islandmom

Poor Diana was just a sacrificial virgin. How sad her boys no longer have her guidance.

starrsville

What's bizarre to me is that Camilla could not marry Charles years ago because she was not "suitable" i.e. a virgin...but it's perfectly suitable to entrap a young girl because she was. He spent the night with Camilla the night before the wedding and they became regulars again after Diana delivered "the heir and the spare". The monarchy is twisted - just twisted.

JulieVikmanis

I return to wren's initial comment. Give them a break. These are two people each with only one life to live. After all that's passed before, may they finally have some happiness.

alice13

Fascinating - so many posters wanting to be wittier than the last. And all oh, so superior. But why waste your valuable time posting on such a subject.

You all seem so well informed. I guess you must read the gossip column or human interest pages of the local newspaper wherever you are.

Look - who cares? I ABSOLUTELY DON'T GIVE A **** WHAT THEY DO.

AR

Hear hear Alice! They could get married in outer Mongolia for all I care - as long as it isn't a drain on my hard earned taxes. They are an irrelevance in modern Britain.
As for Diana being a sacrificial lamb! She was a manipulative schemer who used the press when it suited and complained when it didn't.

Spygirl

Well, AR, apparently you and the other poster ARE SOMEWHAT interested in this topic, otherwise you wouldn't even bother to post, now would you?

And as for Diana being a "manipulative schemer" as you put it-that's a vicious little opinion that is wholly without a basis in fact, put out by Charles' camp to make his infidelity look more palatable to the public.

Like I said before, if Diana was so deranged, vicious, lunatic, over-the-top, crazy, daft as people like to say about her-how is it that an estimated 450 MILLION people around the world mourned her death? You think the Queen, Charles or any other living leader, alive or dead could command that sort of respect? She must have done doing something right that others in her family weren't, huh?

And as for Camilla, someone needs to tell that woman to get herself a good support bra!

Viajero2

Well, I'll tell you what-- the day they work for a living people will probably start treating them like ordinary people. In the meantime, let's just say people are just trying to get their money back, if anything, on entertainment value...

When asked, Charles stated that he first met Camilla at a polo match in the early '70s. Apparently, he mistakenly tried to mount her. Isn't it romantic?

Spygirl

Oh Viajero, PLEASE don't make me cramp with laughter so early in the morning-that's not fair!

AR

First off Spygirl, are you from the UK? If not, you have little right to chastise me for my opinions on the royals as I pay more than enough for the right to actually have an opinion.
Secondly, you have to be extremely naive to think that Diana didn't manipulate things a tad. Have you not seen the Martin Bashir interview? Even Andrew Morton admitted that Diana deliberately fed him the information needed for his book knowing the explosive nature of the contents. Why did her "secret" visits to hostels and hospices end up on the front pages of the UK red-tops? Do you think that it was co-incidence that photographers just happened to be passing during these selfless private visits? As for public outpourings during her death, far far more people in the UK were completely ambivolent towards her than those that actually really cared (I mean, really cared). I remember the disappointment in my workplace when it was announced that the funeral would be on a Saturday as we all expected to get a day off - that's how much your average citizen cared. The death of people like John Lennon caused far greater sadness in the UK.

jeffwill4you

John Winston Ono Lennon
Assassinated December 8, 1980
My Birthday.

jmathers

We've just met the first and probably only British person that did not love the People's Princess. I guess fake weddings to people you don't care about and affairs are fine though. Glad to see some still value the institution of marriage.

lyb

Viajero2
----

How witty of you....to steal this line from Jay Leno's monologue!

>>When asked, Charles stated that he first met Camilla at a polo match in the early '70s. Apparently, he mistakenly tried to mount her. Isn't it romantic?<<

Barbara

AR, of course Diana was manipulating the press by the early 90s. She learned from Charles, who had been busy manipulating since before their marriage. Why do you criticize her so much and give him a pass?

Neil_Oz

Merseyheart, as an ageing unreconstructed Anglo-Celtic male I completely agree with you. The adulation of the late Diana has little do do with whatever personal merits she may have had and much to do with romantic twaddle based on dimly remembered childhood fairytales.

