Today on Blogcritics
Home » Prince Charles Makes an Honest Woman of Camilla

Prince Charles Makes an Honest Woman of Camilla

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Prince Charles generally doesn’t mean much to me. Being a Kentuckian-American, I fail to see the point of the British royal family in general. They seem like a pointless national appendix. Charles has always appeared to me to be an idle rich boy who has to occasionally act as if he has something to do with running the country. Benign, but insignificant.

However, he did impress me this weekend by marrying his beloved Camilla. Best I can read the tea leaves, the story was that she was his true love lo those many years ago, but he let himself be talked out of marrying her. For whatever reasons, Camilla was not deemed suitable.

You could fault him perhaps for not just standing up to everyone at the time and insisting on marrying his true love, but there’s a lot of institutional and family throw weight on the other side. It can be pretty difficult to stand up to your mother, particularly if she is The Queen.

Instead, Prince Charles acquiesced to the demands of the family. He let them hook him up with this silly twit Diana who fit the bill for their ideas of a fairy tale princess. You can see the happy results of that train wreck.

By gummy, bonnie Prince Charles has stood up to Mommy and the Church of England now. Even now, Mom snubbed his actual wedding. Bitch. The Church of England was obviously resistant, providing only a grudging blessing rather than the actual marriage. Prince Charles will one day be the titular head of the bloody Church of England though, so they can just buddy up to accepting him.

Even a big part of the British public seems to be crappy about Camilla. What is your problem, people? She’s not your cute little fairy tale princess? Hey, Charles is taking a wife and lifemate, not casting some dumb little movie for your amusement. At long last being able to marry the woman you’ve truly loved for most of your life sounds like a much better fairy tale to me than the brought on nonsense of his first marriage.

It took him a long time to work up the courage, but Prince Charles has put his foot down and insisted on marrying the woman he loves, even in the face of strong opposition all around him. Now THAT is truly manly behavior.

Powered by

About Gadfly

  • Jennifer

    Thank you, thank you. I am so happy to see that I am not the only one who thought Diana was a complete fake and a narcissist on top of it. I can’t understand why so many folks feel their opinion on who Charles marries is important. Charles and Camilla love each other – she is obviously good for him because he feels comfortable around her. Diana, with her upstaging, me-first antics was a crashing bore and a total disaster as a human being. I guess people prefer flash and celebrity to substance. I wish the prince and his new wife every happiness.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    nice line. Perfect: Hey, Charles is taking a wife and lifemate, not casting some dumb little movie for your amusement

    Perfect.

    It’s great that he’s found happiness. Diana was Diana – a good, decent, but troubled, person no matter where she would have ended up. Charles has actually done more than many give him credit for in the historical field. More importantly his sons are OK with the decision (from all reports, not that I actually have a clue).

    PS. The above words are the most important I’ve written all day – LOL

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    I don’t reckon that Diana really did much harm in the world, so I should probably be nicer. I’m likely just holding a grudge against her over that *#E&%^ Elton John song. That’s not her fault, though.

    I’ll just say that she was obviously not an appropriate wife for Charles.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    I agree with this post 100%! (And, that’s rare for me!)

    So many people became emotionally-invested with Princess Di…but why? What exactly did she do? Yes, she was pretty, and she supported some worthwhile charities (which is pretty much all the royals do nowadays), but what’s the big deal?

    She died the same week Mother Teresa died, and yet 90% of the coverage went to the hot chick who was fucking a guy other than her husband. What a world…

  • http://www.ang6666.blogspot.com Angie

    tsk tsk tsk. Diana did alot of good in the world. And was instrumental in bringing up her boys.

    I’m happy for Charles tho. He seems to have really come into his own and deserves this happiness.

  • Emma

    For a public figure, duty should come first. If Charles is really a man, he could just have relinguish his royal title & marry the woman he loves.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Why does it matter to you Emma? A sincere question tinged only slightly by the idea that his duty is to … what?

  • Eric Olsen

    excellent post Al, you actually changed my mind on this, or least forced me to make up my mind. I don’t have anything against Diana and feel very bad about the way things ended for her, but that doesn’t mean Charles shouldn’t be able to live his own life after a suitable period of “mourning,” which has surely passed by now. I’ve heard the press has been so negative that there has actually been a fair amount of public sympathy in reponse.

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    Emma, why should Charles need to renounce his throne to marry his chosen mate? What “duty” is he supposedly shirking here?

  • sandra smallson

    You are all ignorant of the facts that is why I will forgive this post and the equally unintelligent responses to it. Let me see what I can do…Charles and cammy met in 1972. NEITHER MARRIED AT THE TIME. Charles was feeling young and wasn’t ready to marry so he went off to the navy. cammy couldn’t wait and decided to marry Andrew Parker Bowles(aw..the impatience of true love).

    Charles returned and cams was married. He remained single for 8 years. Cams did not get a divorce then so that she and Charles could stand up to mommy and marry anyway. NO. She remained married. SO, Charles and mommy and daddy picked this young fertile virgin for a wife. They wanted a heir to the throne. They chose her as the broodmare. She gave them a heir and a spare.(That’s Diana, always doing more than was asked of her).

