slants. The public are then free to read and make what they will of it. The thing that disturbs me is yet that same section of the public that seems to be intent on ensuring that only the Diana version is heard and that everybody should just let it go unchallenged. That is not how the world works. There will be many, many more books about each party. Some will be positive, some will be negative. You just have to lump it or ignore it if it is not to your tastes. Complaining that an author is not writing what you want to hear is hardly going to change her mind or even the attitudes of any of the principals involved. They just do not care any longer (one because she is dead and the other because they have moved on with their lives).
Who is to blame for Diana's death? It is neither Charles nor Camilla nor the royal family. The word accident comes to mind. Those people she found so boring and insulated were actually protected by their boring and insulated lives. As Diana was being chased by the paparazzi in Paris; dull old needy Charles and his stuffy family were safely ensconced in boring old Scotland. Camilla was at home with her family. It is nothing to do with them.
Then you have these frankly ridiculous assumptions that had he loved her, she would not be looking for love in all the wrong places. Simultaneously that she stood up for herself. Yes, she said she was not going to accept Charles as he is and decided to move on. Even the actual divorce was precipitated by her horrendous Panorama interview which was a direct attack on Charles. Before that the family had allowed her a separation, access to her children and a home. She was not satisfied and still wanted to have the last word. Well, she had the last word and in her attempt to revenge on Charles; Diana ended up destroying herself.
Any decisions that she made after the divorce were entirely up to her. This was a grown up woman in her 30s. She gave up her title and dismissed the royal protection officers. Those two decisions turned out to be disastrous for her own safety but nobody forced her to make them (although yet that same section of the public wants to make out that the queen stripped of her title, removed her body guards and arranged for her to be killed).
I find it boring because there is nothing new. Same old, same old. "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them". Never any variation, insight or introspection. You can only repeat that mantra for so long before it puts people off. I am one of those that have checked out of that particular paradigm. The people that consider themselves to be super fans of Diana are quite free to send messages to one another on forums saying how "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them". I have nothing more contribute to that which I consider to be a groundhog day echo chamber.
Naturally the likes of Bashir, Morton Holden were not objective journalists but partisans who tried to destroy Charles and his family. The royals would be absolute fools to let them anywhere near. It would be as silly as getting your sworn enemy to cook your food. I find it logical and entirely justified that those people were frozen out. The royal family has enough enemies without inviting them to their doorstep. Let them continue writing about how "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them". Those who are interested can continue buying their books.
There is a very simple solution to Penny Junor if you find her work distasteful. Do not buy or read it. I am sure if she does not have readers, she will close shop. The fact that she hasn't closed shop by now indicates that there are clearly many people that believe in her work and want to read it. Just like many bought into Diana's account.
Again....FACTS FACTS. D said she took 50% of the fault of HER marriage. It was not my or sandys or Curry's or Junors or yours. What more could Dead girl have said? To me, my opinion, that was kind of generous. It was really 30 % PD, 30% CPB and 30% PC, LOL!!
Well, she did say there were 3 of them in the marriage so. Ok. her life, her marriage. She was more than clear...50% at fault was hers.
PD was not a saint according to her fans here, the Bashirs' Mortons, etc. How many times have we all here said ...crank calls-DUMB!!! Hewitt-bad move.....Hasnat-loved NOT enough to be seen with her in daylight ..in front of the world...Dodi-Daddy's boy.
Again, I am repeating myself on THESE FACTS. Not my opinion, but FACTS.
I have no comments on your harsh opinion, PD wanted to destroy PC...blahblah. Ok, whatever. It is NOT TRUE .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Books are like opinions. Everyone has one but these are NOT Always THE FACTS . Can we stick to the facts.
Her death, I HAVE SAID , over and over here and many authors, real ones anyway, was an unbelieavabe tradgic accident ...unforeseen..no one could have written that ending. PD died her own fault ...lack of security being PD. She did not have security. A drunken driver who was not on call that night. Paps due to lack of security and Paul trying to outrun them. Dodi wanting to impress when they could have stayed at his home at the hotel, his hotel. THe accident was investigated by unbiased journalist . Her accident , I compare to JFK, JR was left late, wife was still shopping late, Friday weekend traffic, him not be able to read night instruments or being certified yet, foggy /hazy night, bummed casted ankle/calf. He crashed.
Raine's obituary excerpt:
She was divorced from Dartmouth in 1976, and shortly afterwards married Spencer. "I fell madly in love when I was 45," she explained to the public prints. In September 1978, however, Spencer suffered a stroke, which he might not have survived but for his new wife's support.
"Nobody destroys me," she boasted, "and nobody was going to destroy Johnny so long as I could sit by his bed – some of the family tried to stop me – and hold his hand."
She insisted on moving him from Northampton to the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in Queen Square, Holborn, where he underwent a lengthy operation.
When it seemed he was on the road to recovery he contracted a rare virus, which entailed another move, to the Brompton Hospital in South Kensington. Once more Raine came to the rescue, importing from Germany a new drug called Azlocillin, then unlicensed in Britain, and insisting that the doctors administer it.
This woman should not be called a "shrew."
Quote from: amabel on July 01, 2017, 08:29:14 PM
where has he ever said that he wants everyone to love Camilla or to demonise Diana?
PRICNE CHARLES is the heir. PofWales. King Charles will be one day. Queen Camilla will be one day. As it has been, is now, and always will be, the nobility/aristos want to be close as can be to the Monarch. If the says one things today, agree. If the Monarch says another, agree. Stay in favor and grace.
If, only IF even after PD died, IF PC had let it be known via TPTB and other sources as it is done this way, and he could have, he wants PD to be non-negotiable in her death for the sake of his sons in other words...no ill talk of her.., HE COULD HAVE.
He has it known via TPTB and other sources, Camilla , HIS QUEEN , HIS BRIDE is non-negotiable and it will not be tolerated in his Kingdom of his subjects speaking ill of His beloved for if so, LOL, one is out of favor and grace. Junor is making sure she stays in.
Other examples....
PD's grandmother, Lady Fermoy , apologized to the Q, The QM , and PC for Diana and all but said she was NUTS.Crazy.
