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

[Anonymous]

I think so much has changed since Diana died that it doesn't matter anymore. If Camilla is still alive when Charles ascends then she will be known as Queen. Given their history, the BRF doesn't have a moral leg 5o stand on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Camilla triggers people because the mistress won and the poor wronged spouse ended up dying young. There is a sense of injustice about the whole situation and Camilla does always look like the proverbial cat who got the cream.

I think you're partly right. People forget how unstable she acted. The interviews telling the press about Charles and Camilla and releasing info. for pay back at the monarchy. She became her own worse enemy. She was a very needy person who had countless affairs with other creeps who didn't care she was a married princess. Early on she should have let Charles spend time with Camilla. In fact be happy he was out of her hair, and realized she had nothing in common with him. Whereby Camilla did. Enjoyed the status of her position, and stayed married. Charles would have agreed to that. Her constant need to outdo him, and embarrass the family was the beginning of the end for her. Then she ends up with another creep (cheater) who was suppose to be married in a few days to another woman. And she's in a speeding car with idiots while not wearing a seat belt . Plus she should have had her own security detail, but again another one of her poor judgement calls.

She thought happiness was with other men instead of herself. She could have continued to outshine Charles in the press, and enjoyed her kids and the life she had. If she had better psychology she would have outsmarted Camilla and Charles, and would have been the queen herself.

The no seat belt thing is not true. Feel free to google it. And if Charles expected all of that all he had to do was be honest from the beginning and find someone who is fine with that which he almost certainly could have found amongst his social set. The issue is he clearly wanted to marry someone young and virginal and they’re less likely to go for that. It’s not a personality flaw that she was upset that he changed the terms of the agreement. Also Camilla also thought happiness with other men! Except that other man was her ex husband and then her back burner dude was there when her situation didn’t work out. You’re acting like she has a ton of accomplishments on her own and just decided that it was time to find love. She has done absolutely nothing special with her life besides chase after Andrew Parker Bowles and PC.

I looked again. Diana was NOT wearing a seat belt. Yes Charles should have been honest in the beginning, but I'm not sure that was his intended plan. I think he planned to be a dutiful husband until he couldn't, or wouldn't. Still Diana had a opulent lifestyle. The public enjoyed her more than Charles which ticked him off. Again non of these nitwit men were worth giving up all that. I think if she would have stayed and lived her son Harry would have better mental health. A lot of domino effect with the poor choices. Also, I agree about Camilla, but Diana had the ball and dropped it.

Or Diana might have lived and continued to make inappropriate choices in men and poking the BRF and her son would have still had issues, torn between his mother and his duty.

My point was she never should have had affairs, and of course made better choices. Then the outcome I believe would have been much better. For her kids as well.

DP: And my point is that if she had had a normal, loving marriage with a faithful husband — or at least an honest one — she likely would not have had affairs. The horror here is not that Diana didn’t make “better choices” but that she didn’t have better choices to make. So yes, if Charles —and Camilla — had been decent human beings, the outcomes would, indeed, have been better for Diana and for her kids, and possibly even for Charles and Camilla themselves. The adults in the room knew quite well what they were doing. They just didn’t care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harry and William were not members of the Royal Family, they would absolutely be estranged from their father and Camilla. I know people who are estranged from their parents for much less trauma.

Lets look at all the ways Charles screwed up their childhoods:
-Carried on an affair with a long standing mistress
-Exacerbated and took advantage of their mother's mental illness/fragility
-Emotionally distant, sent them off to boarding schools
-Contributed to the death of their mother

Would you stick by your father through all this crap he inflicted on your family?

Would they stick by a mother who regularly abandoned them to the father you think they despise so that she could swan off with her latest lover? British men, especially, have a saint and slut version of women. Wonder where Diana falls on that scale with her sons. Even the most devoted son would question their mother’s behavior.

