What are your honest opinions of Camilla Parker Bowles today in 2022 ?

[Anonymous]

Oh I left out the Queens sister: mental. Died young of substance abuse related causes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I'm in the minority but my ex cheated on me and I deeply understand the pain it causes. Independent of all other circumstances, she deeply hurt Diana, William and Harry who are innocent parties. I could never do that. I'm sure most of you couldn't, either. It's truly scumbag behavior.

Diana cheated first. She and Charles were doomed from the start. When he told her that he didn't love her ( their wedding eve) or even earlier when he said, "whatever love means," she should have broken it off immediately.

LOL! Charles was cheating from even before the wedding and never stopped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Normally not a big fan of cheaters but from my review of history it seems very common, and almost universal for kings and prices to have mistresses. (Prince Albert is the only one I can think of where I’ve never heard of it.). Isn’t it different if that’s a cultural norm, like old school Mormans with multiple wives, Muslims with multiple wives, etc.? It sort of seems like Camilla was a little surprised that Diana was surprised by all of this. Diana grew up in the royal ambit—it’s really unclear why she would have expected fidelity. I think she drank the koolaid the BRF was selling about the storybook romance, and no one in the BRF expected that.

I wouldn’t be chums with Camilla but she does seem like she was playing by the age old rules for the royals—discreet and discrete paramours are accepted and expected. I suspect Kate knows that, and Elizabeth certainly did as well.

Hmmm. I think it was more that it had been going on the entire relationship and marriage. This wasn't a dalliance, it was an ongoing affair in which her husband was very emotionally attached to the other woman.

My impression over the years has been that Camillla had more of a connection with the BRF than Diana did - she is closer in age to Charles and the siblings and ran in the same circles. I don't see a fiancee Camilla all roller skating all alone in the palace. So I don't think it was hard for her to fit in once she crossed the extremely high bar of being accepted.

I think the British public will tolerate her as Queen Consort, but not as Queen.

[Anonymous]

They are all mental because they were raised by completely absent parents and often shipped off to be raised in institutions by 3rd grade. But those parents were raised the same way themselves and had nothing else in the toolbox. Somehow, British upper classes got the idea over the centuries that this state of affairs was somehow desirable. "Stiff upper lip" and all that. Children were possessions that you trotted out to interact with for 1 hour a day before putting them back upstairs with the nanny, seriously. This was thought to be good practice. Being a Leo Kanner "refrigerator mother" was desirable. They didn't know any better, like with bloodletting or "miasma theory."

Read some memoirs of these boarding schools or watch the BBC documentary "The Making of Them." It's on YouTube. Upper class parents literally shipped their kids off to "the right" boarding schools where there was a total Lord of the Flies culture of bullying, both by other kids and staff, molestation, and beatings. Is it any wonder they're all messed up and can't sustain normal relationships now? Money doesn't buy happiness and in some cases ruins it.

It's a uniquely British weirdness, too. Many of the other European royal families don't send their children away to school until 16, if at all. George is already the age William was when he was sent to Ludgrove and is still in his London day school, and Edward doesn't appear to be sending Louise and James to boarding school until a more conventional 13, so I guess those mores are thankfully changing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are all mental because they were raised by completely absent parents and often shipped off to be raised in institutions by 3rd grade. But those parents were raised the same way themselves and had nothing else in the toolbox. Somehow, British upper classes got the idea over the centuries that this state of affairs was somehow desirable. "Stiff upper lip" and all that. Children were possessions that you trotted out to interact with for 1 hour a day before putting them back upstairs with the nanny, seriously. This was thought to be good practice. Being a Leo Kanner "refrigerator mother" was desirable. They didn't know any better, like with bloodletting or "miasma theory."

Read some memoirs of these boarding schools or watch the BBC documentary "The Making of Them." It's on YouTube. Upper class parents literally shipped their kids off to "the right" boarding schools where there was a total Lord of the Flies culture of bullying, both by other kids and staff, molestation, and beatings. Is it any wonder they're all messed up and can't sustain normal relationships now? Money doesn't buy happiness and in some cases ruins it.

It's a uniquely British weirdness, too. Many of the other European royal families don't send their children away to school until 16, if at all. George is already the age William was when he was sent to Ludgrove and is still in his London day school, and Edward doesn't appear to be sending Louise and James to boarding school until a more conventional 13, so I guess those mores are thankfully changing.

