Royal Gossip
October 21, 2017, 01:25:48 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

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

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Charles' Toxic Court and Behaviour  (Read 1804 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fly on the wall
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11626


Lady of Threads


« on: April 04, 2017, 01:43:35 am »

inside the toxic court of Charles: How the Prince dropped friends over disagreements, brutally dismissed loyal staff and even made digs at The Queen

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4377214/Inside-toxic-court-Charles-startling-portrait.html#ixzz4dEl1kRcx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Logged

NEVER *despise* correction,for those who correct you ,truly LOVE you .They are willing to displease you and possibly lose your friendship ,rather than see you destroyed. Those who *despise* you ,on the other hand ,will allow you to FAIL...because what do they care ?

Every praise is not good and every criticism is not evil..!
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Online Online

Posts: 3045


« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2017, 02:13:25 am »

I can imagine Charles being like that. I've read things before that point that way, and I think he's probably got worse as he's got older.
Logged
CathyJane
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4321


« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2017, 03:33:25 am »

Hmm I'm not really surprised. Chucky has always been a spoilted *fool*
Logged
Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2017, 09:05:46 am »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4377214/Inside-toxic-court-Charles-startling-portrait.html   2joy  The comments say a lot.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 09:07:28 am by Tatiana » Logged

gingerboy24
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9559


« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2017, 12:50:21 pm »

Nothing new is here, we always knew he was a petulant, vile critter.  Obviously passed it on to bill medd, two peas in a pod with their nasty natures.
Logged
Sheridan_is_appalled
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2017, 02:23:56 pm »

With articles like this coming out, I believe this is the beginning of the Royal Takedown.
Logged

I haven't played since I stopped
Miss Hathaway
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1418



« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2017, 03:15:07 pm »

Charles brought down the monarchy when he turned his back on his wife and married his mistress.   If Diana were still The PoW, elegant and charming in her fifties, the monarchy would be more popular because she had a connection to the populace.  She brought the human touch and hid Charles' idiosyncrasies.  She would have kicked his sons' hineys and told them to shape up, as, not matter what, Diana was a Monarchist and supported the Monarchy and did her duty, and she would have steered them to suitable wives.

Instead, Charles had to have his big-bosomed, blowsey mistress and while people may be "tolerating" the marriage, the distaste still lingers.   The sons of the marriage were left on their own in their teens to figure things out without common sense guidance (Diana), and thus we have the mess today.

Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000



« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2017, 04:12:00 pm »

^^ Well possible. To me it feels though like two camps are at each other's throats/ vying for the public's attention: 1. C&C trying to make "queen Camilla" happen; and 2. the takedown of Charles and therefore the monarchy, with these very revealing anti-Charles (& anti-Cambridge) articles.

No 2 is not that unlikely, at Liz's age the cold from Xmas could have been it and sent Chuck straight to the throne. Well possible that the press is getting ready to unleash all as they said they would after Liz is gone, and a bit of a work-up might quite be necessary, instead of dropping all at once onto the public. Also building up a mood in the public. Very important to achieve a certain goal.
Liz might make another ten years, who's to know.. dontknow
Logged
Sheridan_is_appalled
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2017, 04:27:02 pm »

Chuckles has done himself no favors, that's for sure.
Logged

I haven't played since I stopped
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000



« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2017, 04:36:09 pm »

These recent anti C articles are interesting, to say the least. What really piked my interest is Emelie van Cutsem, so I googled her and came across an interesting article, which shows what a person and family they are, but also this rather revealing bit about the Winds and their supporters (said by Wilhelmina, Emelie's sister):

"Late in the Eighties, however, that sisterly frankness was to cause the first crack in their closeness. Prince Charles and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles, having reignited their passion, were relying on the generosity of friends giving them the discreet use of their homes for romantic trysts.

One of these homes was Anmer in Norfolk, former home of the Duke and Duchess of Kent and, at that time, being rented by the accommodating van Cutsems.

'I told Emilie I couldn't understand how they could do that, with Hugh being a very devout Catholic who went to his priest almost every day to get absolution for practically everything that he might have done wrong,' recalls Wilhelmina.

'I said I thought it hypocritical.
Emilie and I are not Catholics, but she became very cross and said it had absolutely nothing to do with me. I thought I could speak honestly to my sister, but they didn't like it. And, you know, our relationship was never really the same again.

'The more they were involved with the royals, the worse it seemed to be. I've noticed that when people become involved with the Royal Family, they often become secretive, difficult - it's so sad, isn't it.

'As soon as it happens, friends become jealous of each other and agonise over each other's invitations. I'm glad I'm not like that. I like the Royal Family and am very happy to see them - we've had lunch with the Queen at Newbury and we've met other royals at my sister's house when we were still talking - but it's of no real importance whatsoever. But it is important to Emilie.

'I sometimes think it's made them live a little bit beyond their means, but when you get in with high-powered people, that's what happens, isn't it?' "

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1048473/They-Charless-closest-confidantes-van-Cutsem-sisters-embroiled-clash-35m-fortune.html
Logged
Sheridan_is_appalled
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2017, 04:46:11 pm »

^ I don't believe the use of these homes was given out of generosity.  I think threats were made.
Logged

I haven't played since I stopped
gingerboy24
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9559


« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2017, 05:17:03 pm »

^Agree.  The aristocracy must hide and cover so many things for the rf, I think it might curl our hair, and fast.
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000



« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2017, 06:18:14 pm »

I always wondered how they just gave their keys, vacated their own [family] home, so that C&C could have a shag. And then as it turns out someone who is so deeply Catholic. No wonder he went every day for absolution. Hotels, as I eralier said, were out of the question, but actually they weren't. Some of the grandest hotels are known to keep absolutely quiet, and even a tiny B&B would have kept quiet, to stay in favour with the RF, no? Unless they were in Di's side at the time, but that could have been sussed out.

