Is Camilla an asset or liability for the royal family?

fawbert · September 08, 2008, 12:36:39 AM

Quote from: Trudie on September 06, 2008, 10:34:47 AM
OK Fawbs with the exception of Henry the VIII who started the Church name one other monarch who married his divorced mistress or for that matter divorced his wife to marry the mistress. :hmm:

None have.

Trudie · September 08, 2008, 12:43:26 AM

^ :thanks: :thanks: And that is what makes Cammy as well as her husband liabilities.

drezzle · September 08, 2008, 01:22:59 PM

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/07/article-1053240-00BAC72000000259-645_224x268.jpg

Here's a pic of Camilla in the Daily Mail. It looks like something that can be described as all jewels with nothing to back them up, so how could that be anything other than a liability?

Trudie · September 08, 2008, 02:31:58 PM

^ so true.

Monika · September 08, 2008, 10:29:26 PM

Quote from: drezzle on September 08, 2008, 01:22:59 PM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/07/article-1053240-00BAC72000000259-645_224x268.jpg

Here's a pic of Camilla in the Daily Mail. It looks like something that can be described as all jewels with nothing to back them up, so how could that be anything other than a liability?

I believe the picture is from the November 2007 tour of Turkey that was dubbed a "shambolic tour".

scooter · September 11, 2008, 05:19:55 PM

QEQM must be spinning in her grave seeing the Camilla wearing her jewels and in line to be Queen. Let's not forget that the ONLY REASON QEQM and QEII were/are Queen is because Edward VII was not allowed to marry his divorced mistress. And Wallis didn't break up Edward's marriage.

drezzle · September 11, 2008, 06:20:11 PM

Right, and times haven't changed all that much, at least for the royal family. The rest of the world goes in cycles of depravity and saintliness much faster than that of the royal family. I still think crapola is going to hit the fan when it comes time to call Camilla queen.

fawbert · September 11, 2008, 06:23:49 PM

The Royal Family has moved with the times. Look no further than the Royal wedding of 2005. Such a union might have caused a constitutional crisis twenty or thirty years ago, but not now.

sandy · September 11, 2008, 06:47:34 PM

The bar has been lowered. I'm not sure I would agree that allowing the wedding shows the family has "moved with the times."

fawbert · September 11, 2008, 07:57:14 PM

Hundreds of thousands of divorced Britons today go on and marry for a second time. This was not the case in 1936. The Royals only mirror what's going on in the nation.

Trudie · September 12, 2008, 10:53:45 AM

Quote from: scooter on September 11, 2008, 05:19:55 PM
QEQM must be spinning in her grave seeing the Camilla wearing her jewels and in line to be Queen. Let's not forget that the ONLY REASON QEQM and QEII were/are Queen is because Edward VII was not allowed to marry his divorced mistress. And Wallis didn't break up Edward's marriage.

I think QEII would be reigning to day even if Edward had not abdicated due to the fact he and Wallis had no children.

Quote from: fawbert on September 11, 2008, 06:23:49 PM
The Royal Family has moved with the times. Look no further than the Royal wedding of 2005. Such a union might have caused a constitutional crisis twenty or thirty years ago, but not now.

Oh yes when polled regarding the wedding many said no but it went ahead anyway and those who were protesting at Windsor were kept out of Camera range.

sandy · September 12, 2008, 01:29:51 PM

The Queen would have taken over in 1972 when Edward died had he and Wallis ruled. (Assuming that is her father predeceased them) .Wallis would have been given a title Dowager Queen or something to that effect. Totally different scenario, maybe Charles would have turned out a lot differently. Mountbatten may not have gotten as much of an influence over him though he may well have tried.

scooter · September 12, 2008, 03:34:45 PM

We dont know that. As time has proven, Fate can be capricious. Who is to say that Wallis would not have died in a car accident in Paris, leaving Edward to marry again. Perhaps there would have been children.

sandy · September 12, 2008, 04:00:53 PM

Barring accident and going by their death dates of course. Supposedly Edward VIII could not have children due to an attack of mumps. He may have remarried but there would have been no children in all likelihood.