Yeah, read this recent article/interview with Anne Glenconner, who The Crown viewers might know as Princess Margaret's lady-in-waiting and friend. Pretty horrific.

https://www.ft.com/content/b4e3f39c-008f-4096-94b6-1aecefa4bc61

[Anonymous]

On the thread about Joss Whedon, I noted he was sent away to a British boarding school. It’s like step 1 in creating a man who doesn’t interact well with women.

[Anonymous]

One of Camilla’s ancestors was also a royal mistress so she was just carrying on a family tradition.

[Anonymous]

I believe in true love and people who really love each being together. I’m happy for Camilla and Charles to finally be together, as they should. Charles never loved Diana. I think she was naive at best, and more likely knew to some degree that Charles was not in love with her. He certainly never acted lovingly toward her. She wanted to be a princess, and saw and believed what would make that a reality. All the red flags were there.

Cheating hurts people. Staying married to someone you don’t love also hurts people. You only get one life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe in true love and people who really love each being together. I’m happy for Camilla and Charles to finally be together, as they should. Charles never loved Diana. I think she was naive at best, and more likely knew to some degree that Charles was not in love with her. He certainly never acted lovingly toward her. She wanted to be a princess, and saw and believed what would make that a reality. All the red flags were there.

Cheating hurts people. Staying married to someone you don’t love also hurts people. You only get one life.

At 19 you still believe in love and people can change.

[Anonymous]

Never met her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm neutral on her. The whole situation was incredibly messed up and the result of Charles and Diana being trapped by life circumstances beyond their control based on incredibly old-fashioned strictures that applied to no one else on the planet and should have died off in the early 19th century. And in fact did start dying off shortly after Charles and Diana became trapped by them. Under literally any other circumstances, they would never have married. And they were both emotionally messed up by those same strictures. It was never going to be anything other than what it was. This stuff has always gone on, it's just we know more about it now with the state of the media. George IV, for example, was totally debauched. Camilla was just a side show.


I pity Charles, honestly. Money doesn't buy happiness. He has his houses and his Aston Martins and whatever but those are ornaments on a life of basically aimless waiting. 73 years worth of loitering. He's older than most reigning European monarchs and is still waiting. There's a photo of him with the Spanish royals on Mallorca in the '80s, almost 40 years old and sitting near a teenaged Prince Felipe. Well, Felipe VI has been on the throne for 8 years now and Charles is still waiting. Same deal with Willem-Alexander. That must be really galling.

+1 to the bolded. These aren't the circumstances of almost any other marriage on the planet.

I used to dislike Camilla, but then I warmed to her when she and Charles married. It was clearly love. She's his rock. He seems to have his own rigid way of doing things and she accommodates him in a way that most women wouldn't. She does her work and doesn't complain or stir up drama. She gets that it's an institution and her job is to fit in. Like other pp's, I strongly prefer someone like this to a Markle manipulator who expects everything to change for her or a nitwit, unstable, dishonest Harry who takes, takes, takes, but then plans a coup when he's expected to do his job and play by the rules in return.

That said, I don't really like anyone in the BRF except possibly Kate Middleton.

Of course she does “the work” and doesn’t complain. If she did, the public would hate her. She got what she wanted and pretty sure Charles will give her the queen title.

But so many of them haven't been able to do the work and play by the rules without complaining. I really don't think she's in it to be Queen; it's clearly love whether you like them or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I tend to think there’s either something wrong with Charles or something wrong with Queen Elizabeth. She treats him like dirt making him sit on the sidelines while she celebrates her 75th “Jubilee”. There’s a time to step aside.

Eh. The thing that is “wrong” with him is that he is a thin skinned and charmless man. And she knows that the whole shebang is going to become a lot less popular when she’s gone.

I agree. You have Charles strange guy. Andrew : pervert. Diana : mental. Harry: mental. William: is he the normal one? Queen Elizabeth: long overstated the role.
I wonder if the British people ever wonder what the BRF ever does for them really.

This. I think William is as close to the "normal" one as this family gets. The BRF just doesn't do a great job raising children. It seems like Kate has great parents and is a great mother. She and William seem to be trying to create as positive a family environment as possible for their children. Hopefully this ends the long history of the BRF's crappy parenting.

[Anonymous]

No opinion. Don't care. Don't know anything about her and don't want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh I left out the Queens sister: mental. Died young of substance abuse related causes.

Princess Margaret was 72 year old when she died of a stroke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh I left out the Queens sister: mental. Died young of substance abuse related causes.

Princess Margaret was 72 year old when she died of a stroke.

She was practically a spring chicken considering how the longevity of her mother and sister.