Correct: If Charles loved Camilla he would have made the

amother

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 11:03 am

The following comments on a Yahoo discussion are so true!

"If Charles loved Camilla he would have made the sacrifice and given up the throne, love is based on sacrifice. Love is a verb, not a noun. Charles had his cake and ate it too".

"IF Camilla had any integrity, she should have told Charles to stay away, at least until his children were grown. Both he and Camilla put those boys last. Charles did make this situation. However, he was always a whiny weasel. Nothing but a piece of fluff".

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyl......html

Imho, as of Sept 8, 2022, Britain has the most selfish King and Queen consort.

amother

Iris

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 11:05 am

amother OP wrote:

I hate both of them, but Why would giving up the throne be putting his kids first ?

Alternative

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 11:10 am

amother OP wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyl......html

Imho, as of Sept 8, 2022, Britain has the most selfish King and Queen consort.

Umm, because all previous monarchs were faithful, loyal spouses?
Please....indeed, I would guess that historically, Charles was far less of a cheater than most of his predecessors. There seems to be no evidence that he cheated with any other women. Most previous princes/kings had scores of affairs, flings, etc.
Charles just got unlucky in terms of the era, PR and the public's adoration of Diana.

Last edited by Alternative on Sun, Sep 18 2022, 11:25 am; edited 2 times in total

Alternative

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 11:14 am

amother OP wrote:

Charles had this thing for Camilla before he met Di, he should have told his mother I cant be fake, I want to marry Camilla. The end. No hurt Di, no hurt kids.

You must be under the age of forty, or just naive. That wasn't a done thing in previous eras, certainly not if you had the whole monarchy and history of Britain to answer to. You didn't just do what you felt like - that was considered a lack of loyalty and integrity to your duty.

Cheating, on the other hand, up until Charles - the public tended to turn a blind eye to that. That was your private life. Publicly you did your duty, privately you were given some leeway.

shabbatiscoming

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 11:17 am

Alternative wrote:

Of course it was. What aboutQueen Elizabeth's uncle? He did exactly that. He knew who he loved and abdicated from the thrown. And that is why elizabeth became queen when her father died.

Notsobusy

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 11:19 am

shabbatiscoming wrote:

Of course it was. What aboutQueen Elizabeth's uncle? He did exactly that. He knew who he loved and abdicated from the thrown. And that is why elizabeth became queen when her father died.

True. But this was extremely unusual and the whole world was shocked.

Edited for spelling mistake

Last edited by Notsobusy on Sun, Sep 18 2022, 1:16 pm; edited 1 time in total

Alternative

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 11:31 am

shabbatiscoming wrote:

Of course it was. What aboutQueen Elizabeth's uncle? He did exactly that. He knew who he loved and abdicated from the thrown. And that is why elizabeth became queen when her father died.

Yes, but he wasn't admired or respected for that. The respectable thing to do would have been to do his duty as king.
Had Charles also abdicated for love, the woman he loved (Camilla) would have become a pariah, just like Wallis Simpson was - the evil woman who took the king away from his royal duty.
It was a lose-lose situation. Charles likely saw what happened to his uncle, who had to live the rest of his life in exile, and decided he did not want that kind of future for himself or his family.

Last edited by Alternative on Sun, Sep 18 2022, 12:05 pm; edited 2 times in total

amother

Gold

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 11:47 am

You may need to watch the Crown to get a little bit perspective and understanding. ( I believe it is relatively accurate)

1) David, Queen Elizabeth’s uncle with the older brother, and he would have been king instead of Queen Elizabeth’s father. Not after he died.
2) he didn’t have any children, so Queen Elizabeth still with an heir to the throne.
3)Charles loved Camilla long before she was married to her exDH, the crown forced them to get married to get her (and Andrew Parker Bowles who was having a fling with Princess Anne) out of the picture.
4)It is questionable how much Charles ever loved Lady Di, my perception is that it was a rushed marriage of the future king with a girl child who was deemed the quintessential princess/future Queen consort. (She was what 19 to his 32?)

We cannot look at history with today’s lenses. From where I am sitting he should have (been allowed to have) married Camilla Shand in the first place.

amother

Caramel

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 11:54 am

amother Rose wrote:

If I know my history right, Camilla got engaged to her ex before Charles got engaged to Di. Would things be different otherwise? We can't know if he would not have broken tradition to go with her.

Camilla actually had already married at some time before he met Diana. Charles was having an adulterous affair with her already with full knowledge of her husband btw, at some point. It was public knowledge and looked very bad for the RF so they were pressuring him to find a suitable girl to marry and settle into marriage. Diana found out about their affair shortly before the marriage but felt it was too late to break things off. All of this is quite well known and told over by Diana herself in her now famous interview. None of the royal family, including Charles, has ever disputed any of it

(The Crown is a fictionalized version of events so not necessarily the best way to learn the true BRF history....)

amother

Gold

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 11:59 am

amother Caramel wrote:

We Google most of it to verify time like and accuracy [quote]

amother

Moccasin

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 12:00 pm

My understanding is that by the time Charles wanted to marry Camilla she was already married/engaged to Andrew Parker Bowles. He was then under pressure to marry since he was 30 already and had to produce heirs and so he married the most suitable girl he around Diana.
Up until then the norm was not to marry for love, and therefore the expectation was that he would marry the most suitable girl however, times had changed and by this time most of the general public marrying for love and therefore Charles was one of the first of the Royals to have to deal with this. His great uncle Edward would’ve dealt with a similar issue, but it was a relatively new issue for the Royal family to deal with.

amother

Ruby

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 12:15 pm

amother Gold wrote:

Agree with this.

He wanted to be king. He knew he would.

He was probably not impressed at all by his uncle's actions and didn't view them as imitation-worthy.

His mother denied him the option of marrying his true love. Just looking at their current relationship, I don't think he would've cheated on her. He would have been faithful to her and no one would have this argument about his infidelity.

He was FORCED to marry Diana because he knew that abdicating was not an option for him. He never loved her. The problem is the world did. She was absolutely charming. That must have been so hard for Charles. Everyone in the world thinks he's the luckiest man in the world for having this gorgeous, kind, wonderful woman at his side, and he doesn't feel any of that.

I know that if I had a chance to be Queen of a 1st world country so long as I would give up marrying the man of my dreams, I WOULD CHOOSE TO BE QUEEN.

Charles's choices seem extremely logical to me.