Author Topic: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II  (Read 188841 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #465 on: July 07, 2010, 07:31:33 PM »
 Time apart can be very constructive and revovating to both parties in a relationship. I spend a lot of time away from my partner of 40 years, and, we  still take  holidays together as well from time to time.
 WE are not in the same position as the Wale's clan,  but any couple should  feel free to spend time apart without guilt.
 I would take no store with a  tabloid story anyway.  If they are to separate, there would be an announcement. After all, they have both been through this before so are old hands at it.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 07:33:20 PM by Robert_Hall »

CHRISinUSA

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #466 on: July 08, 2010, 08:03:31 AM »
Charles has always lived in an environment with a large household and office monitoring and supporting his every waking moment.  He has probably never left the house without being accompanied by an entourage, not to mention constant people around inside his homes.  He lives in houses where even the "informal" rooms are probably filled with valuable and historic art and furniture.  In short, his world would be bizarre and intolerable to most normal people.

In contrast, Camilla has always lived informally and simply - she may have had some household help but no army of servants. She raised her family quietly in the country, and like many women of her age a priority is clearly having her grandchildren around her as often as possible, in a place that is a relaxing environment suited to small children (which is obviously not Clarence House, Highgrove or Birkhall).

Given that set of circumstances, I would find it perfectly natural for Camilla to have said "Ok Charles, here's the deal.  Since the Queen and her aides are urging us to marry as soon as possible rather then continuing the previous informal arrangement that we both actually preferred, I will agree to marry you.  I will even accompany you on your endless boring official duties, and take on some patronages of my own.  But to maintain my sanity, my terms are this:  I am keeping my own house as a place where I can escape the insanity of your world as often as I need to, and where I can have my grandchildren climbing over the furniture and spilling their milk without fear of damaging national treasures."

And if I were Camilla, I would have done the same thing.

Lindelle

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #467 on: July 08, 2010, 08:12:05 AM »
And me!
Wouldn't it be nice for Charles to spend some of his spare time in Camilla's world?
If she can do it, he might like to give it a try.

Adagietto

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #468 on: July 08, 2010, 08:26:42 AM »
It is indeed natural that she should want her space, but I am inclined to doubt that either of them would have preferred the previous 'informal arrangements'; these left Camilla in a kind of limbo, and Charles himself was plainly desperate to marry her, irrespective of the difficulties that this would inevitably create.

joan_d

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #469 on: July 08, 2010, 08:28:27 AM »
I was merely reporting what I had read in an British newspaper - I didn't make any personal comments (adverse or otherwise)  I agree with Chris' sensible take on the situation and agree wholeheartedly.

As someone who has a 35 year marriage under her belt and is the same age as Charles and Camilla, I can well empathise that they are leading separate lives.  It's just the immature tabloid journalists who have to have a story who cannot understand this way of doing things.  From a personal point of view, I only wish I had numerous houses being run by servants as a bolt hole - oh I nearly forgot and being paid for by someone else !!!!!!!

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #470 on: July 08, 2010, 08:28:58 AM »
I think that the Queen may tolerate Camilla but I doubt she ever urged Charles to marry her.  She had a very clear idea of what Camilla would do the the prestige of the royal family.  The marriage was probably Camilla's idea  so that she could get HRH status and now she has that, she is spending more time in her world and this trend will probably increase into the future.

Offline Lucien

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7349
  • Courtier
    • View Profile
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #471 on: July 08, 2010, 09:44:26 AM »
I think that the Queen may tolerate Camilla but I doubt she ever urged Charles to marry her.  She had a very clear idea of what Camilla would do the the prestige of the royal family.  The marriage was probably Camilla's idea  so that she could get HRH status and now she has that, she is spending more time in her world and this trend will probably increase into the future.

She does less harm then that mental case that left us to soon,I do agree on that unanimously!
HRH The Princess of Wales isn't/nor was after any title,she just wished to be with Charles,and now she is.
What you say can be regarded as liable,and maybe you get lucky and someone might bite you in the butt
on that sort of uncalled for and totally uncanny nonsense by yourself.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 09:47:05 AM by Lucien »
Je Maintiendrai

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #472 on: July 08, 2010, 10:23:53 AM »
you should study law.  Opinion is never libel or liable or tortious or the basis of litigation in a free society.

Adagietto

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #473 on: July 08, 2010, 10:25:29 AM »
This does go round in circles, doesn't it?

Offline Lucien

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7349
  • Courtier
    • View Profile
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #474 on: July 08, 2010, 10:26:02 AM »
you should study law.  Opinion is never libel or liable or tortious or the basis of litigation in a free society.