    CAMMY befriended this young girl even though she was seeing Charles. There are pics of Cam and Di way back in 1980 laughing and cheering Charles on. Cams told Di what Charles liked, what he didn’t..you get the drift. Naive Diana thought she had found a friend to help her with this relationship business and her Prince Charming. She should have known better but she didn’t. She was an 18 yr old country girl who had no clue. Bells should have rung when on the engagement announcement her husband said”whatever that is” in response to the question of whether he was in love.

    Diana was from a home where the mother had just run off with another man. She was troubled. She came into this marriage and was given no support at all from the get go. She had eating disorders etc..instead her husband was off shooting pheasants with battle axe Camilla right from the start. She gave them two sons and when she said,”my husband is cheating on me, There are 3 of us in ths thing” The royal hawks told the world she was a nutcase and paranoid. Finally, Charles confessed that indeed, cammy was a non-negotiable part of his life.

    Now tell me, you folks, why on earth should anyone cheer for Charles? WHY? He and Camilla could have married 34 years ago. They didn’t. Cammy couldn’t wait. charles wanted to soar his wild oats, he ran off to the Navy. So, these two selfish, self-pitying, heartless boring freaks, took a young naive vulnerable girl and turned her into an emotional unstable young woman. Of course it is no wonder she went looking for love in all the wrong places. Who wouldn’t in such a situation?

    Diana was hugging aids patients while Liz taylor and Elton were still just giving cash. Diana was hugging Leprosy patients before anyone knew they could. Diana brought the issue of Landmines to the front pages. She did millions of things for children, some of which we only got to know when she died because not everything was for the Press. Only those that needed public support, she allowed to be publicised. She wasn’t as dumb as they thought. She might as well use the daft press for something.

    Look, they thought they had picked a doofus who would keep quiet and let Charles do his thing while she reproduced. The woman became experienced and came into her own. She did a lot for the image of the Royal family and without her two sons, the Royal family would be of no interest to anyone right now.

    Charles is a selfish imbecile. He wants to have his horse and drink it. yes. camilla is a horse.

    He should relinqusih the throne like his uncle before him. the HRH was taken from Di because a divorcee couldn’t have it. What is Camilla? Charles can marry who he wants. It’s irrelevant. BUT don’t exhibit complete stupidity by saying crap of true love and you can’t see what the big deal is about diana anyway. If you don’t know, ASK.

    The reason millions mourned her is not because she was a Saint, but because she did a lot for the poor and disadvantaged. It’s because they felt sorry that a young woman’s life was just destroyed to provide heirs to the throne. She made the greatest sacrifice of all. She gave the better part of her life to her country to provide successors to the Throne.

    If Charles and Camilla had simply married each other from the start, nobody would give a rats ass. They didn’t. Camilla is not a new woman Charles met after the tragedy. She was the main reason his marriage with DI, did not work. For anyone to think otherwise and expect anyone to cheer this wedding, then you have to be pretty much a village idiot.

    I don’t care that they are married, but I will be damned if I have to read about people talking some crap about true love and other such nonsense like there is not an apalling history behind this eventual wedding. Let’s try and have some sense here whatever you thought of Diana.

    Ignorance is not a virtue. Again, if you don’t know, ASK. A fool above 16 which I presume you all are, is a fool forever.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Actually, ignorance of this trivia IS a virtue! Do you even know who your elected representatives are, Sandra Smallson?

    Whether they are Members of Parliament, or Senators and Representatives, or members of some other legislative body (depending on which country you live in) do you know the votes and stands they take on the issues that will affect the future of your country?

    How about your local elected officials? City council members, mayors, sheriffs, school board members, planning council members? Can you list any of their policy initiatives that will directly affect life for you and your family and your neighbors? Can you even name any of them?

    If not, perhaps you ought to spend less time following every tiny twist and turn in the lives of some “royal” celebrity figures most of us will never get to vote for or against, much less meet.

    Either way, you certainly would be more persuasive if you were a bit less smugly self-righteous about the fact that some of us have better things to do with our time than soak up tabloid reports about Charles, Camilla, and Diana.

  • sandra smallson

    Oh&before I forget, the moral lesson to children the world over by the future King of England and his nanny wife? Yup. You can be a mistress. Camilla is an inspiration to adulterers and mistresses the world over. Give or take three decades, you might get your man in the end. So, yah..go on and sleep with that married man. His wife might just die in a convenient car crash. You immediately move into the house through the back door. Two years later you are unleashed to the public by his side and a campaign is unleashed to make you what you are not as they quietly whisper how deranged the dead wife really was..and slam bang, 7 or 8 years later, you, become that man’s wife and who knows, perhaps the future queen of a Country. It’s a breeze, is it not?!

    Nothing we want better than for our children to cheer and follow this example. It’s historic. OH, THE NAUSEA I feel…I really must check..I might be preggers because it can’t just be this wedding that is making me feel this way…ah, just checked. IT IS!

  • sandra smallson

    Victor Plenty, I am responding to those who have POSTED on this topic. To those who have RESPONDED to this topic. Surely, you dont suggest that people are posting on what they know nothing about? Ha! I know all the posts on this topic bar mine seem to suggest that people ARE posting on stuff they have no clue about.

    As for elected reps et al, I think you have lost your mind because it is election season. Did you see me on an election topic? Or where are we exactly? What topic is this? I am happy to report that I don’t exactly follow the Royal Family but since their existense is part of history and thus forced on me it is somthing I am aware of. Plus, Diana made it less boring so ofcourse, I’m a girl’s gal and I make no apologies.