PD's sister and her husband , Fellowes, stayed indifferent to PD for their livihood was to the Crown.
One of the Moutbatten Old Battleaxes said in interview within the last year that PD was crazy .
It was leaked by sources and gained sympathy for PC that he hardly gets to see his grandchildren.
PC did hire a big PR guy to revamp Camill's image to soften it and ease on in her being Q one day. He can do anything because he is the Heir.
Ok, because I know some of us will come back and say, he does not give press conferences, etc. or will take this literal, oh brother!!
PC via TPTB, his press people, his PR people could have and it would have better for him and Camilla to not encourage PD trashed over and over , same ole stuff . Dead girl cannot talk or and anything new to her life. It ended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Junor and Camilla and Charles socialize together. Junor admitted she spoke to them re: the book. Junor adores Charles I would almost say worships. If he told her no more bashing of Diana, she would have obeyed. She and Camilla even travel together.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 01, 2017, 05:25:44 AM
Well the proof is in the pudding about the impact of Camilla on the royal family. The great thing is that there are actually two "reigns" as wives of the current prince of wales which make it easier to do a comparative analysis. Specifically we can compare 13 years from 1981 to 1992 then from 2005 to 2017. The things that might give us a clue are as follows:
a) What is the state of the monarchy?
b) How do members interact with one another?
c) How effective are the members in their work?
My own view is that the monarchy has settled down considerably since 2005. There are less press briefings against one another and competitions as to who is getting the most publicity for their work. The queen is visibly less stressed and this is no annus horribilis.
Perhaps the person that has benefited most is Charles. He has a wife who loves him unconditionally and wants to support him. He has blossomed and is visibly happy. There are no more glares and public spats that embarrass hosts at state visits. The likes of Morton and Bashir do not have any chance of ever getting an interview from any member of the royal family again.
On balance I think that Camilla's reign is very peaceful when compared to what happened in the past. So peaceful in fact that those who were caught up in the heady days of royal scandal are finding it hard to cope without juicy stories of family discord. In their absence, they just make up the stories; looking for any sign that the royal family is at as dysfunctional as it was once portrayed in the 1980s and 1990s.
At the same time it is very easy to say that all the problems in the royal family were caused by Diana or that all the solutions in the royal family were provided by Camilla. That is not true. There are many members that contribute to the well being of the firm. It is just that the personalities of the two women had very opposite effects on the family dynamics. In Diana's case, what was wrong with the family was more magnified and more publicized. In the case of Camilla, what was wrong with the family was minimized and hidden or mitigated, instead promoting what was good about the family.
In my view two of Charles' biggest mistakes were: 1) not marrying Camilla when he first met her 2) Proposing to and marrying Diana Spencer. Those two mistakes have brought him and his family grief for many, many years. I think in hindsight, even he would admit that he should have married Camilla and never proposed to Diana. It all ended up being a disaster that has divided his people and caused his family untold stress, let alone his own unhappiness.
As for Diana, those two mistakes meant that she spent the better part of her adult life trying to fight for a man and marriage that was forever beyond her reach. One can only imagine the torment and feelings of rejection; knowing that Charles did not love her, had never loved her, would never love her and was in love with someone else.
Ok. Lets. Again, bored as I am ...I just hate debating again and gain OPINIONS instead of FACTS FACTS.
THen again, we can debate FACTS FACTS.
3) The effectiveness of the BRF 's work. All members seem to be working in their roles as ambassadors of course, etc. THIS was never an issue. PD, during the worst of times in her life, happiest times in her life, pregnancies, after, etc. worked. She shined on the world stage. That was never an issue. PAnne is the hardest working member and , it is said, Anne is the man that PC should have been. Anne is like her mother, The QM, her grandmother etc.
Honestly, I admire Anne more than PD and all of them I think she has conducted herself in her work with duty and did wonderful in raising her independent, successful children, who seem to love and are close to her . She prepared them , well, we all know and can agree. They seem well rounded, adjusted and have made their lives. Purpose. Private to a point. Happy.
PAndrew is a mess up and does ok in his role, but he is who he is and he is untouchable. PB and PE are lost Princesses and looking back, they were mistitled. Lady ____ would have better as Lady Louise is.
Sophie, the Middle Class girl is the glue the mended the BRF family , and PEdward work.
Kate and PW , the Dolittles they have been called, are gaining with PP retired, good PW and K have more roles , as they should, and with QEII relinquishing some such as Wimbledon to K. Good.
2) The members interact with each other as they did with PD was alive , more or less , that is in public. PD and PC had a bad marriage that they , and CPB, played out in public.
The BRF do not squabble in public or show any indifference.
They play their roles in public. They do their public duty in public.
Even Sarah, who is trying to get back so much AND still is MOTEHR to PB and PE, so QEII has allowed her some graces and favor over these many years...and her still, very many , foolish mishaps.
My opinion, now, I might be WRONG, LOL, I am giving an opinion here, but I believe QEII loves her children and grandchildren same as anyone else. She does not want to hurt her grandchildren . Sarah , therefore, is at Ascot and even Balmoral for a time. Sarah IS STILL MOTHER to B and E and that is the only job that Sarah and PAndrew seems to have done well . the girls are lost career wise perhaps, are not going to have a future in BRF as Monarch's heirs, but they are never scandalous, nasty things.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2017, 08:20:33 PM
How do they act in front of one and other?
Well,only stating FACTS about what little we know about them behind the public. ALL of the QEII's grandchildren are close and friendly.
First cousins.
PH has let some things be known abut his very private life after all these years of what his life was when his mother died.
PW has his family and loves his Mom and Dad. That is Mom and Dad-Carole and Mike.
Hmm, I will not repeat myself again, but what is known, PW and PH love their dad and accept him, as kids do, but their is great close tight knit family unit with L and T and Mom Camilla and Dad Charles and Camila as Granny baking cookies at Ray Mill and her grandkids , PChar and George there and The Lopes and the PB. Oh wait. That is wrong Camila as Granmother LOES and adores and is hand-ons at Ray Mill house with HER grandchildren, children from her son and daughter. Camilla is a wonderful mother, grandmother, and mother-in-law.
