Royal Gossip
August 20, 2017, 10:42:02 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: If Prince Charles becomes King Charles, will his kingdom leave him?  (Read 13289 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
CathyJane
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4267


« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2014, 02:09:01 am »

I don't know whether Philip did have lots of power, did he? I know he once referred to himself as 'an amoeba' because he could give his children his surname. In those much more deferential days he certainly was given respect, but I've always got the impression that the courtiers/grey men had a very great say in royal life when the Queen was younger and less experienced. Some of these men would have served her father. Anyway, off-topic! Sorry!


I mean like power as in "I'm the Queen's hubs, wanna hop into bed". nervous
Logged
cate1949
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6028



« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2014, 02:37:28 am »

^ sleeping with the monarch's spouse could result in detachment of head from neck in the past  tehe

Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2922


« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2014, 03:19:44 am »

I believe Kitty Kelley intended to write a tell-all book about Philip's indiscretions at one point and went  over to England to do some research. However, nobody gave her any credible or juicy information that she could weave into a biography, much to her frustration. The result of people keeping their mouths shut about Philip (in spite of many rumours over the years) was Kelley extending her book to include all the BRF.
Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2185



« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2014, 08:20:37 am »

^ sleeping with the monarch's spouse could result in detachment of head from neck in the past  tehe




The Treason Law never referred to a male spouse but specifically to the 'wife of the monarch' and the 'wife of the heir to the throne' - if they slept with someone other then the King or Prince of Wales they committed treason - as did their male partner. That law is still in effect of course.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6532


« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2014, 03:09:11 pm »

And Prince Charles was not hypocritical enough to use this law. His sleeping with married women and all that. If he even mentioned the law he would have been ousted from the throne and exiled. I see this old "punishment" antiquated sexist law discussion is rearing its ugly head on this thread.

Charles was said to have sired a child by Janet Jenkins. She claims it in any case.

There is also a code in the military about a man poaching a fellow officer's wife. Charles did this and got away with it. Another officer would face being ostracized or even court martialed. So much for the "codes" of behavior being followed.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2014, 03:15:00 pm by sandy » Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35936


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2014, 07:30:36 pm »

^Oh the irony; in the US, you can get prosecuted for messing with the wife of a fellow officer, mainly since it threatens troop cohesion.

You know, Charles should have realized a long time ago WHY his ancestors never married their mistresses. It degraded the other women, who would then be required to show deference to a woman who had previously been in the shadows and upsets the entire social structure.

Camilla is a usurper plain and simple.

Charles has no business being king; as much as it is his birthright, there are a lot of reasons you NEVER marry a mistress. IF Charles really cared about the succession and stopped feeling sorry for himself, stopped seeing himself as a victim, I am certain that he would likely have never married Camilla.

This is a man who viewed marrying a six foot tall blonde haired, blue eyed aristocrat with heaps of royal blood as a martyrdom. Spoiled brat, all the way.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
CathyJane
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4267


« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2014, 09:47:05 pm »

Well said, KF!
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6532


« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2014, 12:56:54 am »

I agree. Very well said KF. She is indeed a usurper.
Logged
cate1949
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6028



« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2014, 01:38:12 am »

like it or not - PC will be KIng - hopefully Camilla will not be queen consort - I do think that would be just too much

but - just cause someone is tall, beautiful and has noble lineage doesn't mean they are great people or a joy to live with - now I am saying this in a general way - but even so-Charles and Diana were obviously not a match made in heaven - oil and water -
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6532


« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2014, 02:58:35 am »

Marriage takes work. With another woman waiting in the wings it gave Charles IMO less incentive to try to work on the marriage. I think he wanted a broodmare to have his heirs and I think he truly believed Diana would be OK with sharing him with Camilla just as APB was willing to share.  Diana thought he would be through with her once he took the marriage vows.

Charles IMO should have had a clean slate, no mistresses hanging about, when he went courting the suitable wife.

Charles and Diana maybe would not have been a match made in heaven even if Camilla had not been around. But marriages made in heaven or not take work. IMO Charles had this huge sense of entitlement and Camilla was greedy and manipulative.

And Camilla was not just the mistress that Charles slept with from time to time--she wanted more and made sure she got most of what Diana had. She also undermined the wife and even usurped her spot as hostess at Highgrove while Charles and Diana were still married. In former days the mistresses never dared undermine the wife or try to take over. Charles gave Camilla carte blanche to trash his wife and the mother of his children.
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2922


« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2014, 03:34:13 am »

I was and am a fan of Diana, and agree that Charles should never have married her, feeling as he did. However, Charles is now married to Camilla, they've been married for years, and things are as they are.

By the time Charles comes to the throne Diana will probably have been dead for twenty years or more. (It will be seventeen years this August.) There's a whole generation of people 25 and under who don't remember her or have faint recollections.

I believe that Charles will test the waters, so to speak, in the months before his Coronation, and if the population seems agreeable to or even apathetic about Camilla becoming Queen, not Princess Consort, then he will seize the opportunity and Camilla will be Queen. He absolutely adores her.
 However, without wishing the woman ill, if there is a long wait for the throne of another ten years or so, I'm not sure Camilla will make it.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35936


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 26, 2014, 03:47:54 am »

I agree; I've often said that William should let his mother go and stop using her, but the thing with Charles and Camilla, is that a wife was stripped of her rightful place and as for difficult, most nineteen year old girls become fruitcakes if they have to be a support system to a thirty year old immature idiot. Most past princesses and queens were in fact never under any pressure other than to breed and be a good hostess while being faithful. Now there are more demands. Second, a mistress becoming a wife usurps the entire structure of society; wives don't like being discarded, but Camilla didn't just rut with Charles, she also went so far as to mess with the already testy Wales marriage, thus making it even worse and driving Diana out of her own marital home.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
RoyalWatcher
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 653


« Reply #32 on: June 26, 2014, 08:08:01 pm »

I think Chuck's kingdom will be substancially smaller by the end of the his reign.

