I cannot imagine the British public accepting that old hag Camilla after what she did so openly with Charles against the lovely Di. Shame on them. Overdue time to end the monarchy anyway. The British Royal Family is truly dysfunctional.

Anonymous wrote:
Um, Jackie ran straight into the arms of a gross old man who didn't treat her well because she was scared and desperate to get out of the US. Hardly something to aspire to. She then had what seemed to be a good life in NYC because she had a career and stayed out of the spotlight, two things Diana would not have been capable of. Jackie came from a dysfunctional background and suffered a lot of trauma, but she was far brighter and more grounded than Diana.

Jackie Kennedy was both dumb and a Mean Girl, not a great combination. We've known this since at least 2011: https://www.thesmartset.com/article10051101/

Anonymous wrote:I understand, and at the same time, Diana was a fool to marry him. How often do you read about happy Queens in English history?
Charles's marriage should have been treated like a business transaction; the finacee should have known what she was getting into and had no qualms about his mistress(es).

I do believe the powers behind the crown were responsible for Diana's accident. I think sometimes we (Americans) see the crown as a quaint anachronism, like a form of Disney entertainment, something that attracts tourists and is pretty and fantastical. But I think the people in the crown circle take themselves - and all that money and privilege - very, very seriously. There is no way they were going to tolerate a Muslim stepdad, perhaps a Muslim half-sibling, to the future King of England. Queens have been killed for much, much less.

Even if that were true, Diana would have survived the accident if she'd been wearing a seatbelt.
But there was no need for the crown to try to kill her. She was circling the drain as it was.

I met Camilla once when I was working with a nonprofit. She was very polite and seemed genuinely interested in our work and knowledgeable about it.

The BBC has offered six-figure damages to the former nanny of Prince William and Prince Harry over false claims made by Martin Bashir to obtain his interview with Princess Diana, according to reports.

Tiggy Legge-Bourke, now known as Tiggy Pettifer, was offered the payout after the former BBC journalist, 58, told Princess Diana that her husband was 'in love' with their children's nanny in order to secure his 1995 Panorama interview.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10003217/BBC-pays-six-figure-damages-Tiggy-Legge-Bourke.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never like her just because her cruelty towards Diana (Charles is even worse but he’s a separate issue) happened in the 1980s and 1990s. Watch old Diana interviews on YouTube where she describes Camilla leaving passive aggressive little notes on Diana’s BED when Diana was still only engaged to Charles.

She was a 19 year old, mentally ill, naive girl. Camilla and Charles psychologically tormented her. As an adult woman in my early 30s, I find Camilla Parker Bowles so much more repulsive now than I did when I was a little kid, or even when I was a teenager.

Diana is hardly a paragon of truth telling so maybe you should treat it with a grain of salt. This is the woman who had to be threatened with lawsuits to stop spreading rumors that their nanny was pregnant with Charles’ baby.

Charles slept with every woman under the sun including Camilla, Kanga, and I'm certain - the nanny Tiggy. They all fit his profile and the palace(s) lied about everything even his relationship with the doberman until it was impossible to deny anymore. Diana was right about everything else.

Camilla didn't deny it.

Tiggy was quite offended by the rumors - and the rumors weren't JUST about her sleeping with Charles, it was about her aborting or miscarrying his baby. We can all agree it's a bad thing to make up about someone when it isn't true.

Tiggy remained close to the boys and attended their wedding. So chances are Diana was in the wrong there.

But then again, maybe Bashir made it all up because BBC did offer to pay her significant damages for the lies they sponsored.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"And when, in the fullness of time, my son Charles becomes King, I know you will give him and his wife Camilla the same support that you have given me; and it is my sincere wish that, when that time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/05/uk/queen-elizabeth-ii-platinum-jubilee-accession-day-gbr-intl/index.html

Diana would have been gutted. She would be in her third or or fourth marriage to a middle eastern cokehead and Camilla will be Queen consort.

