Why did Charles ever choose Camilla over Diana?

....except that

Henri paul the driver was deemed to be drunk. But his blood contained a very high concentration of carbon monoxide, where did that come from?

He didnt look drunk as he bent down to tie his shoe laces in the hotel lobby just a few minutes before the crash. (captured on cctv)

Was it actually pauls blood? The fayeds have been denied a dna test of the sample.

Why no inquest yet?. Should have been one ages ago under English law. Why was Diana's body embalmed (against French law). Why was the Mercedes dumped in a scrap yard and left to rot for several years? Why no meticulous forensic examination? The accident happened about 1 am. By rush hour THAT SAME MORNING, the scene was swept, the debris removed and traffic was using the tunnel normally. This is the death of the most famous woman in the world remember.

.....................................................

Of course I dont know if it was a suspicious death. But look at it the other way. Suppose you were a senior member of the royal household. Out of the blue Diana (who lets face it was regarded as a loose cannon) is dead, killed in a car crash. The first thing you would say is "give it 1 week and people will start to say we had her bumped off". Therefore, knowing it was an unfortunate and genuine accident, you would order every effort to be made to completely disprove the false rumours that were bound to start, before they got going. The crash site would have been cordonned off for weeks (no matter its a busy route). Every millisecond of that evening, and every microsecond of that crash would have been reconstructed until everyone was sick of it. Instead Diana was embalmed (which means proper forensic tests are now impossible) and in the ground toute suite. And the car was dumped and forgotten about. If people smell a rat you cant blame them, considering how the affair was handled.

Henry Paul did some surveillance work for MI5 btw. And a very healthy current account, on a chauffeurs wage.

0 Replies

Steve,

Hey, I have no problem with what you are saying. I was just telling about that show I saw.

Actually, I haven't a clue. Am I suspicious? Yes, most definitely I am. Too many things point to something rotten in Denmark. but, it's probably going to be like Lee Harvey Oswald and JFK. Most are pretty sure there was a conspiracy and cover up. But, as of yet, no undisputable proof.

I hope someday we find the answers to all of these questions.

0 Replies

And perhaps as William and Harry get older, they will demand to know what really happened to their mom. Especially Harry.....he was very attached to his mum. We shall see.....

0 Replies

Serious inquiry englishmajor.....

Why is all this so interesting to you?

I'll be impartial and have no opinion or give no response on your answer. I'm just really curious about this. Not with you or this situation in particular, just in general.

0 Replies

Because Camilla could very well be the next Queen of England. Along with Charlie the Wimp. That should interest most people. England is one of the G8 countries.

I just don't understand why she wasn't allowed to marry Charlie 35 years ago? Why is it ok for her to be with him now? Did they need a virgin (Diana) or something?

Apparently a lot of people are interested in this subject judging by the number of viewings and postings. Why are you looking at it? I'm just curious to know. There's a lot of other posts to read besides this one!

0 Replies

englishmajor wrote:

Because Camilla could very well be the next Queen of England. Along with Charlie the Wimp. That should interest most people. England is one of the G8 countries.

I just don't understand why she wasn't allowed to marry Charlie 35 years ago?
I AGREE, AGAIN I SAY ITS THE QUEEN WHO DICTATES WHO CAN MARRY WHO.

Why is it ok for her to be with him now? Did they need a virgin (Diana) or something?

ID SAY YES,CHARLES GOT WHAT CHARLES DEMANDED. IT WAS TRADITION BACK THEN, BUT SEEMED TO DIE OUT BY THE TIME ANDY MARRIED FERGIE.
ANOTHER TRADITION APPARENTLY IS PRINCES HAVEING A MISTRESS LIKE CAMILLA WAS TO CHARLES.I WONDER IF HE WILL HAVE ONE NOW HE IS MARRIED TO CAMILLA!!

Apparently a lot of people are interested in this subject judging by the number of viewings and postings. Why are you looking at it? I'm just curious to know. There's a lot of other posts to read besides this one!

0 Replies

englishmajor wrote:

Because Camilla could very well be the next Queen of England. Along with Charlie the Wimp. That should interest most people. England is one of the G8 countries.

I just don't understand why she wasn't allowed to marry Charlie 35 years ago? Why is it ok for her to be with him now? Did they need a virgin (Diana) or something?

Apparently a lot of people are interested in this subject judging by the number of viewings and postings. Why are you looking at it? I'm just curious to know. There's a lot of other posts to read besides this one!

To answer your question: I read many posts about subjects that don't interest me per se, but I am extremely interested in learning what makes other people tick. By reading their posts on one thread, I can formulate my own opinion about them.

Regarding the political end, of which I am admittedly ignorant; I thought the Prime Minister wielded much more power than the Monarchy. I mean, when watching the news, it seems to be the PM who is involved in policy, laws and international relations.
Where the rubber hits the road, who is more vital to the running of the country?
My impression is the Royal family is around more for public relations.

One more question..... You say you don't understand why one person was not allowed to marry another person 35 years ago.

Again, with no personal investment in your response, why do you feel you need to understand such a private matter?

Do you not feel that what goes on between 2 adults as far as their affection for each other is their business alone, or with other parties that are directly effected.

Oops, sorry, one more question.....(well, from my understanding this women will not ever receive the title of Queen, but I'm not sure, nor do I really care), but, how do you feel that her becoming Queen or Consort or whatever her title will be will effect the government?

Yet another question :wink: .....Are you just as interested in the relationship between the Prime Minister and his wife?
When the next Prime Minister gets elected, will you want to know what that persons husband or wife is like?

0 Replies

People are people, we all get involved in things that dont concern us or effect us personally.If we kept ourselves to ourselves we wouldnt need forums!