    And just for your information though you do not deserve it..I am all for New Labour. I absolutely admire Tony Blair’s stand on education and my sterling is doing quite well against the dollar, job wise it’s all groovy so I am loving the economy. Now, I could do with less council tax but I blame the local council for that. Since I have no knowledge of local government matters, I have nobody to point a finger at. Besides, I can afford it thank the Lord. Ken Livingstone is a menace to public transport costs and even the mini cabs are becoming ridiculous, but what to do? Did I tell you I was a political activist? Campaigner? hmm?

    As far as the national elections go, if you don’t know..ASK. I am well aware of the parties and their leaders. I am well aware that the Tories launched their manifesto today. I have no interest in reading it because I am voting Labour. I know what the Tories are about because I have attended Howard lectures. NOW..is there something you would like to enlighten me on as I enlightened you on the Royal mess?

    That should have been your tactic, not to come out all guns blazing and shooting blanks. I know what I need to know but I can’t say politics is a particular interest of mine. Still, as a well educated woman, I am more than aware of my current affairs and issues that affect me and my surroundings. Perhaps you should have asked before you made your noise.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Ah, but I did ask. Hence the question marks, Sandra Smallson. I did not state you were ignorant of all these matters. I asked whether you knew.

    Thank you for answering. I’m delighted to learn you are well informed on matters of greater importance than the soap opera of royal liaisons.

    For whatever it’s worth, I tend to agree with you on the praiseworthiness of Diana’s charitable acts. Your attacks against Charles and Camilla merely seem to undermine your well-intended efforts to defend Diana. But I’m just an ignorant lout, so what do I know?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Aw, poor Diana.

    Guess what? Lots of women get cheated on, but how many of them get to become ROYALTY, and live (literally) like a Princess?

    Look, I’m sorry Charles cheated on her, and I’m sorry she died. But people suffer heartbreak all the time. And people die in automobile accidents all the time.

    I just think the international wall-to-wall coverage of her after her death was completely overblown. I don’t really have anything against her.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    My empathy for Diana comes from the non-stop media coverage of her entire life, once she married Chuckles. I doubt that as a 19-year-old she fully understood the reality of her decision, from a media coverage standpoint. So even though lots of people suffer heartbreak, most of us get to do it privately.

    That said, Diana eventually made the most of the media attention by focusing on AIDS and other causes.

    As far as the British “royalty” thing, I just don’t get it and honestly hold some good ol’ American contempt for those who believe they were born better than others. If Chuckles is either stupid or power-hungry enough to give all his life decisions — and the marriage decision was just one of them — to his mother and grandmother, then he’s not really a man worth talking about even now, is he?

  • sandra smallson

    For once, BHW and I see eye to eye, somewhat. Yes. Lots of us get to suffer the heartbreaks in private.

    Mind you, it’s just not about cheating. Like you said,Vic or RJ, lots of women get cheated on. It is very ignorant to say, living like a Princess. By all accounts, with the nightmare being Charles’s wife came to be, Diana would have preferred to marry an ordinary man and teach in the kindergarten school where she was teaching. She might have still been alive today. (Whether that crash was an accident or not, is another story)

    It’s not like she wasn’t akready an aristocrat who could have made a difference anyway with her charitable works.

    Living like a Princess turned out to be lonely nights and having your every move within the palace, watched. It wasn’t the gala nights you saw on the News. Those nights were nights she made for herself, probably to maintain her sanity.

    Now, Victor Plenty, my “attacks” on Charles and Camilla are the TRUTH. If the truth takes away the TRUTH of Diana’s works, then you truly should focus on the politics since a simple understanding of “trivial” matters is beyond you.

    I am sorry I am not big enough to celebrate the wedding. On the surface, it’s a good story that people who have loved each other for 30 years eventually marry..but not if they had to destroy the emotional well being of a young girl in the process and not because they had no choice. Simply because they are selfish, conceited, individuals who think the whole world revolves around this sordid story. I am afraid that sort of story is not my idea of “true love”.

    To each his/her own, I guess. I can’t bring myself to be pleased for them simply because of how they got to this point and perhaps it’s because I am a woman but I think it’s also because I am a HUMAN BEING with a conscience and a memory bank and the ability to place myself in other shoes and see what MY feelings would be.

  • Shark

    a few thoughts:

    1) Smallson, you know ENTIRELY TOO MUCH about all this.

    PS: Get a life, lighten up on the wife.

    2) Charles is brilliant; he picked a breeder — got his heirs, dumped the bimbo — and then married his true love.

    3) Chas + Camilla is a victory for interesting, older, intelligent women everywhere; Chas had a choice between an airhead trophy wife and someone who could make interesting conversation and companionship; he chose the latter. THIS IS THE ONLY RELATIVELY IMPORTANT AND/OR INTERESTING THOUGHT re. THIS AFFAIR. ‘Kay? Now shut the fuck up and go back to watching the Micheal Jackson trial…

    4) Royal Irony: so many stiff-upper-lipped Brits criticized Chas & Camy for their ‘immorality’, infidelity, etc. ~Bloody Oy! Apparently, the British public is unaware of the long, sordid history of their royal inbreeds. (divorce, schisms, beheadings, oh my!)

    5) Sweating the small stuff of British Royalty: Oh, What a glorious anachronism!