Carole is too and is always with her grandkids out at the petting zoo and giving piggy back rides or at her home or at the kids' home-KP or AH.
Again repeating myself, it seems Camill and PW and PH and the other members of the BRF to her are respectful, are cordial, knows boundaries to Cammil and she does too to them. Only her life to PW and PH really matter and they YES are decent to each other.
1) The state of the BRF /Monarchy which a whole class system depends is as strong as it was , always was hundreds of years before PD and will be hundreds of years after her death.
My educated opinon,based on history of the fallen royal houses of other European nations is that eh BRF will never allow that to happen because the whole thing, class system could crash. The time for the people to overthrow the BRF came and went during WWI or WWII. The wealth of BRF is astounding. It can never be really separated from the Crown owns and what the BRF owns.
I think in 20-25 years with KingW and QueenK , they could very well scale down the duties and roles and , as it seems with them, get the wealth without the work. Get the privacy and the public funding for some things of their lifestyle.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2017, 08:29:49 PM
"As for Diana, those two mistakes meant that she spent the better part of her adult life trying to fight for a man and marriage that was forever beyond her reach. One can only imagine the torment and feelings of rejection; knowing that Charles did not love her, had never loved her, would never love her and was in love with someone else."
I am going to fix this for you.
As for Diana, those two mistakes meant that she spent the better part of her adult life trying to fight for a man and marriage that was forever beyond her reach, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS HER MARRIAGE. One can only imagine the torment and feelings of rejection; knowing that Charles did not love her, had never loved her, would never love her and was in love with someone else EVEN THOUGH HE COULD AHVE AND SHOULD HAVE if he had allowed himself to do so . If he had let Camilla go. If Camilla had let go.
No. I am bored. I will not even explain why I made these corrections.
A review with a difference of Junor's book on Camilla by John Crace.
The Duchess: The Untold Story by Penny Junor ? digested read | Books | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jul/02/the-duchess-the-untold-story-by-penny-junor-digested-read-camilla-parker-bowles)
I posted that earlier on this thread. Nobody appears to have commented on it. Maybe your post will bring out the comments.
That was so funny.
At first, I was not sure where he was going until I got to the second paragraph.
He needed to say that LDS ran after PC. She intruded and followed him, stalked him at Camilla's lovely country home with her family as PC was visiting his godson.
I want to add my review of Junor's book like this man, Cace , did of things Junor may have forgotten to wrote.
LDFS knew Charles loved Camilla, but LDFS ran after him and trapped him into marrying her. LD played her part as some 19 sweet girl and it was a lie. LD was conniving and she knew Camilla and Charles loved each other, but PD would not have it and tried to keep C and CPB from seeing other . The nerve of PD!!
Double post auto-merged: July 03, 2017, 08:38:57 PM
His week's People magazine with cover story- JFK, Jr and wife, has an article about CPB, and Junors ' new old book.
I will post some things up when I get a chance.
Interesting piece of satire, esp since the described act, or rather her reluctance to perform said act (and who can blame her LOL)according to Dianas step grandmother, was the reason she lost Charles to Camilla.
Charles was supposed to teach the virginal bride expertise in the bedroom. According to Mountbatten. Charles could not be bothered.
Royal biographer agrees love triangle between Prince Charles, Camilla and Diana was a 'posh version of what happens on Jeremy Kyle' and gave 'insight into how upper classes work'
Charles and Diana love triangle branded 'posh Jeremy Kyle' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4664606/Royal-love-triangle-branded-posh-Jeremy-Kyle.html)
Quote from: sandy on July 04, 2017, 04:29:43 PM
Charles was supposed to teach the virginal bride expertise in the bedroom. According to Mountbatten. Charles could not be bothered.
? how could Mountbatten comment on Charles' "virginal bride" when he was dead before Chalres ever dated Diana,
Why do you even bother to ask a very obvious question? I did not say that he said this after he died. What made you think that?
Obviously this was when Mountbatten was alive. His famous letter is in the public domain. I thought you were familiar with the story so why such an obvious question? Why not address the topic. Sorry I was not "tripped up." My statement should be clear. This has been addressed many times.
He wanted Charles to marry Amanda Knatchull. Go search Google and find the letter where he gives this advice to Charles. It's in many books also. It should be clear that this was the theoretical virginal bride.
There was a prototype virginal bride the Prince and for Mountbatten, hopefully it would have been Amanda. Do you understand now? I would think you already did.
Charles was supposed to sleep with unsuitable experienced women to instruct the (ahem) theoretical bride.
Im seeing a big nosedive in the quality of posting, more than one poster is either sniping over wanting to know what person in particular is mentioned, when the narrative is so well worn that we should all know who is being referred to.
Then another(different poster) is confounded over a dead person mentioning something when its well known it was referred to the advice in general to whatever bride was married, mind you in other posts this person wants all allowances given that we're supposed to know what they meant if they're less than precise, but theyre not willing to extend the same, judging by their last post.
Without TLLK here, things are going off the tracks.....
Excuse me! Aren't you getting personal about other posters, I thought this was about the royals not making snipes.. And yes I was quite puzzled at amabel's post because we hashed this out on other threads already. And she is familiar with the story herself and is no newcomer to the royal stories. I am entitled to make inquiries without being censured. So give it a rest. Amabel and I have been on this board for a while now and we have had exchanged posts about this very topic. Which is why I was surprised at the post. I think she knew what I meant. This is not a classroom where we "correct" each other and ask for "explanations". Sticking to the topic would have been a whole lot better. And Duch you are not sticking to the topic
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on July 05, 2017, 12:20:19 AM
Im seeing a big nosedive in the quality of posting, more than one poster is either sniping over wanting to know what person in particular is mentioned, when the narrative is so well worn that we should all know who is being referred to.
Then another(different poster) is confounded over a dead person mentioning something when its well known it was referred to the advice in general to whatever bride was married, mind you in other posts this person wants all allowances given that we're supposed to know what they meant if they're less than precise, but theyre not willing to extend the same, judging by their last post.
Without TLLK here, things are going off the tracks.....
