Harry and Camilla and Charles and Andrew: Some Questions

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

I am reading that Charles will not invite Harry to the coronation if he criticises Camilla in his upcoming memoir.

There is also commentary that Harry's memoir will be damaging to the Royal Family. Most of the commentary is around fear of what he will say about Camilla.

I am struggling to understand what Harry could say that is more damaging about Charles and Camilla than we already know. The admitted adultery, the divorce, the whole ghastly Tampongate leaks happened, and they are now King and Queen.

Andrew paid out millions to put out fire on a sex scandal involving a minor and Epstein.

And recently, a biography of Camilla by Angela Levin has, I am informed, a whole chapter that seems gratuitous as it is extremely critical of Harry. Angela Levin has suggested that friends of Camilla cooperated with her on the book with her knowledge.

So why is Harry allowed to be criticised in a book about Camilla that appears to have her blessing, but he is not allowed to be critical of Camilla in his own book?

Step parenting relationships are inherently fraught, as we see here all the time. it can't have been easy for a 12-year-old boy who lost his mother to grow up learning that his father was involved to another woman. He will have heard about his mother's own affairs but it is hard to judge someone who died, and was his mother.

Of course, he may have overcome his resentment of his stepmother by now, but why is he not allowed to talk about what he was feeling then, and perhaps his struggle to accept the situation?

And why is what Harry may say about Camilla a bigger thing, and more damaging, than what Andrew did?

I frequent those threads. That question arises so frequently that posters often start threads with: just to be clear I was not the OW. Feel free to have a browse.

I don't need to have a browse @MrsMaxDeWinter as I have a long thread in that section myself. Under my other name as it's a sensitive matter.

Some posters used to start threads with that because many have been clear they felt defensive as they'd get asked that IRL as well as on here. Doesn't mean the question currently arises so frequently here - it does not. Most people who post in step-parenting are step-parents and we don't judge each other that way, and we give short shrift to those who judge us by negative stereotypes.

But to be fair to you I just did an advanced search for 'just to be clear I was not the OW' for the period since 1st September 2022. Nothing came up.

I don't understand how people can be so forgiving tbh.

Because people recognise that humans are fallible. Personally, if one mistake condemned a person for life, I'd have gone to hell a long-time ago but, fortunately, I've always been allowed to make amends. Everyone makes mistakes and although this brought hurt to another person, was he meant to stay with her forever, not loving her and them both being unhappy? It's not like he was having serial affairs. It was one woman who he'd loved forever. And Diana had forgiven him, so why would anyone else hold it against him? He and Camilla have been married longer than Charles and Diana were.
And if we're talking about affairs, Diana was no innocent pursuing a series of affairs with married men. Have you forgiven her?

why is Harry allowed to be criticised in a book about Camilla that appears to have her blessing, but he is not allowed to be critical of Camilla in his own book?

I haven't read Levin's book and Harry's isn't out yet, so I can't comment on content
In principle however they can each say what the hell they want, but would do well to remember that choices have consequences, and because Charles's own power, influence, entitlement and hypocrisy is much greater than his son's I can't see any criticism of Camilla ending well for Harry - unless he's got some really serious dirt to dish, in which case this could get even nastier than it is already

Yes I see what you are saying MarshaMelrose and I am all for forgiveness but I think people forget that a young woman was, very publicly, wronged then ostracized. And the establishment basically turned their backs on Diana and C and C colluded in that and I don't think it was right. And sorry but it wasn't just an ordinary man doing this, Charles is head of the Church of England and defender of faith(s) remember. I'm not talking about the sexual betrayal as much as the injustice of it. If you are representing an institution then you are supposed to at least try to live up to its values.

I am quoting the author herself who has said, in the links above, with video embedded, that she wrote the book in part to correct the "nasty things" Harry said about Camilla.

I can't really address all your comment you quoted me on because it deals with comments made by different people. I'll just stick to your response to me.

You included a couple of links regarding the book one was just reporting an interview. There were no details - I think the author said people would need to buy the book. The Times review mentioned nothing nasty about Harry. And yet you said....

And recently, a biography of Camilla by Angela Levin has, I am informed, a whole chapter that seems gratuitous as it is extremely critical of Harry.

I haven't seen the interview but in your quote, Levin said she was just redressing the balance. That doesn't mean she's written a chapter of gratuitous criticism of Harry. So no mention of nastiness in the Times review; Levin redressing the balance just means putting forward a positive side of Camilla to balance the negative that has been portrayed; and there's no mention that I've seen that Camilla has told friends to dish the dirt on Harry. Is that in the excerpts?

However, maybe I've misinterpreted something you've said and you can point to this gratuitous chapter. Maybe the person who informed you about it knows more? Because so far you've not produced anything here.

She wasn't over the age of consent in the location it happened

I read it on Mumsnet so I know it's true.

She wasn't over the age of consent in the location it happened

Regarding the alleged sexual conduct in London between Prince Andrew and VR: VR was 17 and so over the UK age of consent. That is the 'main' occasion talked about, where the infamous photo of them together comes from, a photo that makes my skin crawl.

I believe there were other occasions of alleged sex, one in New York where the age of consent is 17, and one in the Caribbean where the age of consent was 18.

There are lots of legal issues arising from the fact that whilst someone under 18 is legally a minor, they can still be over the age of consent.

None of this means the sexual conduct was consensual and wasn't abusive, but it's important generally to note regarding such conduct that it may not be statutory rape.

Sorry I should have made clear, VR was 17 and so over the age of consent during the time Prince Andrew and her allegedly had sex/he sexually abused her.

I believe she was also 17 during the time in the US Virgin Islands in the Caribbean, but there the age of consent is 18.

