FW: OT Re: FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Parsons

FW: OT Re: FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av John Parsons » 10 feb 2005 18:01:04

To the extent that Charles found in Millie an emotional center he otherwise
lacked and that he did not find in Diana, you are entirely right that his
mistress was an inextricable aspect of the situation.

I usually approach these situations, however, from a standpoint defined by
something my late father once said to my mother: "No matter what happens in
between, a marriage starts with two people and it ends with two people."

Strictly put, then, Diana was wrong. "Marriage," as we have been repeatedly
reminded in recent months, involves (legally anyway) a husband and wife.
From that perspective Millie never really was part of Diana's marriage,
although Millie's presence certainly complicated that union as well as her
own.

Regards

John P.



From: "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: OT Re: FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL
Date: 10 Feb 2005 08:35:29 -0800

I recall Diana's famous statement made on national television:

"There were three of us in the marriage, so it was a bit crowded."

I don't think you can talk about Charles and Diana, and not talk about
Camilla.
To dismiss Camilla Parker-Bowles simply an extramarital affair is to
miss the big picture. Camilla was and is a permanent fixture in
Charles's life.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


"John Parsons" wrote:
There were only ever 2 people who could have told us the absolute
truth
about what happened to the Wales marriage. One of them is dead and,
as of
this morning, the other has made it clear that he is now ready to put
it all
behind him. Perhaps that's not a bad idea, but given Diana's immense

popularity, her beauty, and the unspeakable tragedy of her early
death, it
probably won't happen.

It is clear that Diana was traumatized by her parents' divorce and
that she
never managed to evolve any intellectual or emotional resources to
deal with
that or similar situations. She remained an emotionally needy young
woman
and, as she flunked out of high school (in American terminology) and
never
attended university, she was a naive 20 year old with virtually no
experience of the world when she married Charles. She knew, like
most
Britons of her class, that he had been involved with Camilla in the
past.
It was unfortunate that the two of them carelessly gave her reason to

suspect that the affair was ongoing even while she was engaged to
Charles.
Diana had stars in her eyes, as any young woman of her naivete would
have
had in her situation. Her disappointment with what she then
discovered to
be reality was very real, complicated by her inability to address the

realities of her marriage in the mature manner that a more
sophisticated
woman might have managed.

Charles grew up with what he describes as a remote mother and a
hectoring
martinet father. In part the queen's distance from her children was
the
result of her office and dignity, but one cannot help reflecting on
the
difference between the intimate family circle she had known as a
child and
what appear to have been emotionally remote relationships with her
own
children. As he matured into public life he came to receive an
inordinate
amount of positive publicity, which may well have compensated him for
an
emotionally sterile early life and given him a self-confidence many
thought
he lacked in his 'teens and 'twenties. (It undoubtedly did him no
good
later on to see so much of that media approval transferred to Diana.)
As a
result, Charles had his own needs but Diana was no more the woman to
fulfill
them than he was the man to fulfill hers. The direct consequences
were
disaster and tragedy.

Regardless of how we choose to regard or criticise the methods either
of
them adopted to deal with their crisis--sulking, crying to the media,

pursuing extramarital affairs--the above is my view of the personal
relationships involved. It's charitable if nothing else. Two
essentially
very well-meaning young people who were simply wrong for each other.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all was that they were forced to go
through
all of it under relentless and often pitiless public scrutiny. Any
other
couple could have faced facts and ended the ordeal in a humane and
dignified
manner, as Prince and Princess Joachim of Denmark are now doing.

Regards

John P.


From: Guy Etchells <guy.etchells@virgin.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Fw: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:26:44 +0000

My views on her have not changed since the early days of her
marriage and
her whining that the Queen kept interfering and telling her what to
do
(someone needed to remind her of protocol and who better).

Di knew from the start the situation with Charles and Camellia (it
had been
going on for some years and they had no intention of stopping) and
she
accepted it but after marriage tired to change this situation. She
knew why
she had been chosen and what her role would be, but tried to force
her hand
when she considered she had leverage, history shows how she failed.
She was manipulative and scheming using the press to best advantage,
it is
just a pity that Charles took so long in realising just how to
manipulate
the press to advantage.
Cheers
Guy

I'll give Millie this (love this new name for her: haven't come
across it
before), she has been quiet in her activities, some might say
discreet.
While Di was alive, she was everyone's favourite, bar a few, who
thought
her a nutter. Since she died, everyone has joined on the bandwagon
of
Di-bashing. It's fashionable, but I don't know how much truth there
is in
any of what you say. Besides, why should she try to destroy the
Royal
Family when her son will be king one day? Why would she destroy her

descendants' futures.

Renia


--
Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England.
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you
facts
not promises!
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums ... ferrerid=7
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... church.htm
Churches & MIs. in the Wakefield Area



Gjest

Re: FW: OT Re: FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 feb 2005 18:21:02

In a message dated 2/10/2005 11:57:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
carmi47@msn.com writes:

Strictly put, then, Diana was wrong.




If your wife was in an affair with another man, how would you react? Would
you divorce her, abide with the situation, or get your gun and go after both
of them? Diana did neither for the longest time. I think she tolerated as
much as she could stand of Big Ears philandering.

Now would be an excellent time for the British people to do away with a
useless monarchy.


Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: FW: OT Re: FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 10 feb 2005 18:23:40

Diana was wrong? Where did you get that dumb idea? This is a new low
for the newsgroup.

