Royalty thread #15: A New Era

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, yes. There are various robes from previous coronations. Presumably, this one is a better fit for her than for Charles, who will be wearing his grandfather's robes.


Why this should provoke a strong reaction is beyond me. Camilla is the Queen Consort, deal with it.

taf2002 is a woman of impeccable morals who will never stop shaming Camila for COMMITTING ADULTERY.

In other news, that new picture of Princess Charlotte is cute and a good example of modern royal vs. traditional royal. In the past, royal children were not allowed to show their teeth when smiling for photos, and definitely not if their teeth have fallen out.
 
So cute! She has her father's eyes.
Shape-wise, yes; color-wise, they're Kate's, lol. But, the resemblance to William is uncanny and has been for a few years now. I'm so looking forward to seeing her this Saturday at the Coronation! Well, all three of the Wales kids, actually, but especially Charlotte. Is it wrong to hope she'll be in a beautiful formal dress?
 
I actually see a bit of Anne in her. Am I crazy?
I have always seen Sarah Chatto (Princess Margaret’s daughter) in her, and Anne and Sarah both look very much like their mothers, who also looked much alike. I remember seeing a photo of Anne years ago on the balcony at BP where I thought her resemblance to Margaret was striking. I do think the Windsor genes are strong in this one. Such a cutie!
 
taf2002 is a woman of impeccable morals who will never stop shaming Camila for COMMITTING ADULTERY.

In other news, that new picture of Princess Charlotte is cute and a good example of modern royal vs. traditional royal. In the past, royal children were not allowed to show their teeth when smiling for photos, and definitely not if their teeth have fallen out.
Huh? Here's a photo of William when he was 8, looking quite toothy and toothless...


70450729-12033929-As_he_was_Prince_William_when_he_was_eight_years_old_looked_much-a-1_1682977149113.jpg
 
I honestly don't think it's for me to judge the marriage of Charles and Diana any more than I would have wanted them to judge mine. Whenever something like this comes up - among the famous or among our own acquaintances - the shorthand phrase (from a song) we use is "they don't know about you and me."

Yes for sure I'll be right in there with my views when some politician can't keep it in his pants, especially when they have been spouting "family values" etc or it seems clear there's a power play involved.

However, I think we all know by now that Charles was forced to marry a "suitable" bride rather than someone he actually loved, and that Diana was also in way over her head. It was way more complicated than simple adultery. It was two people who should have never married in the first place.

At the time, being a big fan of Diana, yeah I took her side and thought he was a dick and when it was revealed that she was also an "adulterer" I thought, well good for you. Looking back though, especially seeing how much happier Charles is with Camilla, the woman he should have married in the first place, well I'm glad he's finally found some happiness.

Whenever someone tells me they're getting divorced or otherwise breaking up with a partner, my first question to them is always "am I sad or happy for you?" In the case of Charles and Diana, I was happy for them. Not for the kids of course, always tough, but for them, yes.
 
Talking way earlier. Like Elizabeth Era.
I hardly think that was a royal vs non-royal thing, but more a societal thing. Beyond that, I know there are pics floating around of Elizabeth smiling toothy grins as a youngster, same with her kids.
 
taf2002 is a woman of impeccable morals who will never stop shaming Camila for COMMITTING ADULTERY.
You're right. I'll never stop shaming her in my thoughts but I'll throw you a gift & stop posting about her. People seem to forget she married before Charles & Diana IOW taking the better bet at the time. That didn't stop her from flaunting her relationship to a young bride. I think she was evil then & I'll bet Harry is right about her. She now has everything she schemed for.
 
You're right. I'll never stop shaming her in my thoughts but I'll throw you a gift & stop posting about her. People seem to forget she married before Charles & Diana IOW taking the better bet at the time. That didn't stop her from flaunting her relationship to a young bride. I think she was evil then & I'll bet Harry is right about her. She now has everything she schemed for.
She married first because Charles wasn't ready to get married, plus the BP "grey men" didn't approve of her since, like a lot of women her age, she wasn't a virgin at age 25.
 
Funny that the topic of Charles marriage to Diana comes up just as I have come across a stash of old magazines that I had bought but never looked through. So, now, I’ve had a chance to look through them and one is an August 1967 Chatelaine magazine with an article of Charles (almost 19) and Anne (just turned 17) whom will they marry? The rumoured list for Charles is: Arabella Churchill, Princess Caroline of Monaco, Annabel Rhodes, Angela Nevill, Lady Rose Nevill, Juliana Noel, Princess Nora of Liechtenstein.
 
IMO - it's Charles who was the villain. He should have spoken up to QE, if Camilla was who he wanted in his life.

He didn't. He played the field. Why should she have waited until he decided to settle down or QE told him he was to produce a heir.

I know many women who thought 25 or so, they should have children as time would be running out (I believe she is older than me?)