So what do you need help because you don't like the posts and responses?
From last weeks People's magazine. July 10, 2017 issue. JFK,Jr and wife are on the cover, 18 or 19 years since their plane crash.
It is a three -page write up base on Junor's book.
Lady of Steel. 'She never grumbles" says Jilly Cooper of Camilla.
As one palace insider says, " She has risen to the challenge."
Junor said .....
Camila never said to PC way back when about her great grandmother being mistress to his...
Junor say, it was Charles friend, Lucia anta Cruz who noted this and warned them upon introducing them, " Now, you, two, be very careful. You've got genetic antecedents!"
Junor says that not even their marriages could keep their love apart.
Junor says that Diana destroyed PC's water colors and paints that he had been painting while on their honeymoon. 1981. She was miffed because PC had a pic of Camilla in his diary.
Christopher Wilson author of 1994's, A Greater Love says.....William and Harry, adds the insider, "accepts that Camilla makes their father happy but I', not sure they ever learned to like her."
Camilla-218 appearance this year for her 95 causes.
Wilson also says the British public "but she has proved how good she is at being the wife of the PofW.
Double post auto-merged: July 06, 2017, 04:27:35 AM
My opinion.
Same ole same ole so pardon me for repeating myself again and AGAIN and AGAIN!!!!
Well, of course Camila never grumbles. Why should she. If she should grumble , then K and Sophie should grumble.
These women have nothing to grumble about.
Camilla is the drivers seat. She will be QofEngland to avenge for her ancestors and will make history for her descendants PC does love her and respects her and , although, he may not be the easiest man to live to with being himself, his life, she shares with him no other woman.
PD and the honeymoon, well, it was bad from the start. PC Fred and CPB Gladys went on the honeymoon, I always said, and PD tagged along.
Too bad , YES that Camilla, PC and others of his inner chose Diana. She was vetted, but another titled young girl, perhaps could have handled CPB and better. Of course, , after vetting her and selecting her, that was a big reason why. They all needed someone gullible...who would not make waves. Hmm, that did not work out.
Sorry for ging here, but Junor's book is abut at ease, jolly , good fun and a good friend, daughrer, wife, mother and grandmother and her good home life while growing up.
ALL OF THIS IS TRUE.
I am unbiased.
It is also about PD, digs at her anyway, but ok. Whatever Junor and fans. Every author presents the books and story they wish and , I guess, LOL, some authors have have written a scathing book and supportive/fan based a book on the same person.
-------------------
Yes, Camilla is a lady of steel. No doubt there. I have always said, too bad PD did not Camilla as a friend , saying CPB and PC were not involved. OH BOY!!! look out to anyone to would get after her friend. Too bad PD did not have anyone like a Camilla as a friend, that personality. PD's friends were feather weights.
--------------------------------
Rising to the challenge. Yes, she has in doing her charity work, be supportive to PC and the Monarch QEII, just like Sophie and Kate, and all are very rewarded for their roles and lifestyle.
-----------------
Oh, I forgot the book mentions that Camilla lies leaving the Ivory Tower of Clearnace House or Balmoral, etc. and retreat to her hone, refuge, RayMillHouse. Yes. Good for her. Like I sad above about them all. Kate has KP, as her most stuffy house, but she has refuge at her home, AH which is more homely like, home like estate. Refuge at her parent's house is always a safe haven. Sophie has her own home/estate to make a real home instead of a castle or palace.
-----------------------------------------
Ok, it was NOT Camilla who sad to PC ..my great grandmother was...
Ok. Whatever. It was their friend, his friend Santa Cruz, ok . Whatever. Whoever.
---------------------------
The British public can like Camilla and accept her QofEngland or not. It is not for vote so really, who cares. Camilla, the echelon of the nobility/aristos/gentry care. PC cares. It is what it is and will be and if any British people do not like it, they can move. Who cares! Really!
-------------------------
Camila works at her causes. Earthshattering news there. So do they all.
----------------------------------------------------
W and H and their true feelings.... no one knows except for their most closest , most truest and trusted.
H was 12 and W, 15 and PC married CPB 8 years later. Both boys had boarding school. Then they were on their own. This was not the Brady Bunch with TPB and LPB and PW and PH all living together having breakfast at Highgrove with Camilla cooking pancakes and sausages.
What d we , the pubic know? Alls calm, respectful, cordial. I assume their are boundaries and neither party crosses those. I am repeating myself AGAIN.
LPB and TPB did not christen the royal children of PW. You do not see them socializing.
Mom and Dad, we know who they are C&M Midds.
Kate ahs her mother to turn to for questions of child rearing...etc. Camilla has a daughter and grandchildren.
I stand by my posts over and over, new face will be at BuckBalcony, Sandringham walk, etc. Camilla's family and PC family. King Charles and Queen Camilla will make their rules. Goodbye Midds!!!
---------------------------------------
Quote from: sandy on July 04, 2017, 09:59:03 PM
Why do you even bother to ask a very obvious question? I did not say that he said this after he died. What made you think that?
Obviously this was when Mountbatten was alive. His famous letter is in the public domain. I thought you were familiar with the story so why such an obvious question? Why not address the topic. Sorry I was not "tripped up." My statement should be clear. This has been addressed many times.
He wanted Charles to marry Amanda Knatchull. Go search Google and find the letter where he gives this advice to Charles. It's in many books also. It should be clear that this was the theoretical virginal bride.
There was a prototype virginal bride the Prince and for Mountbatten, hopefully it would have been Amanda. Do you understand now? I would think you already did.
Charles was supposed to sleep with unsuitable experienced women to instruct the (ahem) theoretical bride.
Did Mountbatten say this? I had no idea. I thought that he just advised that Charles should have his fun time, sow his wild oats, and then marry a girl with no expeirnece, which was what the public and the papers and the RF wanted.. they did not believe that it was acceptable fro the future Queen to be soemoen whose boyfriends might come out of the woodwork and tattle to the papers. I did not realise that Mountbatten had said that Charles was supposed to "instruct his virgin bride"./
The letter he sent Charles is now famous in his biographies. It is famous now. He was supposed to marry a woman of "no experience"
How Camilla schemed to go from mistress to queen | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2016/04/16/how-operation-pb-aims-to-take-camilla-from-mistress-to-queen/)
This only but one of the many articles/books that talks about Instructions from Mountbatten.