    BONUS THOUGHT:

    6) I have a theory that Prince Harry had Diana killed because her public and private ‘tabloid’ antics with various morons, including [gasp!] a friggin’ Ay-rab — was constantly embarrassing the poor chap among his prep school contemporaries. How many young teenage boys could handle their friends masturbating to photos of their topless mom sunbathing with some yahoo?

    (Children can be cruel — in more ways than one. heh) “Sir, please make Mummy an offer she can’t refuse…”

  • rapid

    Wow,
    After reading Sandra’s columns I would have thought of Diana as a female Jesus,who died for the sins of charles and the royals.But I think I know better.
    Was Diana beautiful? You bet. Did she have a great sense of fashion ? Definitely. Was she invovled in charitable causes? Sure.
    Does that make her third greatest Briton ever ahead of William Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, and other historical figures? HELL NO. But that’s what the BBC poll showed didn’t it?
    I think it just shows the supidity of the British people which Sandra here seems to share in no small quantity. Angelina Jolie fits in all the descriptions above but she definitely would not be voted as third or even thirtieth greatest American ever, would she?
    The only reason Diana became as famous as she is (a) Because she was a princess (b)She was a beautiful princess (c) She was a sad, beautiful princess.Here’s where all the fairy tales put in people’s heads suddenly come into play.
    Suddenly everyone wanted to be knight in the shining armour, the kindly lady who helped the princess or even a clown who made her laugh. This was helped in no small measure by the cold manipulative use of media by Diana, with well orchestrated display of emotions for the camera, the leaks which were played up by the tabloids, well timed public appearances with charities. I give it to her. If not anything she was masterful in her PR. Now, there has to be wicked witch in the fairy tale no, where can we find her? Ah,there she is, the “rotweiler”. But who told you she is the wicked witch? The princess herself said so. So let’s go and burn her or something. But sadly before there could be a conclusive end there was a crash and the story remained there. A beautiful princess who married a prince cast in a spell by a wicked witch.
    If only true life could be simple as the fairy tale. The prince and the princess married and had two children. If accusations could be TRUTH in capital letter then Harry is not charles’s son.
    But I digress.
    That there was a breakdown in their marriage is known. That both of them admitted to commiting adultery is known.But then why is one so evil and the other one such a saint?
    Because one version of events was “leaked” by a sexy, beautiful, seemingly vulnerable princess and the other one was leaked by a middle aged, dull, boring royal.So the fact that Charles told he tried to make the marriage work and was faithful till the marriage was irretrievably broken doesnt count. At the end of the day they were just two very different personalities who couldn’t make a marriage work but somehow all of it became “his” fault.
    Of all the things that one can be mean on, the meanest is on the looks,over which a person has no control. The fact that Diana called “the other woman” names of all the animals based on her looks is understandable human nature but I dont understand how that makes her such a special woman? The fact that she had numerous affairs while still married is understandable but how can that make her a saint? The fact that she didn’t try to get divorce and relinquish the title of princess when the marriage broke down is understandable because hey who wouldn’t want to be a princess, but how does that make her any different from the rest? The fact that she used the media throughout her life for her gain and used the paparazzi as much as they used her and was finally killed in the same media frenzy is sad, but how does that make her a martyr? Sure she did something for charitable causes, but she was no Mother Teresa.
    I think she was just one of those whose fame far exceeded the contributions and was fed by calculative editors whose tabloid sales shot up everytime they featured her to satisfy the people with all the fairy tales put in their head.
    Charles and Camilla, you have had more than your share of barbs, breads etc thrown at you. Any other couple might have given up or lashed out. Here’s to both of you for maintaining dignity and enduring mindless hostility with such courage. I hope the likes of Sandra will just bloody mind their business and take all their affection for Diana and shove it up their ***** and leave you alone in peace.

  • sandra smallson

    Honestly, but for fools like Rapid and the perpetually foolish and uncouth shark, one could pretend that one lived in a relatively intelligent world. Alas, these imbeciles show that it is not that difficult to find stupid idiots.

    Now, I am not here arguing your thoughts on Diana. I have no interest in your opinion on the woman. When there are people who criticise Jesus, do you think I am surprised that there are people who criticise Diana? EVERYONE is open to criticism it seems. So, please, be my guest. I certainly don’t think of DI as a female Jesus. I certainly thought her a kind, selfless and compassionate human being.

    This is about Charles and rottweiler Cammy getting married. I say, I cheer not because they went about it the wrong way. I shan’t cheer if you get what you want through the humiliation of someone else. There are hundreds of better true love stories around.

    Plus, you ugly fuck, shark..don’t hate Di because she was beautiful. By all accounts, Camilla is not that smart either. The only quality she has which Charles loves, is her love for the Country side and hunting. They share common interests and Charles is renouned for his self-pitying and she consoles him no end. Again, if u dont know, ASK. Diana was certainly no Einstein but she certainly held her own in conversations with heads of state etc when dealing with issues that she was interested in. It all comes back to one thing..Charles should have married the horse Cammy in the first place.

    Diana was not academically bright..neither are many on earth but she was certainly no air head or bimbo and you have no fact to support that insult..you just threw it out there because she was pretty..it’s no ones fault you and your people are the missing link b/w ape and man. You don’t have to be ugly to be smart. Some of us are gorgeous AND smart. It can happen, Shark. It certainly can.