Camilla the mistress would have never married Charles - Diana would have made sure of it. The fact that he had to wait a further 8 years after her death to be able to marry a woman he'd been tipping since the 70s proves it.

Diana would have been living a glamorous life in New York City and in London just like Jackie Onassis. Charles was being out-maneuvered legally and publicly which is why he gave her $18 million in the divorce and then she was dead a year later.

Um, Jackie ran straight into the arms of a gross old man who didn't treat her well because she was scared and desperate to get out of the US. Hardly something to aspire to. She then had what seemed to be a good life in NYC because she had a career and stayed out of the spotlight, two things Diana would not have been capable of. Jackie came from a dysfunctional background and suffered a lot of trauma, but she was far brighter and more grounded than Diana.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Same.
Same.
Same.

If your stance toward adultery is that strong, then presumably you must feel the same about Diana, who slept with and pursued multiple married men. Do you?

Not at all the same. She slept with other men AFTER Charles cheated on her with a woman he was in love with. Marriage is a legal contract and a sacred covenant with God (if you're religious). Since when is one party obligated to adhere to a contract that the other party has already broken?

What do you mean, not the same? Diana didn't have to sleep with married men. Cheat on your husband, OK, but she could have picked single guys to sleep with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"And when, in the fullness of time, my son Charles becomes King, I know you will give him and his wife Camilla the same support that you have given me; and it is my sincere wish that, when that time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/05/uk/queen-elizabeth-ii-platinum-jubilee-accession-day-gbr-intl/index.html

Diana would have been gutted. She would be in her third or or fourth marriage to a middle eastern cokehead and Camilla will be Queen consort.

Ouch.

But I suspect there's an element of truth to this. People too quickly forget Diana's life in her last few years was not heading to a good place. She was running around with a wildly unsuitable playboy boyfriend. It was getting messier. After Dodi, then who would it have been? Another erratic playboy? She didn't have the fortitude or temperament to be pragmatic and settle down quietly. It's interesting how different she is from her sisters, who were both of much stronger mettle.

And it does seem like Camilla is going to be Queen. The Queen herself more or less stated it. It will happen.

Considering the venom DCUM usually has for women who sleep with married men, Diana is somehow able to retain her saintly halo even after multiple affairs with married men during her marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My opinion is that I’d never take seconds.

Camilla was always first. Diana was the seconds.

Nope. She didn’t get the wedding, the heirs. Always the mistress.

Women who aren't idiots don't care about princess weddings and heirs. Who cares about getting to weir a tiara when you're a basket care who can't even hold her own head up.
Camilla got everything out of life that a sensible person would want. She's alive and well, she's rich, and she's happily married. If Diana were alive right now, she'd probably be on her fourth marriage and addicted to painkillers and plastic surgery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My opinion is that I’d never take seconds.

Camilla was always first. Diana was the seconds.

Nope. She didn’t get the wedding, the heirs. Always the mistress.

Yeah, the Spencers threw Diana under the bus multiple times, guys. Her mom was negligent, her sisters pressured her to marry Charles even after Diana had learned about Camilla because "your name's already on all the tea towels" and the wedding invitations had all gone out. And the current Earl Spencer - the same one who refused to support Diana, and who is currently estranged from his daughter Kitty Spencer - now is exploiting his sister's image with a "Diana museum" and a "Diana island" at his manor house so that the tourists will flock there.

Earl Spencer actually reminds me of Prince Andrew a LOT tbh. Just the vibe I get.

I understand, and at the same time, Diana was a fool to marry him. How often do you read about happy Queens in English history?
Charles's marriage should have been treated like a business transaction; the finacee should have known what she was getting into and had no qualms about his mistress(es).