Charles didn't have a clue about 19 year old virgins nor was he willing to help her, because he was still in love with Camilla.

Anyway, they are married. They seem to be in love, and it's his Coronation.
 
IMO - it's Charles who was the villain. He should have spoken up to QE, if Camilla was who he wanted in his life.

He didn't. He played the field. Why should she have waited until he decided to settle down or QE told him he was to produce a heir.
OK so I haven't read every book and article about how this went down, but I can see a lot of different possibilities here. First, maybe the Queen flat out said no, she's not suitable, find someone else. Maybe his father (who was long rumoured to have a so-called second family) said don't worry about it son, find someone more suitable and do your thing, it's what royals have been doing for centuries.

Or, maybe it was only later, years later, that he realized Camilla was the one. That initially, they were friends, even as he "played the field" (or the family auditioned other options, perhaps even from the list @quartz provided), perhaps he relied on Camilla as a confidante, including after she was married if he felt she had more experience in these matters than he did.

Maybe he did love Diana, or wanted to, wanted to please everyone and make it work and do his duty with an entirely suitable bride who virtually everyone on the planet loved. Only more and more, it didn't work, and he thought about the one lady who'd been there for him the whole time, and regretted that now it was too late for either of them. Maybe as things started to get worse with his wife, he turned to Camilla, just as Diana turned elsewhere eventually too.

I don't know, and I'm not defending Charles either, just as I long stopped taking Diana's side, because in my experience, it's so often far more complicated, especially in the moment, than it is with the benefit of time. And of course if any of us actually knew any of these people, let alone their private thoughts and feelings.

I'm just happy now because when two people who have known each other for decades finally get to be together - having married now in their mid 50s - then I wish them well. I'm a sucker for happy couples, and Charles and Camilla seem to be just that.
 
The issue was the archaic idea that a future king needed to marry a virgin from a small subset of aristocratic families. By the 1970s, finding a virgin was getting more and more ridiculous. Enter Diana: 18, from a suitable family, no prior romantic history.

It was a hard mistake by the BRF to insist on the "suitable bride" for Charles. Everyone suffered: Charles, Diana, Camila, the children, even the Queen and Prince Philip. I will wager that William and Harry continue to suffer from growing up in such an unhappy home, and their current relationship with each other might be in large part due to that dysfunctional upbringing.
 
IMO - it's Charles who was the villain. He should have spoken up to QE, if Camilla was who he wanted in his life.
And?

Let's suppose that he did and his mom said no. He would either have had to comply with her wishes (and done what we know he did do) or renounce his right of succession, in which case his next eldest brother would be having his coronation on Saturday. ?
 
If there’s one thing Charles and sibs learned, it was that the Abdication by their great-uncle was a mortal sin. I don’t think for one moment Charles thought he would relinquish the crown. They could have married him off to some obscure Balkan princess and he would have accepted it.
 
Why does there have to be a villain. Sometimes people are just victims to the time and expectations they are born into. I see Charles coming of age at the beginning of a transition in thinking regarding love, marriage, sexual purity, and certainly divorce. Camilla was not considered "suitable" even before her first marriage. Charles was certainly under intense pressure to marry and stop his Lothario ways, especially by Lord Mountbatten, who was very keen on Charles marrying his granddaughter. Charles and Diana were mismatched and unhappy together. Adultery is a terrible answer but I am not sure either of them had the option to declare "let's call the whole thing off". I agree, there was a lot of hurt, especially for their children.
 
I long stopped taking Diana's side,
I have more respect for her than Charles because of her charity work, especially with AIDS patients and especially at that time in history, but I am not impressed with her adultery either. I mean it doesn't have to be either or. It can be both or none.
 
In the whole three people in the marriage thing, it's the women cast as the bad person.

Maybe I'm just in a mindset that we shouldn't be blaming the women,
 
If there’s one thing Charles and sibs learned, it was that the Abdication by their great-uncle was a mortal sin. I don’t think for one moment Charles thought he would relinquish the crown. They could have married him off to some obscure Balkan princess and he would have accepted it.
This. I think saying that he should just have spoken up discounts the institution that Charles grew up in and the psychology involved. I would assume that there were a lot of expectations placed upon him and many children will feel like they'll disappoint their parents if they don't meet those expectations.

Compared to the other European monarchies, the British one seems the most uptight and the one that is the slowest in loosening rules and rethinking antiquated traditions and Charles would have grown up when they were still set in their ways.
 
I have more respect for her than Charles because of her charity work, especially with AIDS patients and especially at that time in history, but I am not impressed with her adultery either. I mean it doesn't have to be either or. It can be both or none.
Hmmmm... So, you aren't aware of all of the charity work Charles has done through The Prince's Trust, then? And his longstanding activism about the environment and climate change?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information