    I wish you well in this clearly limited life you must lead. I know how hard it is for the ugly. My paralegal is a monster and inefficient as she is and tarnishing the beauty of my office as she does, I keep her on because it’s hard for people like you Shark. Still, on behalf of Di and all the pretty gals, we make no apologies. The Lord was and is good.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Some are ugly inside, even though pretty outside.

    Calling other people “monster” or “rottweiler” or “horse” because they don’t measure up to some arbitrary standard of physical appearance reveals a sharp and cruel inner ugliness.

    You could disagree with Camilla’s actions, Sandra, without insulting her appearance. However, perhaps it is fortunate for us that you lacked the self-control to do so. Otherwise we might not have learned what darkness lurks in your heart, and how it renders you utterly unreliable to judge anyone else’s moral worthiness.

    Diana, Charles, and Camilla were and are simply human beings. There is no need to shoehorn any of them into fairytale roles of saintly goodness or villainous evil. People make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes harm other people, but that is no proof any harm was intended.

    Whatever mistakes Charles and Camilla may have made in the past, getting married now is the right choice if they sincerely plan to make their relationship a lifelong commitment. Just like any other married couple, they deserve their community’s support in that effort.

    Even if their community happens to include a global network of slightly batty obsessive-compulsive royal-watchers.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Maybe I’m crazy, but Camilla isn’t really all that bad looking. I mean, she isn’t “hot” by any standard. But she’s hardly a hideously disfigured monster, or a morbidly-obese cretin.

    She’s just an older lady of average/plain looks, like most older women…

  • rapid

    Sandra,
    I must really apologize for not understanding your emotional turmoil and instead thinking that your outbursts were the outcome of sensible thought process.
    I get it now.

    How dare Charles leave the pretty one and go for the plain one? I mean that must have really pissed of a lot of pretty girls like yourself.

    How dare somebody insult the selfless sacrifice of Diana who spent a better part of her life serving the country with two heirs? I mean just coz she seemed to thoroughly enjoy all the attention and made sure she got attention, got the royal treatment wherever she went,clung on to the titles long after the marriage was over, played the media very well to her advantage how can anyone accuse her of not being selfless?

    How dare anyone compare the adultery of Diana with adultery of charles and camilla? I mean C&C are teaching children immorality whereas Diana was only teaching humanism where there should be no discrimination based on whether he is an american,pakistani, arab or just a horse rider. Sure everyone in the world should have equal opportunity. Who can question that?

    I guess I can understand how powerless it must have felt when the most potent weapon in the arsenal, physical beauty ,failed to work? Sandra I agree it is a foolish and not just foolish but foolish and cruel world which fails to acknowledge this.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    This is so funny! I am so glad to have seen this before the moderators find it. Must get Kleenex.

  • sandra smallson

    Rapid, I apologise on behalf of God. He truly did not mean to make you this daft. It must have been something in the birth water.

    Point of Correction: Diana had the option of keeping the HRH. She disposed of it after discussion with her sons. I believe there was an alternative, either accomodation at Kensignton Palace or 17 million pounds or both but she relinquished the title anyway. Therefore your assertion that she hung on to the titles is FALSE. The 17 miilion pounds she left in it’s entirety to HARRY knowing full well how the spares are maltreated by the firm(Exhibit A..Andrew and Edward treated like minor Royals)

    PLEASE, quote just one incident where Di insisted on being treated like a Royal. JUST ONE..you know that is a complete fabrication and you ought to be embarassed at even claiming that. She was known as an embarassment to the royal family BECAUSE she acted anything BUT Royal. She laughed, cried, hugged and did whatever, wherever she was. She never kept the stiff upper lip. She acted like a “commoner” and that is PRECISELY why the public took to her like they did. Again, you have asserted another false claim.

    Now, no adultery is admirable. However, the reason I understand diana’s plight is because if I were an 18 year old virgin and my husband paid me no attention and gave me no support, I might just be vulnerable to polo players on the make who give me all the attention and support I need. Who act like my friends. If my Husband prefers to shoot pheasants with his concubine while they make out and leaves me with old men in grey suits who spy on me to report to him, I might just fall for the body guard who chats to me and makes me feel normal. I know no better anyway. I came into my marriage a virgin and so I am as naive as fuck when it comes to relationships.

    Therefore, I understand diana’s adultery not that I approved of it but Charles and camilla bear the brunt of the blame because they started first, right from the very beginning and we needn’t have gone through this whole charade if Charles wasn’t a selfish git wanting to have his horse and the throne so he could enjoy the perks of the king-in-waiting as opposed to Andrew and Edward’s little thrills.

    Yes, I think Charles and cam definitely hold almost if not all the blame. If you can not understand diana’s adultery, you don’t have to. I do and I dare say many women do too if they are honest with themselves.

    As for the Press, it is no surprise that a nitwit like you does not understand that Diana used the Press just like Charles , the Royal family and any celeb out there. If you have got a charity, an issue, a song, a movie to promote, you call’em up. This does not mean you want them pitching tents in your backyard and stalking your every waking moment. Surely, even nitwits understnad that?!

    Charles did not have to choose anything. Di wanted the seperation. She wanted the divorce and they hung that HRH over her head like she would fear the loss of that and thus no make the seperation official by filing for divorce. Charles was probably willing to carry on the charade.

