CAROL AND CAMILLA - MARRIAGE IN APRIL!!!

Let others know the latest news, or discuss it with them.

Moderators: Vega, EC

real_lord

CAROL AND CAMILLA - MARRIAGE IN APRIL!!!

Postby real_lord » Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:43 pm

ATTENTION!!! ATTENTION!!!
Well... a message of the day. Prince Carol decided to marry Camilla Parker Bowles in April TUTUTUTU!!! After 30 years they say. HAHAHAHA:(((. Last year I visited London quite good as I remember. Our guide used to be a woman who had very cheerful personality and liked money veeeeeeeeery much (no doubts). Things I learnt there suit perfectly to present events in House of Windsor. I mean our charming female guide informed us that the couple ( I mean Carol and Camilla) met for the first time as teenagers and were in big love with each other at once but Parker Bowles is catholic and since reformation and establishing the Church of England in GB by Henry the VIII (the guy who had six wives and killed two of them) catholics are in big disgrace there as deals all most important public posts. And it suits too cause the wedding of Carol and Camilla is possible only because succesion to the throne must have been secured for Carol. In case of marrying Camila instead of Diana – no right for succession to the British throne for him. He must really like to feel power. Camilla is divorced catholic with living spouse and their wedding in Church of England is possible (Carol was divorced from his today late ex-wife). Not the worst mess Church of England is able to do! But still remember Camilla – according to anti-catholical historical tradition will be deprived both titles of “Princess of Wales” and “Queen”. I don’t know if you know but you should that life of Carol’s grandfather – Edward the VII was totally similar to the life of his grandson (people in London say things like that). He married beautiful Dutch Princess Alexandra just to betray her all his lifetime. She suffered in silence and no TV at the beginning of XX century to make her a “queen of hearts” like Lady Di has been seen. He (Edward) ascened to the throne at the age of 59 (he was the oldest son of queen Victoria – the one who set British empire in the XIX century). Hahahaha – all epoc of her long ruling is found to be “victorian” – people must have been moral and God-fearing and her eldest son was such a womanizer hahahaha:(((.
People in London say that Camilla is totally unlike Diana. But quite nice and sincere. When they (Carol and Camilla met for the first time she was supposed to ask him:
- Hi Carol! I am Camilla. What do you think about your grandfather and my grandmother’s affair?
Other girls were trying to be nice to Prince of Wales etc. and she was quite different. As you can read no mercy for Dutch Alexandra had Camilla’s grandmother and she acted the same way as deals Diana.
Another problem from historical point of view Carol is really pitiful son of queen Elisabeth II. Of course he could marry catholic Camilla if he had loved her but it meant no succesion to the throne for him. He couldn’t resign and under pressure of his mother probably married Diana for children cause he was 35 and everyone in the court surely knew he continued his love affair with married Camilla. Earlier in British history there was ONE example of abdication because of love. Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 because of his marriage to Mrs. Wallis Simpson twice-divorced American.
People in London talk very badly about Prince Carol, his bad treating of others and lazyness. Of course in whisper cause offcially is forbidden to talk badly about royal family. Probably latest crazyness of prince Harry – the nazi disguise discouraged public opinion to see in him the next king. All in all as far as I know he has never been interested in it. People in London think royal family is lazy and don’t like schools. Well… being just born so rich probably doesn’t serve well as deals education.
But to be just people in London have lot of compassion for Carol too. Queen Elisabeth used to be very cruel mother of him and British queen-mothers are totally unlike Diana who used to be a kindergarden nurse! His mother prefered to stay with her husband at sea than taking care of little Price Carol (court servants paid 7 pounds per hour bring up royal children in GB) and when coming home at the sight of her little son at the age of 4 then who wanted to hug his mother at last she was giving him her hand to kiss and greated him coldly “Nice to see you, Charles”. She wanted to bring up him as a good monarch in future. For other children they say she was much less cruel and demanding. But on the other hand people in London say charles 50 something is unable to put toothpaste on his toothbrush and servants must do it for him. I prefer to stay silent about other things they must do before Charles flushes the toilet.
THE END for today:))).
real_lord

User avatar
Shazzam
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
Location: Australia

Postby Shazzam » Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:58 am

The message here really is "Man or Mouse". Very hard to make up my mind which he is. Let's face it he has been unemployed for so long he has lost touch with reality. Most people I have spoken to find it hard to believe that his children (William and Harry) would be perfectly comfortable with the marriage (as they knew what the relationship between Charles and Camilla had done to their mother). Really who cares! Let him get married to the old "rotty". She obviously plays the mothering role for him that he obviously craves.

