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
News
Original poster

PRINCE CHARLES TO MARRY CAMILLA

230 replies

RTKangaMummy · 10/02/2005 09:10

NOW ON GMTV

OP posts:
Lonelymum · 10/02/2005 10:54

What has Diana's beauty got to do with anything? I am not against the woman, but surely a more important requiremnet for such an important postion would be a bit of intellignece and she certainly had none!

bundle · 10/02/2005 10:55

the majority of people prefer(ed) Di but why? they didn't know her, nor I'd imagine do they know Camilla. I'd say the one who's behaved badly in all this is Charles.

snafu · 10/02/2005 10:55

Is Camilla a Catholic? I'm sure Jennie Bond said this morning she wasn't? God, I can't believe I am even having this discussion!

ThomCat · 10/02/2005 10:56

oh okay, well i'm not getting into a row. i think Diana was beautiful actually and I'm not saying she was a saint, but i do think that Charles and Camilla are pathetic and weak and make me sick. They should have just got married and 30 years ago and not involved Diana in their sick, secret lives.

lockets · 10/02/2005 10:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

WideWebWitch · 10/02/2005 10:57

bundle, interesting isn't it? HE's the one who was married and had an affair and Camilla's the one everyone hates for it.

Snugs · 10/02/2005 10:58

She isn't Catholic. Her ex-husband is.

snafu · 10/02/2005 10:59

Well actually I agree with you there, TC - it's a shame any of it had to happen really. But I'm not entirely convinced it was all Charles's fault. Lots of plotting behind the scenes and being forced into things because of 'duty' probably. I think the Royal Family as a whole is a shambles, tbh.

winnie · 10/02/2005 10:59

I think the British public are incredibly fickle and have largely resigned Diana to history. I have an idea many people will be glad that he is 'making an honest woman of her' People like having something (anything) to celebrate.

bundle · 10/02/2005 11:00

tc, why are they more pathetic & weak than a 19 yr old who married a man with whom she had no interests in common? at 19 I certainly would have been arsey enough to say No.

Bozza · 10/02/2005 11:00

Actually www as I understood it both Charles and Camilla were married and having an affair - so equal blame in my book.

bundle · 10/02/2005 11:02

www, absolutely double values all the way. but camilla was married too, even if was all over bar the shouting...

Lonelymum · 10/02/2005 11:02

I think it is a very plain fairy tale sort of thing. Diana was young and beautiful and plainly mistreated (well how would you describe finding out your dh slept with his mistress the night before your wedding?) Camilla, on the other hand, looks like a horse and was the other woman in question (and married herself at the time). Plus, she doesn't talk in public so we have very little idea what she is lke in reality. It is clear cut: Diana becomes the innocent and Camilla is the wicked witch.

TBH, I couldn't care less about any of it. If Charles and Camilla are in love (whatever that means!!!! - do you think he knows yet?) they should get married if they want to.

raisin · 10/02/2005 11:02

And equal blame to Diana for also having affairs.

bundle · 10/02/2005 11:03

(I meant charles was at fault over all the Diana stuff, she was treated pretty shabbily and didn't have the freedom that most of the rest of us have of opting for divorce when we feel like it)

ThomCat · 10/02/2005 11:03

Glad we agree Snafu. That's all I'm saying really. I don't adore Diana, I don't think she was a saint or anything, but I do feel incredibly sorry for her and I do think she was a good ambassador. I dislike Camilla and Charles equally and agree that it wasn't just them that is to blame.

lockets · 10/02/2005 11:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

crumpet · 10/02/2005 11:05

Or, if the marriage was an arranged one, why weaker than anyone who goes through an arranged marriage they may not be sure about - which is not uncommon.

30 years ago society was far more rigid than nowadays - the consideration of someone's birthline must have been so much higher, and Charles and Camilla (or the people around them) may have felt that marriage was simply not an option - not that I know anything about it.

snafu · 10/02/2005 11:07

As someone said further down, very much a case of find someone young and healthy to provide and heir and a spare. Not to mention that that's the way it's been throughout history - the heir to the throne was never expected to marry for love, just babies.

oliveoil · 10/02/2005 11:12

yawn

bundle · 10/02/2005 11:15
Grin
raisin · 10/02/2005 11:19

Kelly1978. In 1760 the Sovereign came to an agreement with the Government at the time, to surrender his lands to the state, in exchange for an annual sum. This is known as the Civil List today.

Apparently, this agreement is renewed each time we have a new king or queen. Perhaps you'd rather they just reclaimed their lands and got rid of the Civil List. I'm sure they'd be a lot better off.

Gwenick · 10/02/2005 11:20

But even 'if' she were to be made queen she'd be no worse (in fact less worse in my opinion) that queens (and kings) in the past who've had terrible track records, "Bloody" Mary, Henry VIII with his 6 wifes, some of whom he had executed.........

snafu · 10/02/2005 11:21

Hmmmm...beheading. Now there's a thought...

crystaltips · 10/02/2005 11:31

I have more time for them than for Air Miles Andy he makes me so cross - going on all his freebies ...

Swipe left for the next trending thread