So if the woman had no experience and no past, then Charles would be her first lover and obviously there would be some instructing...
My awful posting and autocorrect which corrects what I do not want corrected.
I meant......
I am unbiased so yes, Camilla did have wonderful up brining, married life with AndrewPB, is a good wife , mother, friend, etc. that was reference to Cam.
Cam likes her life, palaces, but has refuge at her own ,very own , unstuffy, RaymillHouse.
Something else of interest re: Charles and Mountbatten
The Royal House of Windsor: Who is Amanda Knatchbull, woman who rejected Prince Charles | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/779944/amanda-knatchbull-prince-charles-girlfriend-proposed-royal-house-windsor)
Ah yes. Amanda Knatchbull, another young girl Charles was quite prepared to marry without being in love with. Another one of the 'She's suitable, she'll do brigade, because after all I have to marry and have heirs.' Thank heavens she at least escaped.
well yes he did have to marry and hae heirs. I don't know what this "In love" business has to do with it, since there is a 50% divorce rate in the UK and most couples "marry for love".
and if Amanda could say no to him, so could Diana. its hardly as if he kidnappend these girls and forced them to go out with him or accept his offer of marriage.
Well if Charles were the world's most eligible bachelor it is odd that the women should be advised to steer clear of him. I think it helps a marriage if the couple loves each other; otherwise a Prince might want to look into having more of a "surrogate" to have heirs with.
But Charles knew he did not love Diana and admitted it later--he had no business proposing to her. I think the onus is on him since Diana was not apprised of his true feelings. His feelings for Amanda will always be unknown since it a moot point now. The problem with the Amanda situation was, like the article said, she may have seen him more as a brother. And in some circles, people don't want to marry distant cousins. Amanda was a closer relation to Charles than Diana--Mountbatten WAS Prince Philip's Uncle after all.
Charles' parents, paternal grandparents, and paternal great grandparents had happy marriages. So it was not as if there were generations of failures. Charles being "the heir" and feeling self entitled had IMO a destructive influence on his being able to have a happy marriage with Diana. I think Charles needed a good talk with an objective counselor (rather than mentors and sycophantic friends) before he thought of settling down with anybody way back when. I think it is more than having a wife to have heirs, there needs to be respect and love between the partners.
the sowing wild oats and there being "two kinds of women" one to have sex with and one to marry were apparently Edwardian views instilled in Mountbatten.
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on July 05, 2017, 12:20:19 AM
Im seeing a big nosedive in the quality of posting, more than one poster is either sniping over wanting to know what person in particular is mentioned, when the narrative is so well worn that we should all know who is being referred to.
Then another(different poster) is confounded over a dead person mentioning something when its well known it was referred to the advice in general to whatever bride was married, mind you in other posts this person wants all allowances given that we're supposed to know what they meant if they're less than precise, but theyre not willing to extend the same, judging by their last post.
Without TLLK here, things are going off the tracks.....
[gmod]
@Duch_Luver_4ever
This is the type of post that puts me off coming here and attempting to Moderate. Makes my heart sink.
I'm leaving it here for other members to realise what is NOT acceptable [/gmod]
Quote from: sandy on July 06, 2017, 07:25:48 PM
Well if Charles were the world's most eligible bachelor it is odd that the women should be advised to steer clear of him. I think it helps a marriage if the couple loves each other; otherwise a Prince might want to look into having more of a "surrogate" to have heirs with.
But Charles knew he did not love Diana and admitted it later--he had no business proposing to her. I think the onus is on him since Diana was not apprised of his true feelings. His feelings for Amanda will always be unknown since it a moot point now. The problem with the Amanda situation was, like the article said, she may have seen him more as a brother. And in some circles, people don't want to marry distant cousins. Amanda was a closer relation to Charles than Diana--Mountbatten WAS Prince Philip's Uncle after all.
Charles' parents, paternal grandparents, and paternal great grandparents had happy marriages. So it was not as if there were generations of failures. Charles being "the heir" and feeling self entitled had IMO a destructive influence on his being able to have a happy marriage with Diana. I think Charles needed a good talk with an objective counselor (rather than mentors and sycophantic friends) before he thought of settling down with anybody way back when. I think it is more than having a wife to have heirs, there needs to be respect and love between the partners.
the sowing wild oats and there being "two kinds of women" one to have sex with and one to marry were apparently Edwardian views instilled in Mountbatten.
Correction to this post meant maternal grandparents and maternal great grandparents. And of course, William and Kate apparently have a happy marriage.
Quote from: SophieChloe on July 06, 2017, 10:26:32 PM
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on July 05, 2017, 12:20:19 AM
Im seeing a big nosedive in the quality of posting, more than one poster is either sniping over wanting to know what person in particular is mentioned, when the narrative is so well worn that we should all know who is being referred to.
Then another(different poster) is confounded over a dead person mentioning something when its well known it was referred to the advice in general to whatever bride was married, mind you in other posts this person wants all allowances given that we're supposed to know what they meant if they're less than precise, but theyre not willing to extend the same, judging by their last post.
Without TLLK here, things are going off the tracks.....
[gmod]This is the type of post that puts me off coming here and attempting to Moderate. Makes my heart sink.
I'm leaving it here for other members to realise what is NOT acceptable [/gmod]
[gmod]
Members : Please take note.[/gmod]
The vast majority of couples are in love when they marry, (as well as having plenty in common, similar opinions and aims etc).
Anyone would think from your response, amabel, that there was nothing outrageous about a man proposing to spend the rest of his and his girlfriend's lives together without being in love with her, that it was something admirable just because he happens to be a Prince and heir to a throne!
The fact that about half the people later divorce is just a sad fact of life in modern Britain. What do you suggest replaces love? A business arrangement?
Apart from marriages in some ethnic communities which are arranged by the couples' families, that's what happens before a couple decide to spend their lives together.