If he had any idea of what the public wanted he would sign over his position to his son and help him prepare for the role. There is no way that it is acceptable for him to be King. When you consider the issues faced by 'Edward and Simpson'.

I know that times have changed but really who wants a Queen that has children from a previous marriage (what will their titles be). I think he should just take up gardening fulltime ; grow Camillia's.

I'm glad Diana isn't here to witness all this. She suffered enough at the hands of a spoilt brat.

They deserve each other!

real_lord

Hello:)

Postby real_lord » Fri Apr 08, 2005 5:02 pm

Thanks for you nice letter. Gloomy day today for me but don't you think that YES - Charles and Camilla do deserve each other but there are Henry and Wiliam who suffer the most in this all ~ that has been done for a long time by their own parents.
I was told that there are servants who bring up young princes in Great Britain mostly. And as deals old Prince Charles they say no hug for him from his mother who - when he was 5 year old kid - had a custom to welcome him offcially "Good morning, Charles". Was she normal, then? :roll:
And my favourite topic is always who should bring up young people. People think that many issues have easy solutions but that's not true - no simple solutions for big problems of contemporary world. And what I remeber the most probably as deals teaching of John Paul II regarding problems of young people etc. etc. is his voice "this needs bringing up.that needs bringing up. Just bring them up!".
YES. But who should "bring them up", Pope? Servants? Me? I don't feel my work makes sense when their own mother has one love affair after another and is still found to be "saint" and worshipped as a "saint". Adding to all this embarrassing stuff my salary - sorry, no compassion from me to Lady Diana Spencer - kindergarden teacher in her youth.
real_lord, Poland:(((

LAURA45
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:56 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

LONG LIVE PRINCESS DIANA

Postby LAURA45 » Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:22 pm

I REALLY CANT BELIEVE THAT WILLIAM AND HARRY HAS ACCEPTED CAMILLA. ITS OBVIOS THAT CHARLES BRAINWASHED PRINCESS DIANAS SONS.PRINCESS DIANA WAS TOO GOOD FOR THAT ROYAL FAMILY. AS FAR AS IM CONCERNED THE ROYALS ARE NOTHING. THEY ARE USELESS AND WORTHLESS.. NO ONE WILL EVER TAKE PRINCESS DIANAS PLACE... CAMILLA AND CHARLES ARE SO UGLY THEY DESERVE EACH OTHER. THE ROYALS ARE NOTHING NOW THEY BEEN NOTHING SICNCE PRINCESS DIANAS DEATH. PRINCESS DIANA BROUGHT LIFE INTO THAT FAMILY....PRINCESS DIANA WILL ALWAYS BE THE PEOPLES PRINCESS AND QUENN OF OUR HEARTS CAMILLA WILL ALWAYS BE NOTHING BUT AN OLD UGLY WRINKLED UP BAT SAME WITH CHARLES AND WILLIAM AND HARRY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES FOR ACCEPTING CAMILLA AFTER WHAT SHE DID TO THEIR MOTHER!!!!
PRINCESS DIANA 4EVER!!!QUEEN OF OUR HEARTS.

LAURA45
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:56 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby LAURA45 » Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:45 pm