I don't think Charles was a perfect father but I also think that his parenting reflects the customs of his social set. Most boys were sent to boarding school at that time, it's not just his sons. Even Diana was on record that he is a good father. You also have to think about all the ways in which Diana, who undoubtedly loved her children and cared for them, did things that were not appropriate or not supportive of their mental wellbeing. I prefer to think about their parenting as two flawed people making flawed choices but loving parents nevertheless. There is certainly no doubt that Harry and William were loved and supported, to the best of their ability, by their grandparents, uncles and aunts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Camilla triggers people because the mistress won and the poor wronged spouse ended up dying young. There is a sense of injustice about the whole situation and Camilla does always look like the proverbial cat who got the cream.

This is actually pretty much how this news made me feel. Like a PP said, I don't care about the royal family and I don't follow news about them. I don't know the names of William's kids or Harry's kids or really anything about their lives. But even as someone who never follows the tabloids, one thing that sticks in my mind is that Camilla is a mistress and Charles is an adulterer.

It's really unfair that after everything Diana went through, she ends up dead and the Rottweiller gets the crown. That just seems...evil and wrong. Like on a gut level.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DP: And my point is that if she had had a normal, loving marriage with a faithful husband — or at least an honest one — she likely would not have had affairs. The horror here is not that Diana didn’t make “better choices” but that she didn’t have better choices to make. So yes, if Charles —and Camilla — had been decent human beings, the outcomes would, indeed, have been better for Diana and for her kids, and possibly even for Charles and Camilla themselves. The adults in the room knew quite well what they were doing. They just didn’t care.

She certainly didn't have to have affairs with married men, no?

I get that Diana was traumatized early on, and that her marriage didn't go the way she thought it would. She and Charles were just SO mismatched. But she learned to manipulate the media very well, and that was certainly a choice, it wasn't something that was forced upon her.

Maybe the best outcome would have been for her and Charles to come to terms early on, and be friendly and cordial but pursue their interests discreetly, while presenting a united parenting front to the children. But Diana was too unstable, and Charles too selfish for that.

[Anonymous]

All of this makes me wonder about Charles’s role as Defender of the Faith. Is this something that most people take seriously? As in, while having a morally flawed politician might feel acceptable, this might feel quite different when viewing Charles’s role as a religious one, and all of that is very tangled up with the very public history of Charles and Camilla’s relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Camilla triggers people because the mistress won and the poor wronged spouse ended up dying young. There is a sense of injustice about the whole situation and Camilla does always look like the proverbial cat who got the cream.

This is actually pretty much how this news made me feel. Like a PP said, I don't care about the royal family and I don't follow news about them. I don't know the names of William's kids or Harry's kids or really anything about their lives. But even as someone who never follows the tabloids, one thing that sticks in my mind is that Camilla is a mistress and Charles is an adulterer.

It's really unfair that after everything Diana went through, she ends up dead and the Rottweiller gets the crown. That just seems...evil and wrong. Like on a gut level.

+100

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of this makes me wonder about Charles’s role as Defender of the Faith. Is this something that most people take seriously? As in, while having a morally flawed politician might feel acceptable, this might feel quite different when viewing Charles’s role as a religious one, and all of that is very tangled up with the very public history of Charles and Camilla’s relationship.

I think this is why there was so much resistance to Charles and Diana getting divorced until it was clear there was no way they could stay married.

[Anonymous]

If that hoe becomes queen, then I will throw my support behind British republicans and build a shrine to Oliver Cromwell. I'll post pictures of my Cromwell shrine on Instagram everyday and tag Charles and Camilla.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Camilla triggers people because the mistress won and the poor wronged spouse ended up dying young. There is a sense of injustice about the whole situation and Camilla does always look like the proverbial cat who got the cream.

This is actually pretty much how this news made me feel. Like a PP said, I don't care about the royal family and I don't follow news about them. I don't know the names of William's kids or Harry's kids or really anything about their lives. But even as someone who never follows the tabloids, one thing that sticks in my mind is that Camilla is a mistress and Charles is an adulterer.