IMO, its all smoke and mirrors about what he is planning on calling Camz...It starts with Q and ends with N.  Queen Camilla.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6532


« Reply #33 on: June 26, 2014, 09:26:38 pm »

I was and am a fan of Diana, and agree that Charles should never have married her, feeling as he did. However, Charles is now married to Camilla, they've been married for years, and things are as they are.

By the time Charles comes to the throne Diana will probably have been dead for twenty years or more. (It will be seventeen years this August.) There's a whole generation of people 25 and under who don't remember her or have faint recollections.

I believe that Charles will test the waters, so to speak, in the months before his Coronation, and if the population seems agreeable to or even apathetic about Camilla becoming Queen, not Princess Consort, then he will seize the opportunity and Camilla will be Queen. He absolutely adores her.
 However, without wishing the woman ill, if there is a long wait for the throne of another ten years or so, I'm not sure Camilla will make it.

Well there is something important left out. William and Harry are Diana's sons. Prince George and future offspring of William and Harry will be Diana's grandsons and granddaughters. The Duke of Windsor has been dead since 1972 and he  is not forgotten even by people who were born well after he died. There are still films being made about him and books are out. Diana will be the same. And Diana left a legacy of royal children as well.  Parents can talk to their children about Diana. People reading about William and Harry will learn about Diana.

Charles will do as he pleases regarding Camilla. As for "adoring" her nobody knows but him how he feels about her now. At any rate he can't divorce her now and have any sort of credibility. I think he adores himself the most and Camilla adores herself the most. They deserve each other. I don't see this as a Great Love Story considering he considered her mistress material and it took a lot of circumstances --Diana's not agreeable to sharing Charles to ultimately Charles naming her and forcing a divorce of the PBs.

Charles married Diana and should have said goodbye to the mistress. Camilla also had manipulative skills and it was not just sleeping with Charles that got her where she is today. I think had Charles been involved with somebody else who was not as pushy as Camilla and who did not undermine the wife, perhaps Diana and Charles could have possibly had some sort of a chance. I think Camilla was and is greedy and manipulative. Charles treated Diana as a broodmare and treated her shabbily.

IMO Charles should have gone for some sort of counseling before he even thought of marrying for the first time. And stopped clinging to Camilla who knew how to push the right buttons. She was not shy about undermining Diana and used Charles own dysfunction and hangups to elevate herself.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35936


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 26, 2014, 10:19:46 pm »

Thing is, that Camilla should be grateful she has what she has.

As for being Queen, if she sets her well ridden rump on the Throne and is crowned Queen Consort, I am dead sure the monarchy will collapse right then and there. Not since Anne Boleyn has a former mistress been crowned Queen, but even Anne wasn't half as used as Camilla was.

For what reasons I do not know, I keep seeing the role of Queen Consort end if Camilla is crowned; the only good thing is how Camilla set the precedent that, any untitled consort will be a morganatic marriage, no princess title (aka, Catherine, Princess) and I believe that if "Princess Consort" stands, then it might end up not having Kate become Queen Consort as well.

I bet you guys anything that the nobility will be in fits if Camilla is crowned Queen Consort and they are forced to do homage to her as Consort.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13947



« Reply #35 on: June 27, 2014, 12:07:06 am »

Whatever Charles gives Camz as title Diana will be like the Rebecca of the coronation. She is not there but everyone will be thinking about her.

It happened at the wedding already. Every royal was acclaimed by the public except these two, I still remember the silence and their faces!

Maybe it will Charles penance? He will be king but he will be a country who is indifferent or dislikes him?
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2922


« Reply #36 on: June 27, 2014, 01:59:32 am »

Yes, Alexandrine, I agree. Diana will be the phantom at Charles's coronation, remembered by older people who loved her. I'm sure Charles is aware of the main reason why he and Camilla aren't very popular with the population at large. Apparently he has discussed privately his knowledge that he will have to answer to God for his actions one day  and referred to himself as 'a miserable sinner'.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6532


« Reply #37 on: June 27, 2014, 03:36:18 am »

Older people who love her. William and harry love her and they are not "older people." I don't think younger people can be dismissed as not caring about Diana. They certainly would not identify with older Camilla. If Charles felt himself a "miserable sinner" he could have stopped his bad choices earlier--I think his sense of self entitlement and his ego prevented any "reform." He had ample time and he even sits back and watch writers bash his late ex wife. I don't have any pity party for him.
Logged
CathyJane
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4267


« Reply #38 on: June 27, 2014, 03:41:14 am »

I don't think Chucky is really aware that he and Cammie are not popular. He seems to think he's still 'action man' of the 70's and loved and admired by all women. Atleast that's the impression I get when I see pictures of him trying to interact with others.
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2922


« Reply #39 on: June 27, 2014, 04:01:27 am »

Of course William and Harry love their mother and will be thinking about her on their father's coronation day. And you are right, they are not old.
However, time moves on and if that Coronation is in another six or seven years there will be people under 30 who remember little of Diana. That doesn't mean that I think that they identify with Camilla or with Charles, for that matter. If the under 30's identify with any of the Royals, it would probably be with Diana's sons.

In my previous post I wasn't excluding the young, merely that the people who followed Diana closely as a young married woman and mother, and later through all her troubles, then her death, would be the most likely to be thinking of what could/should have been.

 I do think that both Charles and Camilla are both well aware of the reasons why their popularity is low. Charles is reportedly a deeply religious man. Where Diana was concerned his actions didn't follow his religious impulses. Hence his remark, I suppose.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!