1
   

Why did Charles ever choose Camilla over Diana?

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 11:37 pm
Osso,

Yes, we don't have to agree. And if we don't discuss the topics that we feel best not to discuss, that is perfectly ok with me!

Just for the record Osso. I hate the war. I hate any war. It doesn't matter what reason there is war. I hate war.

I do not get into the politics behind the war. My commitment lies with supporting our troops that are there and need to know we care.

I feel sorry for Charles sometimes. I can't imagine having to life my life being scrutinized for every single thing you do or say. I know it bothered Diana terribly in her last days.

I wouldn't be a princess, a prince, or a celebrity for anything.

You have a good night.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 11:43 pm
Okay, girl.

I am very anti war, you can't guess how much.
Of course I am for the troops.

Later.
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 12:01 am
Whoa...what happened here?! Laughing

Englishmajor, you got downright mean and petty. What's up with that?!
I don't agree with a lot of folks on this forum: but I can't think of one that deserves to be treated like that.
Frankly, it made me a little sick to my stomach. There are good people here.

I suggest you check out the rap battle threads. I think you might like it there.
Razz
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 12:10 am
English major hasn't grasped protocol, assigning various arguments to the appropriate threads and addressing those arguments cogently without flaming her listeners - which all of us need to learn to communicate. I wish (her) well in that.
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 12:20 am
yes, dears, that's why this thread contains, in one message posted by holier than thou ma angel, comments about war and diana/charles. guess she hasn't learned about protocol and addressing the appropriate thread. perhaps she needs the born again thread? ahhhh........who cares......
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 12:37 am
As I remember, she was only representing herself, somewhat later, re a post of yours, english major.

You enter this place all girded up for war. Some of us may agree with one or another of your points of view. Me, I'm an atheist feminist, just to start with. Your posturing just amuses me. War as sentence structure isn't useful for conversation, which does occur here, sometimes, and it is why most of us check in here, for the bare potential of real conversation, as we all learn to do that.









englishmajor wrote:
I'm not even going to reply to someone who could possibly, even jokingly, support Mommy Angel.

Why don't you two create your own topic?

That would be a real winner!!!

winkwink
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 12:56 am
If you read over the posts from beginning to end on this thread you will see that I had concern over the way Diana was treated in her lifetime. As far as compassion from other posters, I saw very very little of that. Some replies like "why do you care, you don't live in England'. Now, there's a good method of debating/arguing, don't you think? It is a prerequisite to live in a country before one comments upon it?

Whether it is/was fair for royals, celebrities, etc to live in a fishbowl is a moot point. They do, and they know that when they accept the job. Goes with the territory/job description. Has nothing to do with the way Charles treated Diana. She was used by him (and the Royals) and there are a few people on this thread that agree with that, at least.

This thread began when I saw Harry on TV and noticed how much he was like his mom; he's caring and affectionate, loves people, as does William. Harry was holding a little African baby who was dying of AIDS. I somehow cannot see Camilla doing that. I was thinking Diana would be proud of her boys. She did a good job of being a mom even though she was young and had to contend with the Queen.......
Now. What on earth have I said that could possibly be misconstred as rude here? Like I said, it goes both ways and I certainly received many posts I considered rude. The thinking seems to be 'englishmajor is new here. how dare she be rude so soon, or actually have opinions'. But it's ok if you so called old timers just jump in and mouth off? Strange forum protocol.
If none of you care about the life and times of Charles/Diana/Camilla, then don't read this thread. Maybe it will die a natural death, who cares?

Si t'es pas content va tu caresser avec une poignier de bracquettes. (Get your experts to translate).
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 01:06 am
I'm trying to remember the latin for let it sit.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 03:01 am
Do any of you ladies (and why is it nearly always women who are obsessed with the British monarchy?....uh oh feel shouts of sexism coming on here....but whatever...) do any of you want to know the truth of this matter?