I do believe the powers behind the crown were responsible for Diana's accident. I think sometimes we (Americans) see the crown as a quaint anachronism, like a form of Disney entertainment, something that attracts tourists and is pretty and fantastical. But I think the people in the crown circle take themselves - and all that money and privilege - very, very seriously. There is no way they were going to tolerate a Muslim stepdad, perhaps a Muslim half-sibling, to the future King of England. Queens have been killed for much, much less.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"And when, in the fullness of time, my son Charles becomes King, I know you will give him and his wife Camilla the same support that you have given me; and it is my sincere wish that, when that time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/05/uk/queen-elizabeth-ii-platinum-jubilee-accession-day-gbr-intl/index.html

Diana would have been gutted. She would be in her third or or fourth marriage to a middle eastern cokehead and Camilla will be Queen consort.

Camilla the mistress would have never married Charles - Diana would have made sure of it. The fact that he had to wait a further 8 years after her death to be able to marry a woman he'd been tipping since the 70s proves it.

Diana would have been living a glamorous life in New York City and in London just like Jackie Onassis. Charles was being out-maneuvered legally and publicly which is why he gave her $18 million in the divorce and then she was dead a year later.

Jackie Onassis is a terrible example to use. Hardly inspiring.

Diana's problem was that she was still mother of the future king. Her popularity would have depended entirely on how she behaved, and in her last year there was plenty of public disapproval of her running around with Dodi Fayed. A sympathetic British commented to me that it was a blessing Diana died when she died because her life was only getting messier. Realistically, she should have tried to find happiness with a stable and solid man and quietly retreated to a quiet life somewhere. But she couldn't give up the cameras and paparazzi (parallels with Meghan Markle, when you think about it). It's intriguing how Camilla has a very different relationship with the press despite they being much more hostile to her for a long time. She knew how to handle the press while preserving her own privacy, something Diana never could (and ditto for Meghan Markle).

You think people 'approved' of Jackie marrying a 60-year-old reclusive Greek shipping magnate? Nope. She just didn't care. She wanted to get out of the U.S. and access to billions which would provide for her and her children. And she did.

That's the reason Diana pursued Fayed. She was British by birth - there was nowhere to retreat. Her own brother turned her away, the aristos sided with Charles and his mistress, and it was an island where everyone was in her business. There's a reason aristos who have affairs flee overseas. They have no support.

And Camilla has no privacy to preserve. Her phone sex tapes with Charles were already public and her antics as well as the aristo homes they were having sexual escapades in all up-and-down England were all well-known. She'd hit bottom - as long as she and Charles sold out whoever and gave the press a bit of a tipsy dance with the future 'Princess Consort' - she went up in their esteem.

*Camilla literally hand-in-hand in the arms of the tabloids (the lead photographer of the Sun)*

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"And when, in the fullness of time, my son Charles becomes King, I know you will give him and his wife Camilla the same support that you have given me; and it is my sincere wish that, when that time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/05/uk/queen-elizabeth-ii-platinum-jubilee-accession-day-gbr-intl/index.html

Diana would have been gutted. She would be in her third or or fourth marriage to a middle eastern cokehead and Camilla will be Queen consort.

Camilla the mistress would have never married Charles - Diana would have made sure of it. The fact that he had to wait a further 8 years after her death to be able to marry a woman he'd been tipping since the 70s proves it.

Diana would have been living a glamorous life in New York City and in London just like Jackie Onassis. Charles was being out-maneuvered legally and publicly which is why he gave her $18 million in the divorce and then she was dead a year later.

Jackie Onassis is a terrible example to use. Hardly inspiring.

Diana's problem was that she was still mother of the future king. Her popularity would have depended entirely on how she behaved, and in her last year there was plenty of public disapproval of her running around with Dodi Fayed. A sympathetic British commented to me that it was a blessing Diana died when she died because her life was only getting messier. Realistically, she should have tried to find happiness with a stable and solid man and quietly retreated to a quiet life somewhere. But she couldn't give up the cameras and paparazzi (parallels with Meghan Markle, when you think about it). It's intriguing how Camilla has a very different relationship with the press despite they being much more hostile to her for a long time. She knew how to handle the press while preserving her own privacy, something Diana never could (and ditto for Meghan Markle).