What if Amanda HAD fallen for him and accepted his proposal, but he felt nothing much for her except fondness, because he was still in thrall to Camilla PB? There may not have been the fireworks that there was later with Diana when she found out the truth, but would that have lessened the unhappiness Amanda would undoubtedly have felt?
Or is it fine and dandy for a man to marry a woman knowing he doesn't love her but loves someone else, so long as his dynastic obligations are fulfilled? Charles felt that way when he married 20 year old Diana who was in love with him, and apparently you do too!
I think Amanda was too close as a family member to know the deal and wanted no part of it. What is interesting is her mother didn't push her to fulfill her fathers dreams of another dynastic match he actually orchestrated. Diana wasn't that close to the royal family as Amanda and her family were nor were they related so really Diana was at a real disadvantage in knowing Charles dirty little secret Camilla.
A marriage is made up of two people (more in some cultures but not the European ones). Charles proposed and Diana accepted. He said he felt pressurized to marry before he was ready. She said she had doubts about her husbands love for her. Despite both these misgivings, they agreed to get married. Charles said he wanted to and tried to make the marriage work at first. She did not dispute that fact. Around 1984 things came to a head. He moved out and effectively began to live with his mistress. She remained in the family home and started having an affair (or even affairs depending on whom you believe).
That was the time to call it a day on the marriage. From 1984 to 1996; it was all a complete waste of time. These were people that could not stand to be in the same house and an early divorce was the best solution. Divorce is a human right and ought to be available to everyone regardless of status or rank. It is inhumane to insist that someone remains in a marriage where they are unhappy and doing serious harm (emotional, psychological and physical) to one another. I hope the monarchy has learnt never again to force people to marry or remain married against their express will.
What outsiders imagine, want or do not want cannot make someone love someone. No amount of pressure was going to make Charles love Diana or stop loving Camilla. Insisting that they had to marry or even remain married was a terrible mistake that cost each other a lot of time and unhappiness. It also led to serious reputation problems for the monarchy. Had C&D not married at all or alternatively divorced amicably in 1984; we would not be having all these silly squabbles about who was at fault and who was not.
As for the moderation, I have a lot of sympathy for the moderators. It can be hard trying to get any consensus when some commentators are determined to stick to their tunnel vision of things. Then you have the professional victims who run to the mods for cover whenever someone says something they do not like or do not agree with. It can all be tiresome; so my sympathies to the mods.
Charles wasn't 'forced' to marry anyone. He proposed to Diana, in spite of doubts, because he was frightened of his father and didn't have the guts to stand up to him, (even though he was thirty two), and say 'No, I won't!' and give the reasons.
I cannot imagine Prince Philip himself, or indeed any other Prince in Europe (Felipe, Philippe, Frederik, Willem Alexander et al) behaving as that waffling jelly did in 1980. But then, they all have backbones.
Charles said he felt pressured to propose. Those are his feelings. Nobody else can prescribe his feelings. He said he felt pressure and we must take his word over any interpretations. So
@Curryong, that may be your impression that he was not pressured but the fact is that he said he felt pressured.
Age has nothing to do with being pressured or bullied by someone. You can be bullied when you are 10 or 50.
Yes you cannot imagine any other prince behaving like Charles Curryong, but that is them not Charles. Charles is an individual with his own feelings and perspectives. He is not another ideal person you may want him to be.
The thing about "backbones" is interesting. In the end that man without a backbone resisted all the vocal, relentless and determined Diana supporters by refusing to return to Diana or even leave Camilla. Maybe he is not quite as jelly-spined as you describe him after all? Most people would buckle under the pressure that Charles has been put under for rejecting Diana but he has refused to budge. Completely refused...perhaps that is why he is so hated. The man that said no to public opinion?
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 07, 2017, 07:21:18 AM
A marriage is made up of two people (more in some cultures but not the European ones). Charles proposed and Diana accepted. He said he felt pressurized to marry before he was ready. She said she had doubts about her husbands love for her. Despite both these misgivings, they agreed to get married. Charles said he wanted to and tried to make the marriage work at first. She did not dispute that fact. Around 1984 things came to a head. He moved out and effectively began to live with his mistress. She remained in the family home and started having an affair (or even affairs depending on whom you believe).
That was the time to call it a day on the marriage. From 1984 to 1996; it was all a complete waste of time. These were people that could not stand to be in the same house and an early divorce was the best solution. Divorce is a human right and ought to be available to everyone regardless of status or rank. It is inhumane to insist that someone remains in a marriage where they are unhappy and doing serious harm (emotional, psychological and physical) to one another. I hope the monarchy has learnt never again to force people to marry or remain married against their express will.
What outsiders imagine, want or do not want cannot make someone love someone. No amount of pressure was going to make Charles love Diana or stop loving Camilla. Insisting that they had to marry or even remain married was a terrible mistake that cost each other a lot of time and unhappiness. It also led to serious reputation problems for the monarchy. Had C&D not married at all or alternatively divorced amicably in 1984; we would not be having all these silly squabbles about who was at fault and who was not.
As for the moderation, I have a lot of sympathy for the moderators. It can be hard trying to get any consensus when some commentators are determined to stick to their tunnel vision of things. Then you have the professional victims who run to the mods for cover whenever someone says something they do not like or do not agree with. It can all be tiresome; so my sympathies to the mods.
I agree Charles and Diana should have been allowed to divorce ten years prior. That said however, Charles wasn't bullied into marrying Diana Phillips letter simply said he had to make up his mind or let Diana go for her reputations sake. Charles latched onto it as an ultimatum and it became his excuse when the marriage didn't work out.
IMO Charles had no intentions of making the marriage work if he did he wouldn't have invited Camilla to the wedding I mean really who does that?.
As for the last comment regarding the Mods yes they work hard here to keep the forum lively and friendly however, it is some of our newer members those who joined in the I would say last three years or more recently who are now somewhat in a confrontational mode and as evidenced by the above post that is not tolerated and that same poster has done this before and there is no professional victim here that post was read here not complained about.
Moderating is not my forte so I will leave it at that.
With regards to former girlfriends at wedding, you might be surprised if you carefully scrutinize the Cambridge wedding guest list. Reading people's motivations is never an exact science and sometimes reflects our own prejudices.
