Charles and Camilla

I understand they're in the US right now in a PR move. Please keep them.

I was gonna ask you to come and get Chucky and The Bride of Chucky and take them back home. I'm just glad I escaped New York virtually a day before their arrival. And yesterday they were in Washington. My thing is, who cares. The only reason why Charles' first visit got attention was because of Di. And face it, Camilla is no Di. She's getting ripped to shreds in the papers here. She may not have any fashion sense, but face it, she's pushing 70. She's not gonna dress like Paris Hilton. Then again, you don't know how she dresses for Charles in the bedroom.

Turi, why are you hanging upside down? Are you swinging from a chandelier?

Hahaha! I was going to ask the same thing when our president went to NY to attend the UN assembly.

:rolleyes: The most horrifying image I can think of is indeed Camilla in a baby doll nightgown...

Here are some pics from Chuck and Camilla's Excellent Adventure.

I'm not educated on England's present government but hasn't a monarchy been dead? Isn't the government the Parliament and not the royal family?

Anyway, just a few random opinions.

Charles is an idiot for cheating on Diana with this woman. I heard he did it because he didn't want to be the only prince not to have a mistress. Idiot.

So this girl is Charles' whore for years and now she's got some elevated title of status in England?

Or Bogus Journey, according to taste.

I don't mind Camilla. She tends to keep her mouth shut, and knows her role. The Royal Family is a bit of an embarrassment anyway.

In all European countries, the monarchy only has a symbolic power. The grade of symbolism depends; in Belgium for instance no law can be installed without the king signing it. But then again, he doesn't has a choice, he just has to sign it.
In some countries, the king has a bit influence in the society, in other countries, he just has to smile, and appear in the crowd a bit.

In Germany, even the president only has a symbolic function.

So in other words, the "royal family" is simply an illusion of power, basically famous for simply being part of the rich family?

So who would be in power? Tony Blair?

Di might be as beautiful as she chooses, but Camilla looks a lot smarter, do what you please with me. And it's unfair to compare them. It's not her goal to be second Di.

Yep. But not all European royal families are very rich. Of course they're all more rich than you and me, but not Bill Gates-like rich. I think the Dutch and the UK royals are the richest of them all. They all had more power in the past, but when countries became more democratic, they lost most of their power.


The normal thing, the 3 powers...
1. The executive power: The Prime Minister (Tony B) and the other ministers.
2. The governemental/lawmaking power: The Parliament consisting of the House of Lords, and the House of Commons
3. The judgemental power: All the judges

But I'm sure the Brits here can correct/elaborate this...

I despise the "Royal Family." I hope one day my government sees the light and declares Canada a republic. Charles and Cruella...er Camilla are an embarrasment to the U.K. and the world, and please don't get me started on "Queen" Elizabeth and her bratty grandchildren. Good riddance to the whole lot of them! Sorry to any admirers of the Unroyal family (I truly feel sorry for you) I just had to rant.

http://www.canadian-republic.ca/home.html
http://www.monarchyfreecanada.org/
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?CRO&201

What does it really matter?
The royals have no power, and a president often costs the country more money than a monarchy.

It matters because its embarrasing and shameful. Regardless of the fact that having a President and heads of Provinces would probably be cheaper than having a Governor General and Lieutenants Governor and paying for "royal" visits this is an issue that concerns the very heart of what it means to be Canadian. We are a democratic nation that believes in freedom, honour, liberty, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and good government. We don't believe in a bunch of spoiled, do nothing, know nothing, adulterous, inbred pissants.

I still can not get used to her (Camilla) Diana will never be replaced. As long as she lives (Camilla) she will be in Diana's shadow

Reminds me of the novel Rebecca. :p

Reminds me of the novel Rebecca. :p [/b][/quote]Except Camilla is a hag

Personally I thought that some of the newspapers here and some of the media were kind of cruel in how they made fun of their looks. Although I must admit that they both are pretty homely.