That I never thought of that earlier, but yes indeed, threats, deals & favourable treatment were well possibly done. How I never saw the possibility earlier I don't know.. Definitely good to hear what you all have to say, when my own brain lacks common sense  Kiss
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36255


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2017, 10:45:12 pm »

^ I don't believe the use of these homes was given out of generosity.  I think threats were made.
^Agree.  The aristocracy must hide and cover so many things for the rf, I think it might curl our hair, and fast.

I wager the aristocrats might in fact be writhing over the fact that they're duty bound to be loyal to the Windsors and must basically put up with so much from that family. Queen Mary would take objects that interested her outright and if a member of the RF wants to visit, the entire house has to turn itself inside/out and put up with way too much. Then the men have to watch as their wives get used, or their daughters get used sexually by the princes and then discarded callously. Then of course how the RF treated one of their own (Diana and Fergie) and spent a lot of time putting up with the Middletons panting after William and then had to take legal action against Pippa to get her to back off from Earl Percy. Now the aristos will have to deal with James (Middleton) stalking their daughters and female relatives.
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: 4321


« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2017, 02:35:37 am »

^^ Well possible. To me it feels though like two camps are at each other's throats/ vying for the public's attention: 1. C&C trying to make "queen Camilla" happen; and 2. the takedown of Charles and therefore the monarchy, with these very revealing anti-Charles (& anti-Cambridge) articles.

No 2 is not that unlikely, at Liz's age the cold from Xmas could have been it and sent Chuck straight to the throne. Well possible that the press is getting ready to unleash all as they said they would after Liz is gone, and a bit of a work-up might quite be necessary, instead of dropping all at once onto the public. Also building up a mood in the public. Very important to achieve a certain goal.
Liz might make another ten years, who's to know.. dontknow

It is entirely possible Liz make indeed live another 10 years; but she has to be under huge pressures with her heir and his 'wife' and Willy and his mess. 
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Online Online

Posts: 3045


« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2017, 03:03:19 am »

^^^ The anti Charles articles are in the DM primarily because the author Sally Bedell Smith has written a new biography of Charles and the Daily Fail is serialising it (in its usual cherry picking way.)

 The biography is due out this week, and I'm looking forward to it appearing on my Kindle. Sally has previously written a well known biography of Diana of course and the DM published some of her new and old searing conclusions about Diana earlier this week, as well as painting Charles as saint like for putting up with her. They are also going to be in SBS's new book.

The point is, though, that the DM wouldn't have published any of these revelations about Charles if this forthcoming book wasn't being serialised by them. These disclosures about his character aren't from DM journos but from Bedell Smith. These excerpts will end with publication and the DM will go back to playing its good cop bad cop routine with the royals that attracts click bait and which they've done for years.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36255


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2017, 03:50:32 am »

With articles like this coming out, I believe this is the beginning of the Royal Takedown.

Odd since before, it was believed that Sally was writing a biography that would praise Charles to the high heavens. Now suddenly he's being exposed as an autocratic egotist who is quietly praying that his own flesh and blood mother drops dead so he can usher in a New Age utopia.

I wonder who he made an enemy of lately.
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.
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6780


« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2017, 12:09:30 pm »

For all his "intellectual" posturing, Charles is a darn fool IMO. If he thought people would be sympathetic to his spin about himself and Camilla he really is deluded. Bedell Smith does not like Diana and her spin is laughable. Several comments in the DM ridiculed the story of Charles praying.
Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14092



« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2017, 08:38:52 pm »

I always wondered how they just gave their keys, vacated their own [family] home, so that C&C could have a shag. And then as it turns out someone who is so deeply Catholic. No wonder he went every day for absolution. Hotels, as I eralier said, were out of the question, but actually they weren't. Some of the grandest hotels are known to keep absolutely quiet, and even a tiny B&B would have kept quiet, to stay in favour with the RF, no? Unless they were in Di's side at the time, but that could have been sussed out.

That I never thought of that earlier, but yes indeed, threats, deals & favourable treatment were well possibly done. How I never saw the possibility earlier I don't know.. Definitely good to hear what you all have to say, when my own brain lacks common sense  Kiss

I think your previous article explains it. There is no need of threats. People wanted access to Charles and if they didn't help it they wouldn't get it. People like the Cutsems that are not really part of the aristo set and need the RF would have done anything. It's nothing new. It's like the Midds with a bit more style.
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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 3045


« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2017, 12:00:42 am »

The people offering Charles and Camilla a chance to sleep together were often people in the country gentry hunting, shooting set that Charles and Camilla had known for years and years. They wouldn't always have vacated their homes, indeed that might have looked strange to any domestic staff employed. A small house party of a few very close friends, adjacent bedrooms and everyone concerned turning a blind eye. That's the way it's been done for centuries.

By the mid 1980's many in Charles's circle would have realised that the Wales marriage was in big trouble. Many weren't overly sympathetic to Diana anyway, because she wasn't of their set and hadn't been from the beginning. They chose sides and it came down on Charles's  because of (a) long friendships and (b) his status as POW and future king, a  position with far more influence and social exclusiveness among the elite than his wife's, popular though she was among the people.

(I except from this cynical lot who knew what side their bread was buttered on and in many cases hadn't cared for Diana anyway, Emillie van Cutsem. She had taken Diana under her wing and been like a second mother in the early years of the Wales marriage. Her betrayal in helping C-C at Anmer was a betrayal of the highest order IMO and must have been like a dagger to Diana's heart when she found out.)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   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!