Prince Charles to marry his slag

aaahhh

According to an NYT's Sunday Magazine article, Camilla tells Charles to stop whinging. This will be all to the good.

steve asked : " Is anywhere in Canada more pro monarchy? How about British Columbia? ".

certainly not british columbia; they even a somewhat socialist government (which i like) : NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

btw, i have nothing against charles or camilla (i wish them happiness) and THE FAMILY, i just don't see that they can contribute much that is useful in today's society, imo. hbg

The resentment against Camilla is based upon what happened after Diana came along, not before it. Although I would point out that Charles and Camilla were going together before either got married the first time and she decided to marry someone else while Charles was in the service.

They had their chance. Not that their subsequent behavior would be acceptable even if they hadn't.

Not acceptable to some.
Acceptable to many others.

The feeling against Camilla, as far as I am concerned, is that she is part and parcel of the lousy deal Diana got from Charles and the whole royal bunch.

Diana was 19 when she agreed to marry Charles, much attention was focused on the young girl, the preparations for the wedding-not just the wedding, but the preparations-were all over the magazines and news for months and months. No question about it. The monarchy, an institution from out of the Dark Ages-wait, before the Dark Ages-benefitted from the young Diana tremendously in terms of perceived relevance.

So what does this chaste young princess run into? Charles has a long running affair with Camilla which takes prority over his marriage. The Queen dislikes Diana's burgeoning popularity, possibly seeing in it the possiblity that it might give Diana the power to stand up to Charles and demand an end to the extramarital shenanigans. So the Queen undertakes a campaign against Diana's fitting in with her new family-which also happens to Diana's new job.

As lousy as the Queen acted, though, I guess we have to credit her for accurate foresight. The Queen understood that her son was too much of an airhead to actually stop the affair, and realized that the British public, already in love with Diana, would likely take her side if she went public. So the Queens' only alternative was to try to break down Diana so she will graciously accept it.

Hence, such things as the "Diana is bonkers" campaign.

Trouble is, the young Diana outflanked the Queen's attack by freely admitting to having post-partum depression after the birth of William. As this psychological condition was coming to light, and the newspapers in America were filled with stories of mothers who had it, Diana turned the Queen's attack into an advantage-Diana was now the poster girl for this newly recognized condition, and a survivor of it.

Meanwhile, Charles was too busy going with Camilla to bother sticking up for his wife, (who had just given him a son). The young Diana, who had given the monarchy such a boost, was a put down pariah in the royal family, with none of the older people, including Charles, to stand up for her.

The picturebook marriage broke up, the royal family's attacks upon her increased, but Diana continued to popularize such worthy causes as the fight against AIDS, a gutsy stance for a royal. Her campaign to prevent the use of landmines gave that movement tremendous credibility where it had little before. In short, Diana overcame being dumped on, to emerge more popular and relevant than the royal family itself.

So that is what's wrong with Camilla. She was part of this whole outrageous treatment of the young princess, who eventually turned the tables on the whole damn scheming bunch of them.

That's why everybody but McTag seems to realize why this marriage ceremony was downplayed so much. The last couple of decades have been so humialating for the royal family, they just want to move on to the next generation as quickly as they gracefully can.

Those are your opinions, kelticwizard. They are not shared universally.

If you've been reading other posters here, you'll note that the splits are fairly even on several points - such as Diana, good/bad - Camilla, good/bad - royals, good/bad - Charles, good/bad - wedding, entertainment/meaningful event.

I'm of the - Diana, bad choice ( Camilla, better choice - royals, indifferent - Charles, decent sort - wedding, good entertainment) contingent.

EhBeth:

Of course, you are entitled to your view on things.

And you might be correct in your view of the splits among the people in this particular thread.

But I feel the evidence show the splits in the world apart from this forum are most definitely not even-steven.

The wedding-which certainly could not be expected to be as large as the first-was really, really played down. The announcement came mere weeks before the ceremony, it was originally scheduled for a Friday afternoon so fewer people could watch it, they tried to make it as much as a private ceremony as possible. This for a family whose sole remaining purpose was to perform ceremonies and be visible.

They wouldn't have played this as far down as they did if they did not realize that the bride and groom had much to be embrarrassed about.

I think it is apparent that the royal family is counting the days that they can get young William in there.

What did she do that was wrong?



Apparently there was that "divorced" thing that Charles' uncle had.

I think it would have been just swell if they had gotten married back when both were originally dating. Would have saved a whole host of problems.




