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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.