    Camilla did not care. After all, she’s like her grandmother before her. Adultery and being a married man’s concubine runs in their genes and they tend to love the Royal family. Her grandmother was charles’s uncle’s mistress. It’s in their veins..so they were bred, so they must be! So, there was no issue of choosing plain over pretty or whatever crap you’ve written there…

    As far as being ugly on the inside..it’s crap ugly people say so they can get by. POPPYCOCK! How pretty are YOU on the inside when you can say a person is an airhead, bimbo, dumb or whatever else simply because they are pretty on the outside. How ugly is your inside if you can utter stuff like that?

    Camilla IS grossly unattractive and looks like a horse. My Paralegal is monstrous. I clearly dislike Camilla but I like my paralegal and we are becoming fast friends. She is aware of my views on her features but she is amused by it. Yup. Some ugly people are aware of their ugliness and have come to some sort of peace. I don’t care if people like you think I am ugly on the inside because I can be. Sometimes I am, sometimes I am not. At least inside beauty is capable of changing depending on who is evoking the feelings.

    However, outward ugliness without cosmetic surgery is there to stay and it is for that very reason that I apologise to you and your likes on behalf of the pretty people.

  • rapid

    I think we all know that a crime is less of a crime if the perpetrator is attractive, vulnerable-looking. Louise Woodward case proved that beyond doubt that if you are good looking you can literally get away with murder. Hence I have a suggestion for Sandra. Why don’t you post a picture of yourself and let us see if you are attractive enough to tolerate and respond to your comments. While you are at it why dont you also post a picture of your paralegal by the side so we can get an idea of your standards of beauty.

  • Olya

    I loved your post,Al.I also agree with comment # 1.Diana WAS a narcissistic attention-getter–just think back to her prompt arrival on the scene with her two boys when Fergie gave birth to her first child—couldn’t allow that poor woman even a bit of attention and well-wishing! The fact that she was gorgeous and a ditzy fashion-plate wasn’t reason enough for Charles not to divorce her after their marriage “irretrievably” broke down,particularly after he honestly and sincerely tried to make it work. They were two different people–he with his intellectual and cultural pursuits,she,a mediocre student,mainly interested in fashion(O.K.,so she hosted a # of charities,but then so did most royals–and didn’t she drop most of them,when the divorce was final?).I strongly believe that physical attraction isn’t enough–people have to be at a similar intellectual level and need to have similar interests–which is what Charles and Camilla have! The fact that she is somewhat plain,chunky and clumsy doesn’t mean that she’s deficient as a human being—nor does it mean that Charles is an idiot to love her.He has a right to his choice,and hurray indeed to him for finally mustering up the courage to do what’s right for HIM!

  • Olya

    To an earlier post–by the way,I’m a good-looking woman who likes to dress up,but I still don’t think that beautiful fashion plates deserve intarnished happiness.

  • sandra smallson

    Rapid, it is clear our standards are worlds apart if you thought Louise Woodward was attractive. I thought her fat and plain. So, there is no need for picture evidence. We clearly have very different tastes and standards but that is no surprise to me judging from our correspondence. I will never post my picture on the net but I will let you know where you can see it one of these days;)

    Olva, your lack of understanding about my post and your obvious ignorance about the facts, plus your clear fabrications on the Fergie matter(who was Diana’s ONLY friend in that Palace as confirmed by Fergie just two weeks ago) leaves me to decide that to give my more detailed response to a post like yours would be a waste of my very valuable time. However, you are in luck..I got some time:)

    There is no issue of choosing beauty over plain here..that is clearly not the theme of this post. It was only brought up because I called Camilla the horse she is. Clearly even Halle Berry was cheated on. The issue of beauty has nothing to do with infidelity. Men CHEAT! That’s it!

    People must have similar interests..do people not divorce intelligent people? Or are intelligent people married forever? PLEASE..Charles loved Camilla from the start and should have married her from the start. Di should not have been in the pic to go through the torture and humiliation and being the younger one ofcourse she bears less of the blame. It’s like the female teacher and child cases in America. The boy may be 15 but a mature 15 and love the sex with the 28 year old teacher and be fully compliant..but who is dragged to Court? The 28 year old teacher because she abused her position.

    If this is so difficult for you people to understand and you keep comparing intellects of both women of which we have no proof other than the fact that Charles has more things in common with Camilla and charles himself is no Einsteon and what they have in common is hunting…I just dont see what is so difficult to grasp here. Perhaps Charles could have married one of you. You are all clearly from his school of thought and that is sad that there are people like you around.

    Charles and camilla deserve each other. They are a perfect couple. Things in common and affection for each other. I could not care less and that is not what I dispute. I sipmly find it intolerable that they had to for strictly selfish reasons almost destroy the better part of a young girls life before they got to this point. It was totally unnecessary, Whatever you thought of Diana, nobody deserves to be hoodwinked into a marriage only to find that her husband does not love her one bit and prefers to spend more time with another woman she thought would be a confidante. Right from your frigging wedding night/honey moon. Nobody deserves that and if Charles leaving Diana to go to the Taj Mahal on their wedding anniversary while he went fox hunting with camilla is your idea of making it work, and abandoning her to palace servants more often than not on her birthdays then yeah, in your world, that is your husband trying to make it work.