Ceridwen · September 12, 2008, 04:50:39 PM

Quote from: Trudie on September 12, 2008, 10:53:45 AM
I think QEII would be reigning to day even if Edward had not abdicated due to the fact he and Wallis had no children.

Oh yes when polled regarding the wedding many said no but it went ahead anyway and those who were protesting at Windsor were kept out of Camera range.

Good posts Trudie!
The RF lowered their standards regarding Camilla. PC couldn't help himself- he never had any class where Camilla is concerned.

fawbert · September 12, 2008, 05:24:13 PM

Quote from: Trudie on September 12, 2008, 10:53:45 AM
Oh yes when polled regarding the wedding many said no but it went ahead anyway and those who were protesting at Windsor were kept out of Camera range.

Were you in Windsor on Apr 9 2005? I was. The mood of the people was no different to that crowd assembled six years earlier for the Wessex wedding. The only time I heard any "booing" was when the Windsor bus carrying the Royal Family blocked the view of the Guildhall.

Trudie · September 12, 2008, 10:57:43 PM

No I wasn't Fawbs I saw the media and print coverage tell Me you were within the castle walls. That would explain a lot.

drezzle · September 13, 2008, 02:10:09 AM

Quote from: fawbert on September 12, 2008, 05:24:13 PM

The only time I heard any "booing" was when the Windsor bus carrying the Royal Family blocked the view of the Guildhall.

:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: That is priceless. Trudie, the good fawbert is playing with us.

Trudie · September 13, 2008, 10:33:38 AM

^ No Kidding Drezzle :high5:

Monika · September 13, 2008, 10:49:42 AM

Quote from: fawbert on September 12, 2008, 05:24:13 PM
Were you in Windsor on Apr 9 2005? I was. The mood of the people was no different to that crowd assembled six years earlier for the Wessex wedding. The only time I heard any "booing" was when the Windsor bus carrying the Royal Family blocked the view of the Guildhall.

I had to wash my hair that day, but I did watch some of the festivities on television. I guess you missed the people who had signs in tribute to Diana, followed by the words "God Save the Queen." And I listened to people being interviewed as they expressed opinions that were not exactly flattering to the lovely bride and groom.

Kate · September 13, 2008, 05:28:09 PM

So Fawbs, are you one that works for the Princes's Trust or one of the other charities.? I thought that anyone working for a charity were giving an order- like request, to be there to support Prince Charles on this special day of his. Which charity do you volunteer or work for? :blush:

drezzle · September 13, 2008, 05:33:56 PM

I can assure you Kate that he does not work for the trust of Diana, Princess of Wales.

fawbert · September 15, 2008, 06:50:11 PM

Quote from: Trudie on September 12, 2008, 10:57:43 PM
No I wasn't Fawbs I saw the media and print coverage tell Me you were within the castle walls. That would explain a lot.

I have close family in Windsor and spend a lot of time there. The mood of the town that day was "jolly" - without a hint of revolt.

Trudie · September 16, 2008, 02:27:28 AM

I suppose you were too Jolly to notice the protesters with signs. But then you were probably waving a big Union Jack and your view was obscured. :hmm:

fawbert · September 18, 2008, 06:24:04 PM

I saw no protesters with signs other than Peter Tatchell who was campaigning for gay marriages, and a strange looking gentleman with a large plastic sheep on his shoulder.

I even looked in at the pub closest to the Henry VII gate. If you're going to have jeering and boos you are guaranteed to hear them in the public bar of a boozer. The large plasma tellies around the room carried images of Charles and his bride. And do you know what? Not one raspberry. Not one boo. Not one smutty remark.

Reporters and TV people were combing the streets desperate to find a revolutionary element, all in vain.