If you are watching the coronation, are you team Camellia

[Skywalker]

Eh, QEII only became queen bc her uncle decided to marry for love. That man gave up a crown he'd been raised for, to marry Wallis. So the option was there. He valued the crown more than love.

You make it sound so easy lol. That abdication rocked the royal family. "QEII" then had to step in and be monarch, her life was never her own. For Charles to throw that away would devastate his mother and all she dedicated her life to, it would be to spit in her face frankly. Plus another abdication in so short a time would have made the monarchy look completely unstable and probably would have been the beginning of the end. If his affair was merely a scandal, that would have been nuclear.

 

[Karin1984]

Do you deny that one person had all the power in that relationship at the outset?

That is not an answer to my question, but to answer yours:

Yes, I do deny that. There wasn't one person, as next to Charles and Diana there were their families on both sides plus all the palace aides. Was it inequal, probably yes, but I do not want to pin it all on Charles.

I do not believe that Charles had the power to go against the wishes of his parents or the establishment in that time of his life. And I think the same was true for Diana.

I think neither Charles nor Diana were strong enough to pull out and just did what was expected from them. Once you're in, you're in, they probably thought.

 

[dez1978]

You make it sound so easy lol. That abdication rocked the royal family. "QEII" then had to step in and be monarch, her life was never her own. For Charles to throw that away would devastate his mother and all she dedicated her life to, it would be to spit in her face frankly. Plus another abdication in so short a time would have made the monarchy look completely unstable and probably would have been the beginning of the end. If his affair was merely a scandal, that would have been nuclear.

Not quite. It was 16 years after the abdication that she became queen, she didn't just step in. And almost 30 years after that before Charles and Diana wed. But I think had Charles stood up and refused to wed, the Queen would have given in eventually. The Queen made this mess and screwed up her own family.

 

[Babs Johnson]

Why was is so necessary for Charles to marry and produce heirs? The Queen already had three spares available.

 

[BlueStarryHat]

People are looking for a black-and-white answer here (myself included.) I have come to the conclusion that there isn't one. Could the Queen have let Charles marry whom he wanted? Probably, especially since her sister had not been allowed to marry a divorced man and wound up being divorced herself anyway. But I don't think the British people were ready for anything but the illusion of a fairytale at that time in their history. Diana, I loved her...but I recognize now that there is a lot of the sentimental young girl watching the engagement and wedding in that view. I still think that she was chewed up and spitten out by the royal system. Charles, while not completely innocent, was a product of the end of a different time. He thought he knew what was required, and did it, for good or ill. I'm glad he's happy now. But he has to live with having a son like him, and one like Diana. I feel bad for them all.

Did all that above make any sense? Probably not, but it's what my thought process is like here-jumbled. I feel one way today, maybe I'll feel another tomorrow.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

That is not an answer to my question, but to answer yours:

Yes, I do deny that. There wasn't one person, as next to Charles and Diana there were their families on both sides plus all the palace aides. Was it inequal, probably yes, but I do not want to pin it all on Charles.

I do not believe that Charles had the power to go against the wishes of his parents or the establishment in that time of his life. And I think the same was true for Diana.

I think neither Charles nor Diana were strong enough to pull out and just did what was expected from them. Once you're in, you're in, they probably thought.

Well I think your question was a rhetorical one, but to answer, I think you’d have to watch the whole thing to see the bigger picture.

 

[Jangles]

Well I think your question was a rhetorical one, but to answer, I think you’d have to watch the whole thing to see the bigger picture.

I recognise that you have a certain fondness for Diana, and want to blame the Royal family for her sadness, but I think it’s also worth considering Diana’s family and upbringing. She had a quite dysfunctional upbringing and difficult childhood and of her three living siblings, only one seems to be enjoying a stable life. One sister suffers from anorexia, alcoholism and previously claimed to have slept with 1000s of men, Diana was said to be estranged from another sister and her brother has been married three times and is said to be estranged from his older children. I think that Diana would have struggled in any relationship; she had at least half a dozen relationships that we know of and none of them sustained. If that behaviour had continued, it would not have been healthy for her or her sons.
Also, in the U.K. we consider 18 year olds to be adults, and although Diana may have been immature and vulnerable because of her upbringing and mental health, there is no reason to suggest that she was groomed.