    Charles’s marriage “Irretrievably” broke down WHEN Diana finally confronted Camilla and discussed with the Queen. Where the queen told Charles to cease his Camilla relationship and Charles uttered the now infamous quote “she is non-negotiable”. Diana could not live with that and asked for a seperation. Who wouldn’t? Is that not a slap in the face of any wife?

    It seems it’s okay to condone adultery because it happened to a beautiful princess. If Camilla was in Diana’s shoes and Charles cheated on her with diana you would all be from my school of thought. You are all just a bunch of inferiority complexed individuals who hate pretty people regardless of what they do.

    I am aware Diana committed adultery herself. I am aware she enjoyed the publicity sometimes. The very day your divorce is announced and the fact that you are no longer HRH is given so much press, you arrive at a charity gala looking better than ever, knowing the Press would rather follow you than go watch charles talking to plants. Yup. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and that is excellent use of the ever present press.

    Yes. Charles loves Camillla. For once the cameras are on him. He is selfish to the last. Even in true love..

    Diana was no saint. Not by a mile. Yet, I put myself in her shoes as every reasonable and sensible woman can, and I fully understand her point and plight in the mess that became her life simply because one selfish spoiled Prince couldn’t make up his mind on time or stand up to mommy and one chief concubine couldn’t wait dor her prince and just had to marry a high society man to keep herself in the royal circles. Andrew Parker bowles is/was another victim of this charles/cammy thing but in his case he was cheating on Camilla from the get go and KNEW well before he married her about her on going relationship with the Prince.

  • rapid

    I think about quitting sometimes, quite like this very night,
    But I can’t end without putting one last fight
    Sandra, why don’t you ease a bit, give Camilla a chance
    If the Will and Harry can kiss her, why you make such a song and dance

    No one can take Diana away, she will be in your heart,
    But why don’t you move on, or just play the part
    Can’t you see, Charles and camilla are so much in love,
    Why dont’t you give them a break, though you might think her as a cow

    Your passionate defence of Diana really touched me,
    But you make it so white and black, that’s what worries me
    Life was cruel to Diana, but was it rose path for the prince?
    If only you would see that, there is nothing more for me to convince

    I would have loved to continue the discussion
    But I have semester exams lined up in succession
    You claim to be pretty, and you seem intelligent and articulate Sandra
    What a pity, without your condescension you really would’ve been a wonder

  • sandra smallson

    Oh, feck! It’s a curse I tell ya.I am a magnet for amateur poets. it sickens me, I tell ya. It sickens me. Now, one on the net as well? Stop it! Tell your fellow failed poets to stop it. We must agree to disagree. Good luck in your exams.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Surprise! I don’t hate Diana, and never called her an airhead or a bimbo.

    It’s actually possible, believe it or not, for some people to look at the royal family and not hate any of them.

    I don’t hate any of them for being pretty.
    I don’t hate any of them for being ugly.
    I don’t hate any of them for being rich, either.

    I wish them all well.

    Trying to persuade me to hate any of them will only damage your credibility, not induce me to waste my energy on hatred.

  • sandra smallson

    ..and in the midst of your kumbaya world of not hating anyone and wishing the world at large well, you have embraced paranoia because you have now imagined that I am “inducing” you to hate anyone. If my posts cause you to feel hatred towards anyone, me included, you have yourself to answer to because I have no interest in your feelings either way.

    This is/was a topic and we have all aired our differing opinions on it.

    I’m sorry to disappoint you but it is not one of those topics where I care to convince people otherwise. Those topics rarely exist on this site, for me. I simply state my opinions which are facts in this instance and everyone is free to believe and deduce what they want. It does not change the price of minstrels at the grocery store.

  • Eric Olsen

    Sandra, I find it fascinating that you appear to be so predisposed in favor of Michael Jackson and against Charles.

  • Olya

    To Sandra Smallson’s post # 29.Boy,are you ever arrogant,calling other people’s posts unintelligent and ignorant.Who do you think you are?How do you know for sure what really happened when Charles’marriage irretrievably broke down.I remember watching a TV program,where Charles confessed that he re-started his relationship with Cam AFTER his marriage “irretrievably” broke down,not the other way around.I watched that particular “episode” several times.And anyways,that’s not what My post was about and I wasn’t replying to your post,but to # 1,particularly to the comment that people prefer flash over substance(paraphrasing here).I’m Not AT ALL gleefully condoning Charles’ affair with the plain Camilla because Diana was beautiful—I’m an attractive woman myself,with absolutely no inferiority complex about my looks,and therefore DO NOT HATE pretty people.Nor am I in favour of anybody cheating.I simply object to the populace’s resentment(not yours) that Charles preferred plain Camilla over beautiful Diana.The gist of my objection is that Charles was not obligated to stay with Di because of her looks—she was not the right woman for him,nor his soul-mate and that relationships are not just based on looks,common interests are needed,too.