It's really unfair that after everything Diana went through, she ends up dead and the Rottweiller gets the crown. That just seems...evil and wrong. Like on a gut level.

+100

If Diana were alive, had remarried and happy, it would be easier to accept.

[Anonymous]

FYI - when Charles becomes King he could easily have given Camilla the title of Queen. Elizabeth’s blessing is all that is being given. She’ll do anything for her boys so I’m sure Charles told Elizabeth he was going to do it. Her giving her blessing is what’s best for the firm to continue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Camilla triggers people because the mistress won and the poor wronged spouse ended up dying young. There is a sense of injustice about the whole situation and Camilla does always look like the proverbial cat who got the cream.

This is actually pretty much how this news made me feel. Like a PP said, I don't care about the royal family and I don't follow news about them. I don't know the names of William's kids or Harry's kids or really anything about their lives. But even as someone who never follows the tabloids, one thing that sticks in my mind is that Camilla is a mistress and Charles is an adulterer.

It's really unfair that after everything Diana went through, she ends up dead and the Rottweiller gets the crown. That just seems...evil and wrong. Like on a gut level.

+100

+1000

Totally agree! And Diana is gone and not here to defend herself when movies + tv portray her mental state in such a harsh light.

[Anonymous]

Very risky for the monarchy to make her Queen consort …

Camille is tolerated but not loved by the public

[Anonymous]

One wonders if Camilla would be better liked if she was younger and prettier. I think the fact she was homely and anti-glamor worked against her. Just like Diana's good looks worked in her favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Camilla triggers people because the mistress won and the poor wronged spouse ended up dying young. There is a sense of injustice about the whole situation and Camilla does always look like the proverbial cat who got the cream.

I think you're partly right. People forget how unstable she acted. The interviews telling the press about Charles and Camilla and releasing info. for pay back at the monarchy. She became her own worse enemy. She was a very needy person who had countless affairs with other creeps who didn't care she was a married princess. Early on she should have let Charles spend time with Camilla. In fact be happy he was out of her hair, and realized she had nothing in common with him. Whereby Camilla did. Enjoyed the status of her position, and stayed married. Charles would have agreed to that. Her constant need to outdo him, and embarrass the family was the beginning of the end for her. Then she ends up with another creep (cheater) who was suppose to be married in a few days to another woman. And she's in a speeding car with idiots while not wearing a seat belt . Plus she should have had her own security detail, but again another one of her poor judgement calls.

She thought happiness was with other men instead of herself. She could have continued to outshine Charles in the press, and enjoyed her kids and the life she had. If she had better psychology she would have outsmarted Camilla and Charles, and would have been the queen herself.

The no seat belt thing is not true. Feel free to google it. And if Charles expected all of that all he had to do was be honest from the beginning and find someone who is fine with that which he almost certainly could have found amongst his social set. The issue is he clearly wanted to marry someone young and virginal and they’re less likely to go for that. It’s not a personality flaw that she was upset that he changed the terms of the agreement. Also Camilla also thought happiness with other men! Except that other man was her ex husband and then her back burner dude was there when her situation didn’t work out. You’re acting like she has a ton of accomplishments on her own and just decided that it was time to find love. She has done absolutely nothing special with her life besides chase after Andrew Parker Bowles and PC.

I looked again. Diana was NOT wearing a seat belt. Yes Charles should have been honest in the beginning, but I'm not sure that was his intended plan. I think he planned to be a dutiful husband until he couldn't, or wouldn't. Still Diana had a opulent lifestyle. The public enjoyed her more than Charles which ticked him off. Again non of these nitwit men were worth giving up all that. I think if she would have stayed and lived her son Harry would have better mental health. A lot of domino effect with the poor choices. Also, I agree about Camilla, but Diana had the ball and dropped it.

She was a blonde, thin, young woman with an Earl for a dad. There’s no reason to think that if she had had the opportunity to date before getting engaged at 19 (!!!) she couldn’t have found someone else to give her an opulent lifestyle as well.