He probably is pretty decent if you ignore his behavior towards Diana. As regards that, the best I can say for him is that he is not a deliberately vicious man.

But try to remember-she was 19, he was 32-getting close to middle aged.

My sympathies are much more with this 19 year old kid who enters into the royal world wanting to do things right than they are with the older, experienced royal who won't come to her side when things are arrayed against her.

Your sympathies run one way, KW. Mine run another in this particular case.

Except perhaps in Victoria where they still like to have high tea at the Empress.
But I agree with you hbg, BC is not pro monarchy.
The New Democrats can't seem to get into power over here and when they do, they manage to royally stuff things up!

kelticwizard wrote : "I think it would have been just swell if they had gotten married back when both were originally dating. Would have saved a whole host of problems. "

i sure agree with you on that ! i seem to recall though that camilla was not considered fit to marry charles at that time. from what i've read the "consultants" to the queen advised against the marriage because a) she did not have the proper credentials(daughter of a wine-merchant ?) b)she was not a virgin !

so diana was "inspected" and considered fit to be marriage materiel. somewhere i also read that when charles complained to prince phillip about not wanting to enter into an arraigned marriage and that he had continued to "see" (hah, hah !) camilla, prince phillip apparently told him it would be quite allright "to have a bit on the side" - since this was considered acceptable under the circumstances; royal privilege and all that, you know !

i doubt that diana was informed in advance about charles' "prior arrrangement" with camilla. so diana was dragged into this marriage and the rest is history - a pretty messy one if you ask me.

so again my opinion is : let the monarchy die out with the end of the reign QE II . charles and camilla can live with their dogs and horses in the country and no harm will be done. hbg

I think this forum -- and this thread -- is fairly representative of the general feelings of the populace at large. If I'm right, then we can only conclude that McTag is certainly not alone in his views; nor, for that matter is kelticwizard. One thing we can be sure of -- the Charles/Diana/Camilla thing evokes very strong feelings in some people. I'm glad and grateful I'm not one of 'em. Couldn't care less who any royal marries or doesn't marry. Just stopped in to see what all the hullabaloo was about.

I pretty much agree with Kelticwizard regarding the good choice/bad choice issue with Diana and Camilla.
Camilla was also rejected because, during her late teens she was regarded in her social circles as "easy", and it is pretty well known that she was a bit of a party girl as far as young men were concerned.
Although this would have been seen as almost a badge of honour if Charles had acted the same way, it was totally unnacceptable for a potential future Queen, so that particular door was slammed shut by "the family".
Send them all off to the country, give them a life of luxury in return for being wheeled out for Ceremonies.
Apart from that, they are now pretty much an irrelevance to the UK (imo), especially to people under the age of 20, who now have American Pop Idols to worship.

According to a 1996 poll (latest statistics that I have) The western provinces and British Columbia have the highest support for the Monarchy.

Every city in Canada has a Queens Hotel. Toronto has the Royal Ontario Museum, Royal York Hotel, Royal Alexandra Theatre, Royal Opera, Royal Winter Fair, Royal Conservatory of Music, Royal Canadian Yacht Club, Royal St. George's College etc.

"Every city in Canada has a Queens Hotel. Toronto has the Royal Ontario Museum, Royal York Hotel, Royal Alexandra Theatre, Royal Opera, Royal Winter Fair, Royal Conservatory of Music, Royal Canadian Yacht Club, Royal St. George's College etc."

So they should feel at home there when Britain becomes a republic?

OOOOH ! That's a good idea......send them over there. Then Charlie boy could walk round in a Mountie uniform.

I used to be anti-monarchy and a bit Scottish Nationalist in my youth, when I wasn't being an international socialist, in other words, a crazy mixed-up kid.

Then, for most of my adult years, I couldn't give a damn about the royal family, particularly when the Diana nonsense was going on.

It is only fairly recently I have seen the value in them, as a focus and unifying symbol for (much of the) nation; and also, a living link with history. I am surprised actually, to find so many voices here raised against them.
I will repeat what I said earlier, though, about there being too damned many of them with their hands in the till, and no obvious function. Just what does Prince Andrew do for all his free helicopter flights? And what is Princess Michael of Kent for? Alienating foreigners?
At least Fergie had the good grace to realise she was not wanted, and left.

Fergie was tremendously popular in the States. The tabloids couldn't get enough of her doings and the Americans thought she was just great. If she'd come here, she probably could have gotten her own talk show!

I thought Fergie was in the States? Or has it really been that long since I read that article that said she was moving there? For work opportunities.