Whatever the causes or motivations, in the end Charles found that he could no longer tolerate living with Diana and decided to move out. What he ought to have done at that point is to ask for a divorce.
@royalanthropologist I totally agree Charles should have asked for a divorce. It is such a shame that the system at the time was run by the old guard i.e. The Queen Mum being one influence and the courtiers that were of the same mindset coming from a long line of old courtiers. It was the Queen Mum and Mountbatten who spoon fed Charles the notion that divorce was unacceptable and held up the Windsors as an example of what not to do.
At the time of the proposal the difference between Charles and Diana is that she was in love with him and accepted his offer of marriage believing he was the love of her life and they would be married and live happily ever after.
Charles in proposing knew that he was not in love with Diana, knew that she was not the love of his life and proposed to this woman so much younger than he because his father 'forced' him into it, even though Philip did nothing of the kind.
I think the Windsors lost their moral shin long, long time ago. I think about time too...the way they treated Wallis Simpson was a touch hypocritical when you consider how many divorces they have notched up since then. I also happen to think that the queen as a mother herself could have done more to stop what was a tragedy of a marriage happening.
Like I said about forcing or not forcing, it is Charles' feelings and he described them in his own words about the consequences of his father's letter. I once read that at the height of the marriage collapse he used to walk around with the letter telling his friends "look, what they did to me".
I have also never believed that Diana truly loved Charles. How could she...she hardly knew the man??? She was in love with him as a concept rather than as another human being with his own strengths and weaknesses. In all her descriptions of him right from the start, she never ever mentions a single thing that she finds attractive about him. It is all about how she hoped he would look after her and make her happy. That is not love, it is a romantic fiction.
Charles blamed others for his marriage, something he is fond of doing according to his biographies. I believe Diana was in love with Charles. Even if we accept (which I don't) that it was a romantic pink cloud fantasy, then that (at 19) was at least a thousand times better than marrying a woman you know you don't love because your father 'forces' you into it at 32!
And if there were only a relatively few dates whose fault was that? Charles could have stonewalled for a couple of months, (even if he was completely panicked), and fitted another couple of dozen dates in before proposing.
I did listen to Diana's description of her courtship, proposal and wedding. If you want to know what went wrong with that marriage, it is all there. Charles gave all the indications that he was a very reluctant suitor; going away for months with very little contact. Sometimes the staff would be so embarrassed so they would buy flowers. Diana would know that it was not Charles but the staff trying to save her blushes ( of course that throws into question her later recriminations that it was the men in grey suits who made her life so miserable in the family).
Please remember that the queen and DOE are not ordinary parents. They can and will force you to do things you do not particularly want. Not only do they have the moral authority of a parent, but they have the actual power of the crown. There are countless stories of people who have been forced to do things at the behest of the monarch or their consort regardless of their personal feelings. I think Princess Margaret could have written a book about that.
The idea that just because Charles was 32, he could easily defy his parents is in my view a failure to understand his relationship with his parents. Even Diana herself was the recipient of a royal command to divorce, but coached in very gentle terms. She knew and everybody knew that this was a command that she could not refuse no matter what she wanted. By then Diana was 35 and had this huge following of devotees with a fully fledged PR outfit supporting her all the way. Even that was not enough to defy a simple letter from the queen.
Diana's descriptions of Charles during that period read like a terrible Barbara Cartland sequel. He is either dull, obsessed, boring and neglectful; or the hero that will rescue her from a dysfunctional childhood. It really was childish mush. There is not a single time or moment that Diana says "I love this person because of x and x qualities". Saying that you love someone does not mean you do, as Diana soon learn to her cost. Diana did not have a single insight into who Charles was or what his interests were. Just a little investigation would have informed her immediately of who and what Camilla was. Instead she was caught up in these silly ideas of a prince to the rescue.
As for Charles, it was quite clear his young bride bored him to death from the word go. His responses are listless and uncertain. He knew little about her and had no interest in anything she had to contribute. He describes her as if he were making a catalog for a painting that is not really in his life. Compare that with how he describes his grandmother or Camilla. It is almost like another person speaking. The voice softens and his expressions are certain. He can tell you in very clear terms what he loves about the QM and Camilla. With Diana; all he could muster was "whatever love means".
A simple inquiry into Diana's life and family would immediately have indicate to Charles the problems ahead. All the signs were there to see but he was not really looking at them. Diana was nowhere ready to sustain a long term relationship, let alone a marriage. Charles was the very worst husband she could have picked and she was the very worst wife he could have picked. Charles is capable of being happy and contended with the right person. His current marriage has completely transformed him. Even the workers at the palace are amazed at how much easier it is to deal with him since he married Camilla. That tells me that the bad marriage probably contributed to making him very, very unhappy and he too acted out.
I am not in a habit of apportioning blame in precise terms (e.g. a thousand times etc.) for a failure of a marriage unless I am part of that marriage. Just because someone is more effective at putting their case forward does not mean that they are right or accurate in their descriptions. Diana was a particularly immature 19 year old who had been very poorly socialized for the state that she was meant to be in as a Princess of Wales.
Charles was an old man set in his ways who needed a wife who was understanding, supportive and non-challenging. Diana was the exact opposite of what he needed or wanted. When he realized, she was not what he wanted; he just ignored her. She reacted by acting up and then she really began to repulse him to the extent that he could no longer bear to share her bed. It all started with not being in love because you do not know the other person very well. Neither Charles nor Diana were ever in love with one another. It was the beginning of the end for their relationship and marriage.
Royals do have "people" doing things for them, yes even buying flowers. I don't think Charles meant this to put down Diana. He just sent "people" to do this. He had staff sorting out the wedding presents, he had a huge staff to do the work. I never heard the staff being "embarrassed" by their getting flowers for Diana.
Nobody could "force" Charles to marry anybody. there was tremendous pressure on Prince Edward to marry and settle down. He did not. He did write that he knew he could not love the suitable girl as much as his mistress (at first Freda Dudley Ward). He was honest with himself. It was not as if Charles was not the only one in the family who could reproduce. That's why they have a line of succession. Suppose Charles had been sterile, there was a provision for the next monarch in place.