However I didn't see the need for the press to be as mean as they were about them. For God's sake they even made fun of the dress that she wore when she went to ground zero to pay her respects.


Don Cardi

Yeah, send the royal family back to Germany where they came from.

Not like it matters anyways, they're so inbred it makes hillbillies look like they have pedigrees.

The royal family serves no purpose. They have no real power anymore after Cromwell proved the people can do what they want.

What amazes me is that the British government gives him 7 million pounds a year to cover his expenses, then he has such contempt for the media in his own country. Hell, even the worst politician smiles for the camera.

Kudos Mad Johnny! Right on brother!

:D

I nearly fell off my chair, best statement of the night by far.

she surely is, if she managed to marry Charles, in the end.

As unfair as it may be (and I agree it is), it's almost impossible not to compare them. Honestly, I admit I don't like Camilla. I think she had a primary role in Diana's unhappiness, second only to her husband's. That's why I don't like Charles at all either.

Primary role in enybody's unhappiness always belongs to their own self... :rolleyes:

do you think so? I'm not sure. Besides, in this case, what could Diana do? When she married Charles, she was 19, innocent and naive.

do you think so? I'm not sure. Besides, in this case, what could Diana do? When she married Charles, she was 19, innocent and naive. [/b][/quote]If people have brains, they show even at 19
She had a reason to complaint, but then, you know, complaining and being a victim is the stupidest choice of all possible.

ok, maybe she wasn't a Nobel prize, but she had a heart anyway. She didn't deserve to be treated like that.

Being vulnerable doesn't mean being stupid. Sometimes you would like to be strong but you simply can't.

ok, maybe she wasn't a Nobel prize, but she had a heart anyway. She didn't deserve to be treated like that.
[/b][/quote]Everybody has heart. And rarely is treated as they deserve. It doesn't make Camilla guilty of anything.
Being vulnerable doesn't mean being stupid. Sometimes you would like to be strong but you simply can't. [/b][/quote]And to go out and cheat on your husband with nearly everyone around is being just vulnerable, right?

Yes, it may be. You don't go out and cheat on your husband if you are happy and respected. Mind you, I'm not saying that Diana was a saint, I just think she was terribly alone and unhappy.

Yes, it may be. You don't go out and cheat on your husband if you are happy and respected. [/b][/quote]Why not? I heard such stories. But that's not the point. Cheating doesn't make anyone happy and respected. It is not a decision of any problem, it's just increasing them. If you call it dishonesty in Charles, isn't it in her case?
Camilla might be also very lonely and unhappy when this 19-year old intruder came and stole from her the man she loved. It's not her fault.

Camilla might be also very lonely and unhappy when this 19-year old intruder came and stole from her the man she loved. It's not her fault. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Camilla already married someone else, so I doubt she was sitting home lonely. As said in the Kevin Federline/Britney Spears scenerio, you can't "steal" a man who's not willing.

He was not willing. He had to marry Di because she was exactly the match for him by descent. And he couldn't marry Camilla exactly because she was already divorced.

Not in the eyes of Prince Charles...and those are the only ones that should matter. After all these years he is finally able to legitimately be with the one woman he's always loved. In public as well as in private.

In fact, as far as Charles was concerned, it was Diana who was in Camilla's shadow.

I'm happy for them both.

Apple

Charles was down in New Orleans today visiting the hurricane damage. He had some sort of charitable stuff to donate. Pretty nice of him considering Andy Jackson kicked Charles' ancestors butts out of the swamps there in 1815.

I'll always have a preference for Diana. She was 19 when she married him. How could she had known he was hankering for someone else.

And gawd did she improve the royal gene pool. Her sons are gorgeous!

I wonder what their impression was of what the were shown. I was at work and just got off and haven't seen the news yet.

I was in New Orleans on Monday and even though I have seen the devastation on tv, and have lived for two months in a city filled with hundreds of thousands of evacuees, going down there to help my friend get stuff out of his house and looking around the old neighborhood is absolutely devastating and mind boggling what has happened there. Two months on and whole streets remain untouched, like a war zone. Despite all the rah rah about coming back better than ever, it will never be the same.