Your words went far from a opinion,liabel,bet I find a luke in the net of the Law there
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 10:29:23 AM by Lucien »
Je Maintiendrai

CHRISinUSA

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #475 on: July 08, 2010, 10:32:52 AM »
Um, I am unaware of any reputable sources that claimed Camilla herself wished to remarry - can someone perhaps educate me on such a source?  From what I have read and observed, Camilla neither sought out the end of her first marriage nor the start of her second.  And her present behavior suggests she doesn't exactly relish the role.

Like it or not, Camilla and her first husband were obviously both aware, accepting and content with each other's discreet extramarital affairs.  Perhaps shocking to some but quite acceptable in other circles (particularly the British upper classes).  It wasn't until the story broke in the press about Charles/Camilla's affair that Mr. Parker Bowles' hand was forced and divorce became unavoidable.  

After that, Camilla had a pretty good set-up as a divorcee.  She had a comfortable income, her own home in her beloved countryside, her friends and family around her, and her lover coming by every three weeks or so.  Even Diana, in tapes recorded between 1992 and 1993 by her voice coach Peter Settelen and later acquired by NBC, commented on Charles' schedule and limited need for intimacy / sex.

"There was never a requirement for it from him," the princess says. "Once every three weeks about, and I kept thinking it followed a pattern.  He used to see his lady once every three weeks before we got married," she says, in a reference to the prince's lover and current companion, Camilla Parker Bowles.

And by all accounts Camilla dislikes most parts of being the wife of the heir to the throne.  She has little desire to undertake official duties (she has even been kindly described as a bit lazy).  She doesn't particularly like getting dressed up, instead being more comfortable in informal country clothing.  She doesn't like traveling much, doesn't like to speak in public very often, isn't big on small talk, and escapes to her private country life as often as she can.

Do these sound like the traits of a fiercely ambitious woman DESPERATE to marry Charles and become a Duchess and eventually a Queen?  How absurd.  She was around the royals - and Charles in particular - for decades.  She knew exactly what marriage to him would require of her - and most of it is opposite of her nature.  

As for the Queen - she is well known to prefer to stay out of the personal lives of her children except when it becomes essential.  She waited and watched for a long time before advising Charles and Diana to divorce.  But then Charles hurled down the gauntlet by insisting that "Camilla is a non negotiable part of his life."

So the Queen and her advisors had two options:  In a couple of decades was Charles going to succeed as King as a divorced man living in sin with a divorcee, or as a King who had happily re-married a couple of decades earlier?  Given what happened in 1937, which option do you think the Queen chose?  Published reports at the time say the Queen advised the couple to marry.

Adagietto

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #476 on: July 08, 2010, 11:06:24 AM »
A good dose of common sense here, which is pleasant to see in connection with this matter that arouses so much intemperate feeling (though one should not perhaps generalize too hastily about the acceptability of adultery among members of any social class!).
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 11:08:56 AM by Adagietto »

CHRISinUSA

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #477 on: July 08, 2010, 12:01:24 PM »
Quite true, I was merely trying to illustrate that Camilla's environment within those circles might make a affair more acceptable, so long as it was agreed to by both parties - and discreet.  It is not unknown that in days gone by, many noble and royal marriages were for dynastic and social purposes rather than love matches, and those types of arrangements were not uncommon. 

However, my apology for over-generalizing the moral code of the noble and noble-adjacent social groups of today.


Adagietto

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #478 on: July 08, 2010, 02:27:08 PM »
It is certainly true that the respectable middle classes in Britain have long been inclined to look askance at the raffishness and (often) idleness of the aristocracy, which has often enabled them ro regard themselves as being superior in their morals and indeed level of culture; but in fact many members of the aristocracy and landed gentry were and are thoroughly 'middle class' in these respects; there are circles within circles, and often variations too from generation to generation. One can see this in the British royal family since Queen Victoria's time, how some members have been thoroughly 'middle class' while others have been associated with raffish circles in high society.  Edward VII and (up to the time of the abdication) Edward VIII were popular enough, but that was before the days of an intrusive press. I'm afraid that the mess that Prince Charles has made of his private life has done no favours to an institution that has to present itself as being a family monarchy; though I wouldn't compare him to the Edwards, he is a serious and thoughtful man (which is paradoxically something of a problem for him in an age of celebrity culture, in which superficial glamour has more public appeal, and eccentric and original people are inclined to be mocked). Whether the great British (etc.) public really has the right to be so censorious is quite another matter. As Macaulay remarked long ago, there is no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality. And the sheer nastiness and spitefulness of so much that is said about Charles and Camilla takes my breath away.

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« Reply #479 on: July 08, 2010, 02:35:24 PM »
Adagietto
            I totally agree with you.  The Edwardians were especially pleasure loving and there was a time when the aristocracy was lliterally above the law ans felt that most rules did not apply to them.  A llot took pride in their daliances.