WIth all that she went through, I think Diana was very ready for a divorce. Why would she want to put up with hostility from Charles?
Charles had no business proposing to Diana who was smitten with him. Looking at the "Signs" of his being "bored" with her is just more evidence that he behaved in a dishonest way with her.
Unless Charles got a pre nup and told his bride ahead of time she should expect no love match with him, his going into a marriage preferring a mistress over the bride was unrealistic to say the least.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 07, 2017, 11:12:17 AM
I think the Windsors lost their moral shin long, long time ago. I think about time too...the way they treated Wallis Simpson was a touch hypocritical when you consider how many divorces they have notched up since then. I also happen to think that the queen as a mother herself could have done more to stop what was a tragedy of a marriage happening.
Like I said about forcing or not forcing, it is Charles' feelings and he described them in his own words about the consequences of his father's letter. I once read that at the height of the marriage collapse he used to walk around with the letter telling his friends "look, what they did to me".
I have also never believed that Diana truly loved Charles. How could she...she hardly knew the man??? She was in love with him as a concept rather than as another human being with his own strengths and weaknesses. In all her descriptions of him right from the start, she never ever mentions a single thing that she finds attractive about him. It is all about how she hoped he would look after her and make her happy. That is not love, it is a romantic fiction.
I think the reverse is true. I always thought Charles had a more abstract view of marriage and married life. He did not consider how the wife would feel about his ideas of marriage. I think Diana did love Charles. If she did not she could not have cared less if Charles went to Camilla and would have been pragmatic and cynical about it. She might even have played "sister wife" with Camilla. No, it was not romantic fiction. Diana did not fantasize that Charles came a courting. He did court her and it was rather a whirlwind courtship.
Diana called Charles "amazing." I also think Diana had great sympathy for Charles after his Great Uncle Died. Telling him how sad he looked at the Funeral. That did appeal to Charles. I do think Diana went into the marriage in a sincere way. Charles knew he preferred Camilla. I think Charles should have spelled out all his expectations. I think it would hurt any woman to find out after the wedding that the husband is still contacting his ex and going to her for advice. I think both should have gone to counseling to sort things out and talk about their expectations. If Diana did not think she would be happy under Charles' strictures, she could have walked before he proposed. I do think he sweet talked her during the courtship. If Diana had had a serious relationship pre Charles she would have been more savvy about her courtship with Charles.
Double post auto-merged: July 07, 2017, 09:02:21 PM
Quote from: Curryong on July 07, 2017, 11:26:09 AM
Charles blamed others for his marriage, something he is fond of doing according to his biographies. I believe Diana was in love with Charles. Even if we accept (which I don't) that it was a romantic pink cloud fantasy, then that (at 19) was at least a thousand times better than marrying a woman you know you don't love because your father 'forces' you into it at 32!
And if there were only a relatively few dates whose fault was that? Charles could have stonewalled for a couple of months, (even if he was completely panicked), and fitted another couple of dozen dates in before proposing.
Yes, Charles could indeed have waited a few more months. Maybe have a one year courtship before proposing. Diana would have the chance to observe the pitfalls and I think she would have gotten a much better idea of the role Camilla was playing in Charles' life.
Double post auto-merged: July 07, 2017, 09:08:45 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 07, 2017, 07:21:18 AM
A marriage is made up of two people (more in some cultures but not the European ones). Charles proposed and Diana accepted. He said he felt pressurized to marry before he was ready. She said she had doubts about her husbands love for her. Despite both these misgivings, they agreed to get married. Charles said he wanted to and tried to make the marriage work at first. She did not dispute that fact. Around 1984 things came to a head. He moved out and effectively began to live with his mistress. She remained in the family home and started having an affair (or even affairs depending on whom you believe).
That was the time to call it a day on the marriage. From 1984 to 1996; it was all a complete waste of time. These were people that could not stand to be in the same house and an early divorce was the best solution. Divorce is a human right and ought to be available to everyone regardless of status or rank. It is inhumane to insist that someone remains in a marriage where they are unhappy and doing serious harm (emotional, psychological and physical) to one another. I hope the monarchy has learnt never again to force people to marry or remain married against their express will.
What outsiders imagine, want or do not want cannot make someone love someone. No amount of pressure was going to make Charles love Diana or stop loving Camilla. Insisting that they had to marry or even remain married was a terrible mistake that cost each other a lot of time and unhappiness. It also led to serious reputation problems for the monarchy. Had C&D not married at all or alternatively divorced amicably in 1984; we would not be having all these silly squabbles about who was at fault and who was not.
As for the moderation, I have a lot of sympathy for the moderators. It can be hard trying to get any consensus when some commentators are determined to stick to their tunnel vision of things. Then you have the professional victims who run to the mods for cover whenever someone says something they do not like or do not agree with. It can all be tiresome; so my sympathies to the mods.
How can a "consensus" be made on a discussion board. And nobody here has tunnel vision or are professional victims. Please no more put downs--I think THAT was the point of the mods.. If there is a consensus then it is a fan site which I don't see this as being.
Diana never said Charles tried to make the marriage work. Oh if only he had!
Diana should not have been put in the humiliating position of being second best (or maybe not even second best) to Charles.
Double post auto-merged: July 07, 2017, 09:34:12 PM
Quote from: Curryong on July 07, 2017, 08:38:02 AM
Charles wasn't 'forced' to marry anyone. He proposed to Diana, in spite of doubts, because he was frightened of his father and didn't have the guts to stand up to him, (even though he was thirty two), and say 'No, I won't!' and give the reasons.
I cannot imagine Prince Philip himself, or indeed any other Prince in Europe (Felipe, Philippe, Frederik, Willem Alexander et al) behaving as that waffling jelly did in 1980. But then, they all have backbones.
Arguably, George V was a lot stricter than Prince Philip. He demanded his children show up on time for all meals and so on. However, Prince Edward did not marry despite all the pressure and censure from his father. I think he had the backbone that Charles lacked. He refused to "settle" and married the woman of his choice and moved heaven and earth to do so.