Its simple. Charles is a very selfish person. (Who, given his up bringing could fail to be?). Camilla was his first love, but either he felt or those around him felt that she was not suitable Queen material. (Being catholic didnt help either). But no problem, being Prince, he can do what he likes no? So a suitable virgin was found to perform the official duty of producing an heir (and a spare), and it was assumed she would come to understand her role as official number one wife. But for some inexplicable reason, Diana never did understand, and never accepted it. The rest is history. Sad but true.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 04:47 am
englishmajor wrote:
If you read over the posts from beginning to end on this thread you will see that I had concern over the way Diana was treated in her lifetime. As far as compassion from other posters, I saw very very little of that. Some replies like "why do you care, you don't live in England'. Now, there's a good method of debating/arguing, don't you think? It is a prerequisite to live in a country before one comments upon it?


englishmajor previously wrote/replied:
Quote:
But Charles is a wimpy fellow and had to follow Mom's wishes. He managed to get a divorce when he wanted one. After the heirs were produced of course.

Camilla and Charles deserve each other. They are both insufferable, chinless snobs, & can't relate to the common people. Camilla doesn't like to even touch people in a crowd, like Diana did. Thank goodness Harry and William are like their mom.

When a person is famous, they live in a fishbowl. I'm sure my opinions and those of anyone else really do not matter to such people.

I hear Charles may have another mistress already. Guys who cheat on their wives usually cheat on their mistresses, when/if they marry. Ole Camille may be getting a taste of her own medicine.


Intrepid replied:
Quote:
These are not facts. They are your opinion. Why do you really care what happens in England.

Have you lived there?


This was a simple question and you replied that you had lived there and went to University there. If you thought the question was so out of line, why did you answer it?

Quote:

Whether it is/was fair for royals, celebrities, etc to live in a fishbowl is a moot point. They do, and they know that when they accept the job. Goes with the territory/job description. Has nothing to do with the way Charles treated Diana. She was used by him (and the Royals) and there are a few people on this thread that agree with that, at least.


As it is a moot point to bash them without any reall knowledge of their situation.

Quote:
This thread began when I saw Harry on TV and noticed how much he was like his mom; he's caring and affectionate, loves people, as does William. Harry was holding a little African baby who was dying of AIDS. I somehow cannot see Camilla doing that. I was thinking Diana would be proud of her boys. She did a good job of being a mom even though she was young and had to contend with the Queen.......


None of this was explained in the first post. BTW.. What did you think about Harry wearing the nazi uniform to the party?

Quote:
Now. What on earth have I said that could possibly be misconstred as rude here? Like I said, it goes both ways and I certainly received many posts I considered rude. The thinking seems to be 'englishmajor is new here. how dare she be rude so soon, or actually have opinions'. But it's ok if you so called old timers just jump in and mouth off? Strange forum protocol.


There is a difference between being rude and being obnoxious and hurling personal insults against specific posters just because you do not like them or disagree with their point of view.

Quote:
If none of you care about the life and times of Charles/Diana/Camilla, then don't read this thread. Maybe it will die a natural death, who cares?


You, apparently, do.

Quote:
Si t'es pas content va tu caresser avec une poignier de bracquettes. (Get your experts to translate).

Oh, well

Are you sure you are not Aidan? I would bet a box of Tim Horton donuts and a extra large coffee that you are actually Aidan come back as englishmajor. Oh, well. I have been known to be wrong before.


Steve has provided an excellent explanation of the situation on Charles, Diana and Camilla.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 05:00 am
Interesting watching Intrepid's defence team suddenly appearing on this thread.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 05:05 am
ehBeth wrote:
Interesting watching Intrepid's defence team suddenly appearing on this thread.


Well, good morning Ehbeth. I see you have come to add your opinion on Charles and Camilla. What's that? You do not have an opinion other than to take a swipe at Intrepid? Oh, that's ok. Perhaps, however, you could elaborate on exactly what "Intrepid's defence team" actually is.

Or, was this written differently than I have interpreted it?
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 05:24 am
Charles and Camilla were an item when they were young.
Camilla got married.Why if Charles and she loved each other?
Charles needed a son and heir.
Diana loved Charles so he thought he may as well marry her to get a child.
2 heirs are born
Charles has an affair with Camilla.
Diana is rightly peed off so divorces Charles.
Diana has relationships like any person would.
Charles and Camilla get married because they love each other.