If the Prime Minister had the life that Charles and Diana had it would be just as interesting, but politics are interesting if a politician is caught canoodling with a prostitute(Profumo affair),or when they have been diddling with money(the Hamiltons), its all been well reported on.

The earthquake in Muzzarafabad doesnt effect most of us but we are still interested in it!

0 Replies

Some very good points, err questions... Chai Tea
Smile

The odds of Camilla ever becoming Queen are about the same as one of us winning the lottery.

0 Replies

I dont understand the Queen Camila dispute.

Ok, the Queen is the Queen and I suppose Phillip is the King in a way though i never think of him as a king and I dont think he is legally known as one(please correct me if im wrong)

But if Charles becomes King(which Ive heard he really wnats to do )then surely there is no question as to wether Camila will become the equivalent of Queen.

0 Replies

material girl wrote:

People are people, we all get involved in things that dont concern us or effect us personally.

Saying 'people are people' doesn't answer the question 'Why are you interested?".

There is a difference between being interested in something, and feeling a need to understand.

I can be very interested in something, thinking it's quite facinating, but realizing that I don't need to understand WHY it's occuring.

I just posted on another forum about a woman who just gave birth to her 16th child in 17 years.

I find that very interesting, but don't understand it.
I am curious about how this woman manages her day to day duties, but I don't understand why she chose to have that many children.

THAT is her and her husbands business, and unless her children were being abused or neglected, it's no one business.

It would be nice to understand, but I'm not going to ponder it.

As I mentioned before, many people did not understand what my husband and I saw in each other and would be amazed and not understand why or how we are still together. They would not understand that we have probably the strongest marriage they have ever seen......I frankly feel no need for them to understand, just as C&C may feel no need for us to understand their relationship.

Now, you may be thinking, "I don't care about understanding Chai Tea and the Wolverine".
But, you are leading me to believe you would suddenly feel the need to understand if I was well known.

I don't believe that the government of England will be effected in any way by their marriage. Why would it be?

0 Replies

There is no government of England actually.

The name of the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (Usually referred to as UKOGBANI). The sovereign and head of State is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The "government of England" is in fact Her Majesty's Government, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her Dominions Overseas.

But you can call it the English government if you wish. Got to admit it simpler.

0 Replies

Im interested beacuse human nature is interesting,

Re the lady that had 16 kids, whats to understand, the sperm hit the egg!

Ive always found it amazing how 2 people can see the same set of events and recount them or see them completely differently.Again, its human nature.If we analized it to much we'd go doolally.
Just observe, absorb, learn/dicuss, then accept.

0 Replies

dicuss or discus?

some arguments are heavyweight, but you can't throw them as far.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

There is no government of England actually.

The name of the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (Usually referred to as UKOGBANI). The sovereign and head of State is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The "government of England" is in fact Her Majesty's Government, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her Dominions Overseas.

But you can call it the English government if you wish. Got to admit it simpler.

oops, showing my ignorance. Embarrassed

Well, as a Londoner, may I ask you.....Is it not the Prime Minister who handles the administration of the "government" more than the Queen?

0 Replies

no need to apologise ms tea. I was only being pedantic.

and yes you are right, the Prime Minister (Antony Charles Lynton Blair) is the chief executive of the government. The Queen's role is almost exclusively ceremonial these days, although every bill before parliament must receive royal assent before it passes into law. The Queen is Head of State not the Prime Minister.

(Unlike the US President)

My argument with the British system is that the office of pm has inherited a lot of the powers reserved for the monarch, and can in theory take the country to war by Royal prerogative, sorry perogative...oh damn dont know Walter will explain, he's German and so is our monarchy... Smile

0 Replies

material girl wrote:

Im interested beacuse human nature is interesting,

Re the lady that had 16 kids, whats to understand, the sperm hit the egg!

Ive always found it amazing how 2 people can see the same set of events and recount them or see them completely differently.Again, its human nature.If we analized it to much we'd go doolally.
Just observe, absorb, learn/dicuss, then accept.

You're interested because human nature is interesting. Oh, THAT clears things up. Rolling Eyes

Sperm hit egg.....I'm afraid it's a little more complex than that....the thread actually discusses social responsibility, that sort of thing. See, I don't have as much interest why this individual had so many children, as to what is in human nature that would cause some to want to have a large number, small number, none, etc.

Yes, it's absolutely amazing how any subject can be seen a myriad of ways.
I'm willing to accept most things, however, you put learn/discuss before accept.

sperm hit egg or human nature is interesting is not much of a discussion frankly.

I don't need to understand why you feel that's enough of an answer, but it's not a good idea to jump to the acceptance part before all the opinions are learned and discussed. I can't but feel there's more to it.

You see MG, I AM having a personal discussion with you right now, with a group of others, so we can be clearer with each other. So I have the opportunity to directly ask questions I'm curious about. I may not understand your answers, but that's not an important sometimes as just hearing the reason.

It's not that interesting to speculate why 2 people who we will most likely never meet fell in love.
What does it matter if we know what they see in each other? The important thing to them is that they see it in each other.

englishmajor? Are you there? You were the one I was most curious to find out about.

Although it's nice talking to you too, material girl.

0 Replies

WOW....

I shot THIS one dead in the water, didn't I?

0 Replies

Actually Chai Tea,

I have rather enjoyed your posts. Sometimes the truth just pushes the right buttons.

0 Replies

Chai.....
I enjoyed your posts here too.

And on a totally unrelated topic: Who is that on your avatar?
I'm afraid I've fallen in love with it. She is absolutely gorgeous. I am assuming she a starlette from before my time...I recognized your last one by face but not name. Anyhow; I'm just curious. Smile

0 Replies

Why did Charles ever choose Camilla over Diana?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know