I was married for 14 years and never considered looking at another
woman. I believed it was my DUTY to be loyal to my wife. Charles
evidently thought otherwise and he has paid the ultimate price for his
foolishness and adultery. A man who marries without making a full
commitment to his blushing bride is only asking for trouble.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: FW: OT Re: FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av CED » 10 feb 2005 19:16:28

Dear Mr. Richardson,

I was much surprised at your expression of an attitude about marriage.
In the period in which you claim "expertise," emotional love and
personal commitment were seldom a factor in marriage. The idea of a
"blushing" bride would not have occurred to those who married. In the
social class about which you write, it was frequently the case that the
bride and groom were little more than acquainted and sometimes were
mere children. Affectionate love, if it did occur in a marriage, most
often arose during the marriage.

The Brit Royals throughout their history do not have much of a record
in favor of marital commitment and fidelity. Victoria and Albert, as
well as George VI and Elizabeth, are exceptions. Brit Royals seem to
get into trouble when the attempt love with commoners. Maybe the old
custom of marrying cousins would serve them better.

It's rather humorous to see that you set yourself up as a model for the
Prince of Wales.

Best Regards,

CED


Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Diana was wrong? Where did you get that dumb idea? This is a new
low
for the newsgroup.

I was married for 14 years and never considered looking at another
woman. I believed it was my DUTY to be loyal to my wife. Charles
evidently thought otherwise and he has paid the ultimate price for
his
foolishness and adultery. A man who marries without making a full
commitment to his blushing bride is only asking for trouble.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: FW: OT Re: FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 10 feb 2005 20:52:50

CED wrote:
Dear Mr. Richardson,

I was much surprised at your expression of an attitude about
marriage.
In the period in which you claim "expertise," emotional love and
personal commitment were seldom a factor in marriage. The idea of a
"blushing" bride would not have occurred to those who married. In
the
social class about which you write, it was frequently the case that
the
bride and groom were little more than acquainted and sometimes were
mere children. Affectionate love, if it did occur in a marriage,
most
often arose during the marriage.

The Brit Royals throughout their history do not have much of a record
in favor of marital commitment and fidelity. Victoria and Albert, as
well as George VI and Elizabeth, are exceptions. Brit Royals seem to
get into trouble when the attempt love with commoners. Maybe the old
custom of marrying cousins would serve them better.

It's rather humorous to see that you set yourself up as a model for
the
Prince of Wales.

Best Regards,

CED

Pardon? I didn't say I was a model for the Prince of Wales. I've
never met the man. And, I'm certainly no expert on marriage. Far
from it.

What I did say was if a man fails to make a full commitment to his wife
on their wedding day, he is asking for a troubled and disfunctional
marriage.

None of us live up to the high moral standards of the Christian faith.
We have all sinned, and gone astray. BUT, we should at least try. In
Prince Charles' case, it doesn't seem to me that he ever made the
effort. As I recall, Diana found evidence of Charles' involvement with
Camilla on their honeymoon. That's cheap, really cheap.

If you think that is humorous, Diana certainly didn't. In spite of it
all, she gave her marriage a go. Hats off to the woman, I say. As for
Charles, to err is human, to forgive is divine.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

norenxaq

Re: FW: OT Re: FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av norenxaq » 10 feb 2005 21:41:01


If you think that is humorous, Diana certainly didn't. In spite of it
all, she gave her marriage a go. Hats off to the woman, I say. As for
Charles, to err is human, to forgive is divine.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

just say no to monogamy...

CED

Re: FW: OT Re: FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av CED » 10 feb 2005 23:59:42

Dear Mr. Richardson,

You have a strange view of the moral standards of the Christian faith.
The first Christian smperor set aside his wife and murdered his son.
Most of the Christian kings of England during the period of your
"expertise," had sexual relations outside their marriages.

My point was that you set yourself up as a paragon of virtue. Do you
condemn those men of that period as you do the Prince of Wales?

The Princess should have known what to expect. Her family's rise to
influence was directly related to the Churchill family's sleeping
habits. (Or, don't you know their reputation and genealogy?) If the
newspapers are right, the Princess was sleeping out while she was still
married. She and Fergie had quite a social life, which they shared.
There was a time when that would have been treason.

Rather than a paragon of virtue, you might say that you are a pillar of
prig.

I regret that I got started on this thread; but once started it must be
completed. I prefer genealogy in this group to lectures on morals and
civil conduct, no matter what personal virtues you care to advertise.

Best Regards,

CED


Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
CED wrote:
Dear Mr. Richardson,

I was much surprised at your expression of an attitude about

It's rather humorous to see that you set yourself up as a model for
the
Prince of Wales.

Best Regards,

CED

Pardon? I didn't say I was a model for the Prince of Wales. I've
never met the man. And, I'm certainly no expert on marriage. Far
from it.

What I did say was if a man fails to make a full commitment to his
wife
on their wedding day, he is asking for a troubled and disfunctional
marriage.

None of us live up to the high moral standards of the Christian
faith.
We have all sinned, and gone astray. BUT, we should at least try.
In
Prince Charles' case, it doesn't seem to me that he ever made the
effort. As I recall, Diana found evidence of Charles' involvement
with
Camilla on their honeymoon. That's cheap, really cheap.

If you think that is humorous, Diana certainly didn't. In spite of
it
all, she gave her marriage a go. Hats off to the woman, I say. As
for
Charles, to err is human, to forgive is divine.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»