Not in the eyes of Prince Charles...and those are the only ones that should matter. After all these years he is finally able to legitimately be with the one woman he's always loved. In public as well as in private.

In fact, as far as Charles was concerned, it was Diana who was in Camilla's shadow.

I'm happy for them both.

Apple [/b][/quote]I agree with Apple absolutely. We are on the same page. Apple,

Problem is, she DID know about Camilla.

And she married him anyway, hoping in her immature bliss she could make him forget about her. (In fact legend has it she actually wanted to back out days before the wedding but was talked out of it by her sisters.)

The Royal Family and their 'suits' also made mistakes, assuming 'Shy Di' would do her Royal duties, produce the necessary heirs, behave and keep her mouth shut while waiting to become Queen.

Each party drastically underestimated the other in several ways and all paid the price. Including William & Harry, the only good things to really come out of that marriage.

Yes, Diana brought a glamour and breath of life to the Royal Family that had been lost for years, and will be remembered for years to come...but when all is said & done, they are now far better off without her.

I'm sure Camilla is well aware and hopefully prepared for the comparisons to Diana as she finally embarks on these 'Royal' appearances with her husband. However her maturity and love for her husband will hopefully carry her through with dignity and be fully embraced by the time Charles becomes King.

Apple

Di had a strange upbringing for her class. She behaved and talked sometimes as if she was a girl from the nearest pub. Maybe being simple could impress the crowd, but not Charles, especially after Camilla, who behaved, then at least, as aristocrat from head to feet. Manners are everything, if you are one of a breed, you must know how to comport yourself. And Di's mistakes in this area were the most evident to everyone.

Hi everyone hope your all well, ignore my comings and goings, I do my best to attend the gangster BB

As much as I sympathised with Di through all her marital discord I think I felt more for poor old Andrew Parker- Bowles, Camillas ex husband. Known here in the UK as the man who 'laid down his WIFE for his country'

I have to admit I have gleefully read all reports coming back from the states about Camilla but I am biased. I couldn't stand the woman since seeing a news footage on TV of her atop her hunting horse trying to 'whip' the protesters against fox hunting with her crop during one of their rallys

FH

Charles couldn't marry Camilla because he had to marry a virgin. Her first meeting with Charles Camilla said their ancestors had been lovers, so how about it. Camilla married another man when Charles went into the military. Hmmmmmmmm...what a way to show your love for the man who is supposed to be the love of your life. Charles and Camilla get married, they're bored with their spouses so they pick up where they left off decades before. I hope William and Harry never hear that Charles was meant to be with Camilla and not their mother, the only normal person in their life. Camilla performs duties with Charles after Diana's death, all the while she is still married to Andrew. I wonder how her kids feel about their mother being a whore. If this is the way people with love and who have "class" act I'll do much better to hang with the bums on the streets, thank you. I wonder how people in "regular" life who publically commit adultery would be treated by the people. Congrats Charles and Camilla. You two low lifes deserve each other.

Hi indeed, FH! It's great to see you keep coming back. Hope all is well with you.

Mick

Hi FH! How is your grandson doing?

Charles had a much more enjoyable visit to the U.S. when he was last here with his ex. Thats because of where he stayed.

Indiana. :rolleyes:

Welcome back, FH!

I wonder how William and Harry feel about their mother being a world famous whore, who ended up with Arab merchant, and only imagine how the royal family could feel about what brothers and sisters she might bear from him to British princes!
But even though I can't help disliking Diana, I never took her behavior as personally as you seem to take Camilla's.
Cmon Bethie, let Charles choose his own kind of happiness!

I agree...since unlike his mother was pretty much cornered into marrying someone he didn't love ('...whatever love is...').

With all that though, let's not forget that it is only because Diana is dead that the marriage of Charles & Camilla was able to take place. Had she lived, Charles would still be a divorcee and as Head of the Church of England, unable to remarry.

Apple