Camilla \'Broke Prince Charles\'s heart\' books claim says

[amabel]

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,

[sandy]

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.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

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.....

[sandy]

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

[Trudie]

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?

[FanDianaFancy]

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!!!
---------------------------------------

[amabel]

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"./

[sandy]

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

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...

[FanDianaFancy]

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.

[sandy]

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

[Curryong]

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.

[amabel]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[SophieChloe]

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]

[sandy]

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.

[SophieChloe]

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]

[Curryong]

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!

[Trudie]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[Curryong]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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?

[Trudie]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[Trudie]

@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.

[Curryong]

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.