  • Olya

    To continue # 35.That’s right—it’s important to have common interests and past-times,too.Looks alone don’t sustain a marriage–you do have to talk,too,and to agree on things and like the same things in order to do things as a couple.A person also wants his emotional needs met,i.e. needs support when experiencing anxiety and a lack of confidence.Marriage isn’t at all about visual stimulation.Off course,shared interests or supportive relationship do not guarantee that a marriage will last forever,but it will certainly last longer and will spare the couple ugliness and extreme distress(as evidenced by C&D’s marriage),caused by misunderstanding and incompatibility.Why do you think Charles has this special glow about him? Why do you think he’s exhibiting such genuine pleasure in Cam’s company? BECAUSE they’re compatible and because she meets his emotional needs.Now,that doesn’t mean I condone their affair.Your statement that they should have had the guts to marry “back when” to spare a poor young innocent girl trauma and the ruin of the better part of her life is ridiculous:how could they be sure that Charles wouldn’t genuinely fall in love with someone else who was comopatible,particularly when he was only 22 at that time? As to Diana’s “ruined” life,Diana was instrumental in ruining her own life.I’ve read somewhere that Diana wanted so badly to be Queen that she ingratiated herself with him by pretending to share the same interests and outlook—the result was a miserable sham marriage,causing Charles to turn away from her.However distressful Charles’ affair was for her ,it didn’t mean she had to go from one man to another–this actually indicates that she wasn’t good at choosing partners,which is why her marriage was so painful in the first place!

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Olya, if I may suggest – put a space after your punctuation, please! Your stuff may have an interesting idea or two buried in there somewhere, but the non-stop breathlessness of it makes it way too hard to read.

    Linespaces next…

  • Olya

    You’re right, Dr.Pat—my writing IS way too crowded and breathless. Thanks for pointing it out!

  • http://www.angel-and-soulmate-selfhelp.com/blog.html Angela Chen Shui

    Hi there, Sandra!

    I know Di, Charles and Cammy wrote their scripts and everything, but the latter two can enjoy their love outside of the ‘royal’ circle as far as I’m concerned.

    As for ‘He should relinqusih the throne like his uncle before him.’… that would have necessitated Charlesy actually having balls. He never did in his early twenties, didn’t even after serving in the Navy and certainly couldn’t find any cahones to rent before agreeing to marry a ‘child-provider’ he knew he didn’t love, still happy to keep his ‘true love’ safely out of public sight.

    Thanks also for ‘Diana was hugging aids patients while Liz taylor and Elton were still just giving cash. Diana was hugging Leprosy patients before anyone knew they could. Diana brought the issue of Landmines to the front pages. She did millions of things for children…’

    For an unsophisticated ‘country girl’, Diana did well enough in her short life in matters that affect many who live only on the fringes…. Charles will never achieve anything close.

    That takes not only balls but also heart.

    Two things both Diana and Mother Teresa had. Something tells me the latter didn’t care less over the lack of press coverage… they were both holding spirit hands and enjoying each other’s company as the friends they were in life and beyond.

  • Olya

    Hi,Angela! Just some points to dispute:
    1)relinquishing the throne like his uncle—when Charles’ wimpy uncle Edward VII relinquished his throne, it was not a gutsy or ballsy feat for the sake of “the woman I love”, but because he was found to have associations with the Nazi Party—in the book “The Woman He Loved” there is a very telling photo of him and his “beloved” Wallis shaking the Fuhrer’s hand with alot of servility and charm.There was also a very info program about this particular topic.
    2)Necessitating balls on his part—he may be an unassertive guy,but it’s possible that in this case he may have felt a sense of duty,as an heir to the throne,to his country and the monarchy,not to give up the throne.How do you know what went through his head at that time?

    3)Diana’s hugging AIDS and leprosy victims—hugging AIDS victims isn’t contagious,as we all know.For all we know she may have consulted a doctor about the least risky patients to hug.I’m sure they weren’t dripping sweat,blood or sperm!!!

    Leprosy has also been found recently not to be contagious if contact is short–lived. So,although for most of us cowards hugging these people is very unpleasant,Diana ‘s royal health was not at any risk!

    Furthermore,people who are extremely ambitious will go to great lengths to do what is generally considered unpleasant just to stand out!

    Lastly,I saw a program where Diana was present at an operation(?),with heavily made-up eyes showing above her mouth-mask—to attract attention?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “I clearly dislike Camilla but I like my paralegal and we are becoming fast friends. She is aware of my views on her features but she is amused by it. Yup. Some ugly people are aware of their ugliness and have come to some sort of peace”

    So…you mock your subordinate, and pat yourself on the back that she’s acheived “some sort of peace”?

    You’re cruel, babe. VERY cruel.

  • http://darkeroticism.blogspot.com swingingpuss

    Sandra, I havent met one ugly person who is at peace with their lack of looks especially when there are insensitive people like you rubbing it in.

    And her mature attitude towards your obnoxious behavior clearly shows her to be a refined lady while you remain an self-absorbed, fluff-headed bimbo.

    I rather be her anyday.

  • dreamgirl35fs

    i just he would keep his camilla over there where she belongs no one here in the usa wants her she should know thats she the most hated woman around

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Diana was just a not terribly intelligent brood mare for her husband. If shew had truly had smartened up, she would have kept her Arab lover in the background until… that was the problem, wasn’t it? She was the mother of two children and was not willing to give up custody too quickly. After SHE provided a future for the British monarchy, and cleaned up its shitty image in the minds of the British public, Charles had her killed. And now he has married the woman of his heart’s desires.

    How sweet to see true romance win in the end. Even if the woman who is the guarantor of the future of the Bitish monarchy had to die. It DID solve te custody issue rather neatly, didn’t it?

  • True Fairy Tale

    Diana was a total TWIT !