Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that Camilla is a bit of a national treasure

385 replies

GitAwfMayLend · 29/04/2011 20:23

Yes another wedding based thread.

I think she seems a good egg. And looked lovely today.

Plus there were a few moments where she looked very emotional in the abbey, was very touching.

OP posts:
ivykaty44 · 30/04/2011 13:47

her ancestor was a Baronet

HRHTheDuchessofCambridge · 30/04/2011 13:52

We like Camilla.

Jacaqueen · 30/04/2011 14:04

I think it is all rather sad.

Charles was not allowed to marry Camilla because she was not a virgin.

She wanted to have children and married APB but she continued to sleep with Charles off and on. Charles didn't really want to be married to anyone else but had to do his duty to continue the royal line. Diana was young and fertile and they probably thought she would just turn a blind eye to the extra marital goings on.

It would have saved a lot of heartache all round if Charles and Camilla had been allowed to marry. But then there wouldn't have been William and Catherine.

Megatron · 30/04/2011 14:37

I like her. I like the way she always looks a bit clueless when they are on an engagement. Like she doesn't know exactly what she should be doing. She looks a bit dotty to me these days.

Yellowstone · 30/04/2011 14:45

ivykaty I can't see why you think the fact that there's a baronet in Camilla's family is of any particular note. Her great-grandmother producing Vita Sackville-West's lesbian lover is far more interesting, not that either fact makes Camilla herself a national treasure, let alone suited to a throne.

sparkly coming to thank those responsible for a fund raiser is standard. Not thanking the organisers would be the height of bad manners, so nothing exceptional there. Also, it's easy to be 'lovely' when you've got your own way. The test of moral fibre is when things are bad: when she and Charles didn't have things the way they wanted, they rode roughshod over others' lives in order to do as they pleased.

Appalling role models, the pair of them. No dignity either, clinging on.

wannaBe · 30/04/2011 15:31

"it's not up to you to tell other people who you say are random to 'get over it'" it's a public forum. If people have the right to voice their opinions about the wrongs of the relationship then equally others have the right to tell them to get a grip.

Personally I can't see why people are so bothered about it really. They clearly loved each other but didn't marry for whatever reason (and it appears that reason is largely unknown to the majority).

And surely nobody is naive enough to think that Charles and Diana were really in love? They'd only met thirteen times before they got married - nobody is that naive that they think it's the real thing after so few meetings?

And clearly Diana was no saint - to the extent that there have been questions over Hary's paternity.

But I think it's all too easy to look at things in black and white when clearly it's never that simple.

And if William and Harry have accepted her and clearly are close to her, then really, what right does anyone else have to say how it should be?

Yellowstone · 30/04/2011 16:09

wannaBe telling others to 'get over it' is tantamount to telling that person they shouldn't be expressing their opinion I think is the point.

There is a clear distinction between airing views as to how William, Harry and Camilla should interact (no-one else's business at all) and expressing the view that Charles and Camilla have behaved so ignobly that they should fuck right off and let more morally reputable members of the royal family step into their place, particularly if they want to see the institution preserved (every subject's legitimate concern).

LadylissielouofShropshire · 30/04/2011 16:20

yellowstone, there isnt at all. some people on this thread have a very black and white view of what happened in someones elses marriage the view being that poor ickle diana, that queen of hearts, was mistreated by a wicked man and his lecherous mistress. her family knew what she was marrying into, she herself was aristocracy so had a better idea than most of how these things work. she was a master manipulator who worked her rather dubious magic on several men (some married themselves) as well as the press. 15 fucking years later she is still being referred to as the "peoples princess" when all she did was simper and peer from under lowered eyelashes, a trick that my 4yo niece does now and will grow out of soon. 15 years later Camilla is still being blamed for the breakdown of a marriage taht would never have worked, and diana has avoided the blame for her indiscretions, .

imho, if dh were to be infaithful and end our marriage for another woman, I would rather that it was for someone he was truly in love with. not just someone he fucked after a polo match!

wannaBe · 30/04/2011 16:35

Let's be honest - the only reason why Diana is still the "peoples' princess" is because she is dead. Before she died she was very much falling out of favour because of her relationship with Dodi Fayed and previous encounters with numerous married men. The woman even had an affair (at least one that we know of, but probably more) during her own marriage so why is she being seen as the wronged woman here while charles and camilla as the marriage ruining pair?

And what of Will Carling's marriage - Diana had a part to play in destroying that, so why are people happy to overlook that?

While charles and Camilla were in the wrong for conducting an affair during their marriages, at least they did actually love each other, what excuse was there for Diana to have shagged everything that breathed?

LadylissielouofShropshire · 30/04/2011 16:37

"wannaBe Sat 30-Apr-11 16:35:40
Let's be honest - the only reason why Diana is still the "peoples' princess" is because she is dead. Before she died she was very much falling out of favour because of her relationship with Dodi Fayed and previous encounters with numerous married men. The woman even had an affair (at least one that we know of, but probably more) during her own marriage so why is she being seen as the wronged woman here while charles and camilla as the marriage ruining pair?

And what of Will Carling's marriage - Diana had a part to play in destroying that, so why are people happy to overlook that?

While charles and Camilla were in the wrong for conducting an affair during their marriages, at least they did actually love each other, what excuse was there for Diana to have shagged everything that breathed?"

yep, yep, yep!

ivykaty44 · 30/04/2011 16:37

Thats history though Lissie, history is a subject that has different view points and why it is so interesting to me to read other peoples views about Prince Charles and how he behaves. In the same way as I read about Henry 8 and how his wives behave from different view points, some of his wives are painted as victims and others as nasty, but it is all view point to a certain extent.