Id like to know why Charles and Camilla didnt get married in the first place?
Wasnt Camilla suitable, and if she wasnt then why is she now?
I blame the Queen.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 05:57 am
This thread reminds me of nothing I want to be reminded of.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:10 am
There was some scuttlebutt, at the time, that Diana was killed because if she married Dodi Fayed, the heirs to the British throne would have a non-Christian as a stepfather. It was said that Queen Liz was not too thrilled about that.

Whether the Queen's upset about that possibility impelled her to order a "hit" on her ex-daughter-in-law, is simply rumor and innuendo. Like the rumors circulating for decades about the death of Marilyn Monroe, I don't think that we will ever really know.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:11 am
J_B wrote:
englishmajor, welcome to A2K.

You seem to be a person of strong convictions and passions. I admire those attributes in a person. You also seem to think it is acceptable to ask a question of opinion on a forum and then berate those whose opinions differ from yours. If you didn't want to hear opinions that differed from your own, why did you ask the question?

Many of us on these forums have strong convictions and passions. It's what make the discussions interesting. There have been many cases when a particular individual holds strong views quite the opposite of my own but when they need my support on an issue of health or relationship they get it without question.

Not replying to one poster because they support another poster whose views disagree with yours shows a definite lack of maturity and compassion. We can disagree with each other on many levels and maintain fair dialogue while doing so. Discussion can only continue when it is done with dignity and respect.


Thanks JB.

Yes, that's one of the things I enjoy about A2K. I can be in disagreement with someone on one thread, to the point of exasperation, but can carry on a carry on a friendly conversation with the same person on a different thread.

englishmajor has issues with some posters, personally I way I handle it is that if I'm in disagreement with someone, it stays on that thread.

If I find laughter, friendship with the same person on another thread, I let it spill over into other threads.

Contain the negative.
Nourish the positive.

All of us have both, but we can choose which one to follow.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:21 am
Phoenix. Her Majesty the Queen did not "order a hit" on anyone. She wouldn't have to Smile
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 08:32 am
Y'know, for folks trying to prevent others from replying to a particular topic, y'might just want to have a look at the Terms of Service, http://www.able2know.com/disclaimer.php in particular subheading III, subsection 5, http://www.able2know.com/disclaimer.php#3b5 Why am I referencing the Terms of Service? Oh, I dunno, maybe 'cause they're the rules of this site?

Anyone having a problem with either the Terms of Service or another poster is free to contact the Moderating Team at the Contact Us link at the bottom right of every single page on this forum. We welcome your contact.
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 08:41 am
I didnt mean i blame the Queen for any 'hit'.Just she is the one who dictates who can marry who.Didnt she say Princess MArgaret could marry someone she loved (a gardener i think).
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 09:56 am
I watched a show a couple of weeks ago where they were recreating the card accident. They came to the conclusion that the white (can't remember what kind of car it was) car someone had seen had actually clipped Diana's car. However, the clipping was so slight that it didn't have much to do with the accident. They wanted to find the driver of that car so they could get his eyewitness view. If I remember this correctly, the driver of that car or a friend of his (dang, can't remember exactly) died a mysterious death not long after the accident.

Also, there had been rumors there was a bomb that caused the accident. This was disspelled. The person that said they heard an explosion actually heard the car crash. When the accident was reconstructed and the car hit the cement piling, it did sound like a bomb.

So, the conclusion that show came to was it was definitely and accident.

I will see if I can find it on the satellite again and let you know.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

A good cry on the train - Discussion by Joe Nation
I want to run away. I can't do this anymore. Help? - Question by unknownpersonuser
Please help, should I call CPS?? - Question by butterflyring
I Don't Know What To Do or Think Anymore - Question by RunningInPlace
Flirting? I Say Yes... - Question by LST1969
My wife constantly makes the same point. - Question by alwayscloudy
Cellphone number - Question by Smiley12
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/17/2025 at 01:16:19