Setting aside the issue of sexual abuse: 18 is a high age of sexual consent comparatively compared to the rest of the world (although there's a close-in-age exemption for the US Virgin Islands).

Aww, he loved her. Always. Diana and Charles would have been separated 30 years by now. So we know C&C have been together at least that long. How long does he have to pay for it? Diana forgave him before she died, why is it so hard fir others to?

It's worthy of a Victorian novel tbh. well their upbringing was influenced by the Victorians .
there was a picture of the late Queen as a toddler surrounded by Mary of Teck ,George V and it felt so surreal , like something from a bygone era, yet she was still with us in 2022 😦.

they probably thought by marrying a younger prettier girl he would forget and settle down, just like back in the olden days.
it’s a really messed up thing to do.

but I think people forget that a young woman was, very publicly, wronged then ostracized.

She was very young, had romanticised ideas and accepted his proposal after 12 physical dates. It was a cruel situation for her. There's no doubt he should never have married her and none of it was her fault. But he was under tremendous pressure to marry, he thought it would work, and they stayed faithful to each other for several years. But ultimately, he loved someone else.

It's difficult to say that D was ostracised. Because really all the information we have is from Diana who was intensely paranoid. She had staff who worked for her who were always loyal, although later she thought they were spying on her; she had strong friendship circles although she often dropped people for imagined slights; she had affairs with a range of men, even married ones.

And despite her tell-all book, and her interview, in both of which she did her best to discredit him and undermine his future as king, he forgave her, in the same way as she ge forgave him for his affair with Camilla. She was 36 when she died. Old enough to know if someone deserved forgiving or not.

I do blame The Crown for "dramatising" their lives, and whilst I thought the historical references to events in the 50s were dealt with brilliantly, I fear that as they get closer to the Internet age of misinformation, the writers will give themselves far too much leeway and scope for "exaggeration " which leads to the public believing that it's the truth. It so often isn't.

I don't really think they need to exaggerate, stuff that is confirmed and in the public domain is enough for plenty of drama- the Windsors could fill a whole series of Jeremy Kyle.

It would do everyone good to remember why the Queen was so successful. Never complain, never explain.

Judging from what Charles said her shit parenting is at least in part responsible why why the clan is so fucked up.

@EchoPark yes they do

even married ones and that’s incredibly cruel for someone like her to be the OW and subject other wives to go through the same thing she had gone through without any regard to their feelings , really awful and selfish.

I don't really care to be honest, it's just that I don't like history being rewritten!

I'm glad he's with her and happy but let's not pretend it was love's young dream and hearts and roses back then. It wasn't. Lives were shattered by what went on.

I am not saying it was right for D to have affairs with married men.There is no justification for that. But presumably she wouldn’t have been constantly seeking out men to love her if her husband had done so! Being rejected like that so young and so publicly is bound to dent your confidence in a serious way.

I don’t think it is at all certain that C was ever faithful to D frankly - I don’t believe it anyway - Camilla was taking D out to lunch before D had even married C. Don’t you think it strange that a “former” mistress would do that in the first place? Camilla and Charles were involved in a planned deception of someone just out of her teens. It’s the injustice of that situation rather than the infidelity that I find offensive.

And how the establishment expected Diana and her dc to play along with the deception forever presumably, living a lie, without caring about the effects of that on her or her sons.

Also, D was paranoid because staff did indeed sell stories about her for money and also because Martin Bashir deceived her horribly to the extent of forging evidence. I think most of us would be paranoid in those circumstances!

And yes D did try and discredit C’s ability to be a good King but C had paid £150,000 to a PR company who used very scurrilous tactics to discredit D in an attempt to boost Camila’s profile. That was documented and confirmed by her press secretary. Charles also briefed his powerful establishment friends to publically call her “mad” and “a loose cannon” which was misogynistic in the extreme. And a pretty dreadful thing to do to the mother of your children.

And finally I think it’s worth considering that D said those things about Charles not having the right temperament to be King because they were true! She knew him well after all and was pretty savvy at reading people. It’s well known he has a bit of a temper and can be petulant. But we will have to wait and see whether she called it correctly or not ….

Also, D was paranoid because staff did indeed sell stories about her for money and also because Martin Bashir deceived her horribly to the extent of forging evidence. I think most of us would be paranoid in those circumstances!

Diana was paranoid long before that. Her family said that's why Bashir managed to manipulate her so well because her paranoia was well established. She was always falling out with friends and family because she thought she'd been slighted.

Diana was paranoid long before that. Her family said that's why Bashir managed to manipulate her so well because her paranoia was well established. She was always falling out with friends and family because she thought she'd been slighted

Yes well people who you considered old childhood friends selling stories about your life to journalists , and staff selling private photos of you to the tabloids, and paparazzi swearing at you to get a reaction, tends to do that to you!

She fell out with Elton John and he never sold any stories.

Every single word of this.

The infidelity was bad enough, it was the cruelty of Charles marrying someone he had next to nothing in common with, who was much younger than her, but who was prized for being a virgin, while continuing an affair with someone he really loved.

Cruel is exactly the word for it.

Well she was allowed to fall out with people for other reasons wasn't she?

Exactly. Thank you. The poster I was replying to said she fell out with people because they sold stories. As you point out, she fell out with family friends that had nothing to do with selling stories.

Am I the only one who gets bored out of their skull with discussion about Diana?

I mean I get that it's the everlasting stick to beat Charles with, probably rightly.

But come on, be a bit more creative and come up with New Stuff.

To be fair she hasn't done anything new for over 25 years on account of being dead. Or are you saying she isn't?