Possibly Diana was niave enough to not know how royal marriages worked, possibly she thought her marriage woudl be different and it came as a shock. Possibly Charles thought he could marry keep the family happy and then carry on as before.

They all seem to have got a bum deal though and at one time or other have been ripped apart - they have seemed to got through it and come out the otherside

Original poster
GitAwfMayLend · 30/04/2011 16:46

I think the problem is is that there are various shades of grey in Charles, Camilla and Diana. I don't think any of them were evil, I don't think any of them were saints.

Gawd only knows what acceptable aristocratic behaviour was like in the 70s and 80s. Thing is I think all 3 of them were damaged by the actions of theirselves and others.

However, I think they have paid for it. Camilla used to be hideously villified. Imagine r eading all that about yourself. And it must have been hideous for all the children involved, Wills, Harry and Camillas children. They were very young when all this shit was kicking off so publicly.

Both Camilla and Charles seem to have good relationships with all 4 children now. They have been forgiven for their behaviour by the people who matter the most it seems. It seems utterly ludicrous for members of the public to still vilify someone for a 25 year old infidelity.

I do feel sorry for the 19 year old Diana - she had a shit upbringing and was mentally ill I think from early in her marriage. However I don't think Camilla was responsible for her illness.

OP posts:
wannaBe · 30/04/2011 17:15

I think though that this public villification completely belittles the feelings and opinions of the people that those doing the villifying claim to be supporting, i.e. William and Harry. They have moved on, they have built a relationship with the woman who (in the opinion of some) ruined their parents' marriage, they are happy, so I think to still paint her as the bad guy in this makes the statement that actuallly, William and Harry's opinions are unimportant, because you think that Charles and camilla are immoral scum worthy of nothing of contempt. Once a cheat, always a cheat and all that, even if there were other circumstances at play.

So actually yes, I do think people should get over themselves. No-one other than the people involved were personally affected. So to bear these grudges all these deckades on against people we don't even know is just a little OTT.

Yellowstone · 30/04/2011 18:03

Ladylissie thereis a clear distiction whether you choose to see it or not. My objection is to Charles and Camilla acceding to the throne having behaved in a way which showed no moral compass at all, consciously and for a long period of time, with disregard to those around them who would inevitably be affected. To my mind their behaviour (which was hardly a secret!) should mean that Charles should voluntarily forfeit the throne. In a modern age a constitutional monarch should conduct himself in a way which commands respect and he fell deplorably short.

Why do so many posters assume that anyone critical of Camilla is automatically defending Diana? It doesn't follow at all. The fact that she was troubled and the first to be wronged didn't give her any greater licence to cause pain.

I'm also not sure how some posters can be so sure that anyone posting on MN must inevitably be 'random'. I'd expect some people here to have some connection with some of the people involved or perhaps have been journalists at the time; not all posters will be completely ignorant and dreaming up views from the ether.

Original poster
GitAwfMayLend · 30/04/2011 18:07

Christ if you were a journalist at the time I think your opinion counts for even less, frankly.

OP posts:
Yellowstone · 30/04/2011 18:10

I've never been a journalist. Never said I was. You're jumping to conclusions, frankly.

wannaBe · 30/04/2011 19:38

so what if Diana and charles had stayed together? What if they'd both continued to have affairs, he with the woman he loved and her with a random asortment of men one of whom might possibly be the father of one of her children? should they then not have stepped down also?

What of Prince Philip who is known to have not led an entirely moral life himself - should the queen step down because of him?

"I'd expect some people here to have some connection
with some of the people involved" pmsl I think that the people who move in those types of circles don't go in for random chit chat on internet forums. As for journalists, the majority make it up as they go along anyway so I wouldn't credit many of their opinions either.

diddl · 30/04/2011 19:46

"one of whom might possibly be the father of one of her children?"

Think that Harry looks very much like PChere

ilovepancakes · 30/04/2011 19:53

cant stand camilla im afraid

strandednomore · 30/04/2011 19:58

Sorry took me a while to work out that PC was Prince Charles - I was looking for a police constable in the pictures!

Have heard plenty of rumours from Met Police contacts about who Harry's father might be but having eventually worked out you were referring to a pic of Charles I would agree that they do look alike.

ThePrincessRoyalFiggyrolls · 30/04/2011 21:15

I think she is quite cool, she would by MIL of choice!

Charlie wouldn't have been the first royal in history to be having an emotional affair out of wedlock, Henry the 8th couldn't keep it in his pants whatsoever! There is no flipping way the Elizabeth 1 was a virgin (they were all rampant as back then!) The problem is that heir's to the throne were never allowed to choose the people that they wanted to marry, the Queen included - don't think that was a love match to start off with, Princess Margaret was never allowed to marry the man she wanted to and the last king had to abdicate for marrying for love.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with arranged marriages but obviously some work and some don't, there are many couples who have found love in an arranged marriage and many more I expect who haven't. It is antiquated but it isn't unusual!

I like him and I like her, I think she has made him more normal and he has made her more glamorous. She looked amazing on her own wedding day and as a family they all seem to be very accepting of each other which is great!

Got to say though I do seem to like all the royals that no one else does (Prince P, Princess A, camilla, PC..........)

topknob · 30/04/2011 22:12

She is a lying cheat..have no time for her whatsoever and she'll never be a queen for me

ilovepancakes · 30/04/2011 22:28

WELL SAID TOPKNOB!

Original poster
GitAwfMayLend · 30/04/2011 22:43

'she'll never be queen for me'

Well, she won't be anyone's personal queen. If you want your own queen buy a pack of cards. She will be queen constitutionally.

OP posts:
SybilBeddows · 30/04/2011 22:45

will people who won't accept Camilla as queen also not accept Charles as king?