It's a sad fact that in this age of superficial mass entertainment the good-looking, the well-groomed (and, it would seem) the wearers of effective support bras get the prize. We, the mug public, know as little about the true nature of the personalities involved as we do about those of the over-hyped entertainment "personalities" whose publicity machines assail us from all sides every minute of the day, and for the same reason - what we're seeing the busy output of PR flacks and spin doctors.

The machine elevated Diana from her rightful place as a rather dim and (as a 19-year-old virgin) unenterprising young socialite to apprentice-Mother-Teresa, tragic heroine and martyr. In fairness, she did have the bad judgement to marry into what seems to be a truly dreadful family. If there's such a thing as a mediocrity gene, they've got it in spades - a great pity when you consider that the British ruling caste has contributed many fine intellects to the nation over several centuries.

It's been said that the last intellectual to sit on the English throne was Elizabeth I, and on present indications that's the way it will stay.

Personally I feel the British people deserve better than this sad circus, but it's up to them to make the call. Fortunately they retain a robust system of government, no thanks to the House of Windsor.

ThinGorjus

Aunt Pat and Uncle Terry are beside themselves that the wedding of Charlie and Cameltoes is being held in Windsor, their home. Aunt Pat is terrified that the press and Yanks, in jeans and white trainers, will be traipsing through her hedges in order to get a good look at the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall.

How tacky--Windsor Town Hall. (Are they going to take a taxi to the town hall, with Camilla done up with a corsage of carnations and foxgloves?) You would think with all of the couple's friends, someone would offer their private estate or castle as a wedding venue.

Even I am embarrassed.

Barbara

Well Neil, as Elizabeth I was the last person to sit upon the English throne, that comment is true. James VI of Scotland, who became James I of Great Britain - never "of England" - following the death of his mother's cousin, Elizabeth, was quite an intellectual though.

The present Queen is no slouch and I think you underestimate her.

The monarchy serves a purpose which could not be served in any other way. It provides stability and a good monarch can serve as a valuable advisor to the Prime Minister. This would not be the case without a monarchy as any replacement would be elected for a specific number of years and would not have the opportunity to gain the decades of experience that the present Queen is able to use to the benefit of the country. Any replacement would, in all likelihood, cost the country more and as we see almost every day there's no guarantee that elected presidents are intellectual standouts.

JJBhoy

"We've just met the first and probably only British person that did not love the People's Princess"

jmathers shows a complete lack of understanding of the British people if he/she really believes that this is the case.

Jim

Neil_Oz

Barbara, I take your point that I should have said "British throne", and I acknowledge that the future of the monarchy is a question for the British people. I do however have some doubts that the reasons advanced are enough to justify the retention of a hereditary head of state, and I'm deeply sceptical that any of Tony Blair's major decisions are affected by whatever advice she can offer. Nor can I see how a properly-implemented republican system could possibly cost the taxpayer more than the current arrangement.

However, my perspective is an Australian one, and in our case the Crown's "value add" is essentially non-existent. The monarch provides no advice to the Australian prime minister, and her functions are delegated to a governor-general effectively appointed by the same prime minister. These few formal functions could as well be discharged by a president, either elected by a two-thirds majority of Parliament (my preference) or by popular vote. I expect this to happen some time in the next 10 years - the only stumbling block is disagreement as to which of these two methods of election should be implemented.

Whichever is chosen, though, it will not look anything like the American system - there is no desire to invest our president with anything like the prestige, trappings and power of the US president. The intention is to create a modest (and inexpensive) presidency capable of signing bills into law, welcoming visiting heads of state, uttering the expected cliches on national occasions and opening the occasional dog show while the government, public service and Rupert Murdoch get on with the real work of running the country.

I agree that elected presidents aren't necessarily very smart, but at least the decision is, for better or worse, in the hands of the people. To suggest that they can't be trusted with the responsibility of electing their leaders because they sometimes get it wrong strikes me as a deeply elitist view which could as easily be used in support of dictatorships.

Madison

Wren - I agree with you, some of the people here are being far too cruel in their comments. If you look at pictures of Camilla when she was in her 30's she was very pretty. No one escapes losing their looks as they get older. Same thing would have happened to Diana.

I truly believe she had a huge, sympathetic heart but also knew exactly how to manipulate the press to her advantage, which sadly led to her demise, that and not putting on her seatbelt.

cigalechanta

"it's a shame youth is wasted on the young."

Help. I dont remember who said it.