Queen Camilla

[snappy]

I agree, if Charles and Camilla had married back in the 70’s regardless of the advice he was given at the time, there would have been a lot less heartache all round. Seems Charles chose to listen to others rather than go with his heart.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Unless they were into polygamy yes only TWO people were in the marriage and knew exactly what happened.

We can agree to disagree.

How is it that we know so much history if only the people involved in that history know what really went on?

Diana herself shared her story before her death. Many people were witness to their lives from up close.

 

[snappy]

We can agree to disagree.

How is it that we know so much history if only the people involved in that history know what really went on?

Diana herself shared her story before her death. Many people were witness to their lives from up close.

I don’t think the Charles/Camilla affair was Charles’ “best kept secret.” To say they were not discreet is an understatemeant. Sounded to me at the time he was hoping to end the marriage to Diana at any cost.

 

[lovin'fl]

We can agree to disagree.

How is it that we know so much history if only the people involved in that history know what really went on?

Diana herself shared her story before her death. Many people were witness to their lives from up close.

Well there is know and know.

 

[Karin1984]

We can agree to disagree.

How is it that we know so much history if only the people involved in that history know what really went on?

Diana herself shared her story before her death. Many people were witness to their lives from up close.

Then there are still moments where they were alone in a room together. And when it comes to (auto)biographies, you decide what you share and what not. You make sure you put yourself in a favourable light.

 

[lovin'fl]

And I don't think Camila really wanted Charles either. She loved her other husband and wanted him.

 

[NotUrsula]

One of the sources I used is wiki so it's possible the exact reason isn't quite as it was written but it was said because he was a foreign individual, I suppose that might have made more sense in the 1800s and maybe in preservation of the monarchy's lines that made/make sense. I think the allowance of Charlotte's succession seems like that door is at least open to adjusting things. It's possible they just haven't thought to revisit it. I don't think it's all that common now or in the past for monarchies in general to use King Consort though.

She was a foreign individual at the time as well, or nearly so. (She was raised entirely by her German mother in a German-speaking household. She didn't learn English until she was school-age.)

I think that the real reason that Parliament refused (though they would not have said so publicly) was that he was Albert; he was not at all happy to play public second fiddle to Victoria, and was a very controlling husband. I'm pretty sure Lord Melbourne rightly guessed that given an inch, Albert would run off with the yardstick.

As for Camilla not wanting Charles, she did. What she didn't want, at that age, was the "job" of Princess of Wales, and in any event, under the rules that applied at the time, she did not qualify to be Princess of Wales, because she had openly had lovers in the past. Charles could not legally marry without his mother's permission; no one near the top of the Order of Succession can. Camilla, to use the British phrase, "wrote it off as a bad job" and moved on. Didn't mean she didn't have feelings for him, just that she thought that being his wife wouldn't work out. It might well not have at that time. Like most English people from aristocratic families, she was pragmatic about marriage, and decided Parker-Bowles would be a better husband.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

From Diana, In Her Own Words

 

[Her Dotness]

And I don't think Camila really wanted Charles either. She loved her other husband and wanted him.

I agree.

From what I recall back then in the media, Camilla felt when the opportunity arose that Charles was a bit immature and unsure what he really wanted in life.

Andrew Parker Bowles was older, polished and a charmer. Much more her match at the time although possibly not nearly as enamored of her as she of him.

ETA: "what I recall back then..." Just revealed my antiquity, fer sure. Oops!

 

[Her Dotness]

And when it comes to (auto)biographies, you decide what you share and what not. You make sure you put yourself in a favourable light.

From Diana, In Her Own Words

Which is why I don't consider the above source very useful. You and others may disagree.

Both the infamous interview and Andrew Morton's book, Diana: Her True Story...In Her Own Words seem exploitative of Diana to me.

I read the book years ago. Distasteful.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

She was a foreign individual at the time as well, or nearly so. (She was raised entirely by her German mother in a German-speaking household. She didn't learn English until she was school-age.)

I think that the real reason that Parliament refused (though they would not have said so publicly) was that he was Albert; he was not at all happy to play public second fiddle to Victoria, and was a very controlling husband. I'm pretty sure Lord Melbourne rightly guessed that given an inch, Albert would run off with the yardstick.

I gather they mean foreign born/different country kind of thing. Still considered part of the english blood for a monarchy that wants to control how the lines of succession go seems to account for a lot, and only recently has that adjusted. Her being raised by a German mother in a german-speaking household didn't have anything to do with her right to be queen as she was still very much part of the british bloodline. Prince Albert however was not.