It is a tragedy that she died so young. It is a tragedy that her family didn’t provide her with a supportive upbringing. It is a tragedy that she so wanted to be loved that she leapt into a relationship apparently without thought of the consequences and then desperately sought love with whomever was around her.
I am not absolving King Charles, Queen Camilla or the Royal family of all blame, but I do think it’s reasonable to argue, that because of the ‘baggage’ Diana carried, a marriage to anyone had only a slim chance of longevity.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I recognise that you have a certain fondness for Diana, and want to blame the Royal family for her sadness, but I think it’s also worth considering Diana’s family and upbringing. She had a quite dysfunctional upbringing and difficult childhood and of her three living siblings, only one seems to be enjoying a stable life. One sister suffers from anorexia, alcoholism and previously claimed to have slept with 1000s of men, Diana was said to be estranged from another sister and her brother has been married three times and is said to be estranged from his older children. I think that Diana would have struggled in any relationship; she had at least half a dozen relationships that we know of and none of them sustained. If that behaviour had continued, it would not have been healthy for her or her sons.
Also, in the U.K. we consider 18 year olds to be adults, and although Diana may have been immature and vulnerable because of her upbringing and mental health, there is no reason to suggest that she was groomed.

It is a tragedy that she died so young. It is a tragedy that her family didn’t provide her with a supportive upbringing. It is a tragedy that she so wanted to be loved that she leapt into a relationship apparently without thought of the consequences and then desperately sought love with whomever was around her.
I am not absolving King Charles, Queen Camilla or the Royal family of all blame, but I do think it’s reasonable to argue, that because of the ‘baggage’ Diana carried, a marriage to anyone had only a slim chance of longevity.

I know about Diana’s background and family, and I think this is a reasonable argument.

I‘m also an admirer of the RF and I “blame” them less than I do Charles himself.
Charles was a willing participant in his 30’s for God’s sake, royal or not.

The question here was about Camilla. I don’t hate her (I try not to hate anyone) but I’m also not really a fan of hers. Lots of people aren’t fans of hers. That’s our prerogative. For our own reasons which may not jibe with anyone else’s. And that’s ok.

In the US we also consider 18 yr olds to be adults. It doesn’t mean much, necessarily, depending on their emotional growth, maturity and lots of other factors.

Appreciate your input though, especially as a citizen of the UK.

 

[Kennywood]

 

[DisneyOma]

Two old adulterers getting crowned - pretty pitiful, IMO. Neither one should be proud of their role in society, and should be ashamed, actually.

 

[Jangles]

Two old adulterers getting crowned - pretty pitiful, IMO. Neither one should be proud of their role in society, and should be ashamed, actually.

People in glass houses and all that.

King Charles is my King and I have the greatest respect for him.

 

[Moliphino]

Two old adulterers getting crowned - pretty pitiful, IMO. Neither one should be proud of their role in society, and should be ashamed, actually.

Pretty sure there have been a LOT of adulterers crowned throughout history.

 

[Marrila]

Pretty sure there have been a LOT of adulterers crowned throughout history.

And plenty of not so innocent folks watching from the pews.

 

[CdnCarrie]

People in glass houses and all that.

King Charles is my King and I have the greatest respect for him.

Agreed.

 

[CdnCarrie]

And plenty watching from the pews.

And elected on both sides of the pond…

 

[BlueStarryHat]

Welp, it was nice knowing you, thread.

 

[Living42Day]

Welp, it was nice knowing you, thread.

I don't think the thread will be shut down for merely making a factual observation and comparison. If we call the King and Queen adulterers, I think it's fair game to also point out the flaws and shortcomings of other nation's leaders. Both statements are based in fact based on their own words or court proceedings.

 

[BlueStarryHat]

I don't think the thread will be shut down for merely making a factual observation and comparison. If we call the King and Queen adulterers, I think it's fair game to also point out the flaws and shortcomings of other nation's leaders. Both statements are based in fact based on their own words or court proceedings.

It's a political statement, very similar to one I made that got me points last week. Political statements are not allowed, even to point out a leader's flaws and shortcomings. I think it just hasn't been noticed yet. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[CdnCarrie]

It's a political statement, very similar to one I made that got me points last week. Political statements are not allowed, even to point out a leader's flaws and shortcomings. I think it just hasn't been noticed yet. I hope I'm wrong.

They are both Head of States.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I don't think the thread will be shut down for merely making a factual observation and comparison. If we call the King and Queen adulterers, I think it's fair game to also point out the flaws and shortcomings of other nation's leaders. Both statements are based in fact based on their own words or court proceedings.

I think it was perfectly legal to begin with. But given the objection, I reworded mine anyway to make it even more to the good side of the line.