On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:23:47 -0800, vj <vj.DeleteThis@vickijean.com> wrote:
>vj found this in alt.books.m-lackey, from Mummy Az <manth.DeleteThis@ozemail.com.au>
>:
>
>]You seem to consider
>]it a mutual punishment
>
>i hope that's what they get.
But why?
They've done nothing to hurt you. You're not even in a part of the
world that comes under their rule, so you don't have to worry about
them being Head Of State.
While personally I dislike the morality that had them marry other
people while still loving one another, it was their business and one
that was hugely interfered with by British Law and all the tripe that
regulates who the Monarch and Heirs may marry. While I've not heard
anything Bad about Andrew Parker-Bowles, I was disgusted with the way
the late Princess of Wales handled things - but again it was *their*
business, not that of anyone else.
The late Princess had options. I don't buy for one minute that she
was 'too young' to get herself involved. She was 19, a legal adult.
At 19, *I* had discovered that my fiance was sleeping with someone
else and left him. It was hard. It was embarrassing. But I did it.
A friend of mine was a single parent with a disabled son at 19. She
coped. At 19, you are legally responsible for your actions, and HER
actions were that she married a man she was aware did not 'lurve' her
in a romantic sense, but was willing to share his life and his future
crown with her.
She WAS aware of the relationship between Charles and Camilla right
from the start. She was quite open in interviews given during her
engagement about how she had enlisted the help of Charles' mistress to
'catch his eye'. Given that she had done so, it is not a stretch that
they believed she would be 'accepting' of their relationship -
especially given that it is considered NORMAL among those circles that
you marry for duty and have emotional entanglements discretely on the
side after the heir is born. Indeed, there are many who believe that
Diana herself was the result of one of those discreet relationships
and accepted as the daughter of her mother's husband because 'that is
what one does'.
If you're pointing the finger about swapping bodily fluids, Diana is
FAR more guilty than Charles. She had many affairs, some with married
men - AND she made a point of going to the press about it. She
*bragged* about it on television and in magazine interviews, heedless
of the damage she was doing to her sons at boarding school by giving
their classmates ammunition for taunts.
She had options. She could have been quietly complaisant, as other
Royal Wives have been for centuries past, knowing that she was the
second-most powerful woman in the land (after her MIL) and that in
time she would have been THE most powerful as the wife (and later
mother) of the King. She could have (as a previous Princess of Wales
did) set herself up with a 'rival court' of her own people, lovers and
so on to give Charles hell but refused to divorce him if she still
wanted her place in the limelight. She could have quietly separated
from him, obtained a 'no fault' divorce by simply not living as his
wife for a time (I believe it's 2 years in the UK) then had a chance
at a new life all the while keeping her dignity and coming out as the
'innocent victim' whom most would have supported.
Instead, she exposed herself as a flighty, ill-mannered vixen. One
moment she was screaming that she wanted privacy, the next sobbing
that she had 'lost' her position in the forefront of Women's Magazines
when the editors honoured her pleas. She dumped nearly all her
charities (chosen by her, but funded by her husband's family from her
Charity Budget) claiming she couldn't deal with all their demands on
her, then insisting that they accept her patronage again.
Charles and Camilla, on the other hand, have been discrete with their
relationship. They kept it, as much as possible, out of the media
even after Diana's death. They accepted that his sons might find it
difficult to spend time with her, so they were never together when
Charles had his sons with him. Diana would spend time with her lovers
while the boys were with her - famously, she took them on the yacht
she was sharing with Dodi al Fayed, who died with her in Paris, just a
few weeks before her death.
And now, when Diana is dead, when Charles has heirs from his first
marriage and Camilla is almost certainly too old to provide him with
more children who might challenge the claims of his more 'acceptable'
sons I feel they deserve the chance of happiness.
I accept that you don't feel that way, but I think it's a little
harsh.
Az<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: Poor Prince Charles 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