If I delve into things further it looks like Prince Albert was viewed as lesser than others due to his blood as in he was from a non-worthy country. He on the other hand seems to have viewed it as he didn't have a need for the title as in he didn't view his own titles from birth to be something perceived as lesser than. Honestly the british monarchy over the years has had a outlook on others so that wouldn't surprise me if they were like "you're not good enough for us" and he was like "I don't need your titles mine are good enough and in fact I see them as better". Now that may not have gone over well but I don't think the british monarchy wanted to taint their lines in that way giving approval to someone who wasn't of the right blood.

I sorta doubt it was a personality thing as if if he was most beloved that would have changed their stances (I can see his personality being used to bolster the disproval though). Queen Elizabeth II could have over her very long tenure broached the subject again and he was well liked but Prince Philip was born in Greece, he gave up his titles, his rights to Greece and Denmark, but do you think a law would have been passed then to allow him to be considered King Consort? I'm not so convinced. Blood is blood to them but hey they have allowed a girl to be ahead of a boy so they are getting more lax.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Which is why I don't consider the above source very useful. You and others may disagree.

Both the infamous interview and Andrew Morton's book, Diana: Her True Story...In Her Own Words seem exploitative of Diana to me.

I read the book years ago. Distasteful.

So we can’t argue now that we don’t have something in someone’s own words, so instead we have to say it’s exploitative or distasteful.

Okayyy

 

[CdnCarrie]

We can agree to disagree.

How is it that we know so much history if only the people involved in that history know what really went on?

Diana herself shared her story before her death. Many people were witness to their lives from up close.

Gossip.
I'm divorced. Doesn't matter who says what only my ex and I know what happened in our intimate marriage.
No one but the couple involved know exactly what was said, felt, etc.

I can say all I want about my ex. Doesn't make it true.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Her majesty's kids do seem to find some winners.
Let's talk about how Anne's husband fathered a child while married to her. Crazy! I can just image what his FIL had to say about that!

 

[Her Dotness]

I agree, if Charles and Camilla had married back in the 70’s regardless of the advice he was given at the time, there would have been a lot less heartache all round. Seems Charles chose to listen to others rather than go with his heart.

Sadly, because of what was expected of Charles as the heir apparent, marrying Camilla wasn't possible unless he'd been even more foolhardy and destructive than his great-uncle the Duke of Windsor.

As has been said previously, Camilla could choose whom she married. Charles didn't really have much choice.

It was quite the concession for them to have been granted permission to marry when they finally did. But, three of the Queen's children were divorced, and divorce and remarriage were not nearly so disgraceful as they were 50 years ago.

I like to think that the tragedy that was Diana and Charles's marriage and the public reaction to her death caused the Queen to realize that if the monarchy was to be relevant in a new century, things had to change.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Gossip.
I'm divorced. Doesn't matter who says what only my ex and I know what happened in our intimate marriage.
No one but the couple involved know exactly what was said, felt, etc.

I can say all I want about my ex. Doesn't make it true.

People can live through the exact same thing, yet have different perceptions, too.

I’ll go by what Diana herself said.

 

[CdnCarrie]

People can live through the exact same thing, yet have different perceptions, too.

I’ll go by what Diana herself said.

Absolutely.
Really in the grand scheme of things why does it matter? It's not your marriage or anyone you know in person. A lot that came out was via PR people. By the time it was all said and done probably the principal players didn't even recognize the truth.
You sure seem to be taking someone else's divorce very personally.

 

[TippyThomas]

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Pot, meet kettle.

Yes I get the irony.

My point is that know one knows exactly what goes on in a marriage except those in the marriage.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Absolutely.
Really in the grand scheme of things why does it matter? It's not your marriage or anyone you know in person. A lot that came out was via PR people. By the time it was all said and done probably the principal players didn't even recognize the truth.
You sure seem to be taking someone else's divorce very personally.

Sure, I liked Diana, and I followed their story closely (as did millions of others across the globe) from the time they started dating.

It seems to me that much of the information out there has become somewhat convoluted in the years since she was with us. Obviously, she no longer can defend herself.

My opinions are no less or no more than anyone else’s, but I am going to call it like I see it. It’s a discussion, and we’re all allowed to discuss. I am conveying things from Diana’s perspective to people who may not know. Others have their own opinions based on what they do know, and that’s fine, too. But it is ok to discuss.