PRINCESS DIANA WILL ALWAYS LIVE ON IN THE PEOPLES HEARTS. WE WILL NEVER FORGET HER.SHE TRULY WAS THE PEOPLES PRINCESS...AS FAR AS IM CONCERNED THERE IS NO ROYAL FAMILY, THAT DIED WHEN PRINCESS DIANA DIED.CHARLES AND CAMILLA ARE NOTHING PERIOD. I HOPE THEIR LIFE IS FILLED WITH NOTHING BUT BAD LUCK.. CAMILLA WILL GETS HERS ITS JUST A MATTER OF TIME.THERE ARE TOO MANY PRINCESS DIANA FANS OUT THERE.I HOPE THE WHOLE ROYAL FAMILY ROTS IN HELL FOR HOW THEY TREATED PRINCESS DIANA.. SHE WAS MURDERED AND THE ROYAL FAMILY AND PRINCE CHARLES HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT...CAMILLA AINT NOTHING SHES ONE UGLY WRINKLED UP BABOON...I HOPE SOMEONE GETS HER FOR WHAT SHE HAS DONE TO PRINCESS DIANA.. MAY THE ROYAL FAMILY INCLUDING CHARLES AND CAMILLA BURN IN HELL....
PRINCESS DIANA 4EVER!!!QUEEN OF OUR HEARTS.

real_lord

hello nice woman from US:)

Postby real_lord » Sat Apr 09, 2005 7:05 pm

today I have watched (little bit) a TV transmision from the royal wedding. I was dying with laughter! US journalists (I don't know which part of US they came from) were seemed to be frozen to death and that what I understood the most in their relation while British commentators were just ENCHANTED with everything. Total glory on their faces! They were doing nothing but expressing words of applause for Camilla, Charles, everyone in the court (you know - BBC worldwide broadcast).
Camilla had something on her head. "It" was interesting and nearly blown by wind. Charles didn't have anything on his head cause he is mostly bald. Moreover comapred to my last visit in Windsor last year they did quite good cleaning there as it seemed to me! Great thing, really!
And now the most important - I have watched a nice documentary about royal family in GB and it was told there that Diana Spencer knew BEFORE MARRIAGE they were three of them inside this particular relationship. So was she wise marrying such a ugly, boring and stupid man while could marry someone more interesting probably +more handsome but ....poorer? :roll:
Do you still think I should worship her as a "queen of hearts"?
As deals Charles and Camilla I realised watching this documentary (on Polish TV) their only activity during lifetime have been:
-buying new mansions & redecorating old ones
-hunting
-travelling
-horses and polo games.
What a hardworking life they have, don't they? :(
And the same sorry I feel for two children of Camilla - what a wonderful mother they have. Really.
real_lord:)))

Linda01
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:30 pm
Location: United States

Hello everybody!

Postby Linda01 » Sat Apr 09, 2005 7:09 pm

Just weighing in here as a new user. I live in Illinois, U.S. quite far north just a couple of miles from the Wisconsin border. Because of the time difference, I didn't get any news this morning about Charles & Camilla so went to the 'net to have a look at that hat! (I predicted that hat; no tiara for Cammy. :lol: ) Anyway, the whole thing has been such a grind I'm glad it's over and we don't have to worry about their thing any more. I am a big Princess Diana fan and always will be. Her death certainly taught us that the good die young and the idiots will live on and on. I was talking to somebody today about the Princes, though. I seem to recall that William was only 13 or 14 (?), and Harry around 8 or 9, when they followed their mother's casket up the street. Even now they probably have no experience to draw upon for consideration with respect to their dad marrying anyone else. They're not stupid, but they're not worldly either. I bet that whole scene is one nightmarish blur for Harry because he was so young at the time. Whether you do right, or you do wrong, we all have one tiny little short life on this earth . . . and then you know where we go - one way or the other. The scores will be tallied up then and no sidestepping by the Archbishop will be considered.

Remember . . . there'll always be an England.

Have a wonderful weekend, Britain! I hope it's as beautiful there today for you as it is here.
Linda01

p.s. Hey - does this web site have a live chat room?

real_lord

hello once again:)

Postby real_lord » Sat Apr 09, 2005 7:44 pm

I have to stop to write here for a moment cause it doesn't serve my concentration the best! :( but I like your letter though I really don't know if it a great thing to be dead in car accident somewhere close to Paris and leave to adolescents at home. What do you think about it? Was she so poor she had to think about securing so called good future for her children or what going with son of his father then? Probably not so bad as deals economy of British royal family, I do hope.
All in all no real Lord from me. Merely humble real_lord. The idea for this nickname of mine was started just close to Windsor - on green lawn there - about one year ago (hahaha). But on the other hand wouldn't be nice to live happy life and do totally nothing? :roll:
That's all by now. Don't forget about real Lord who is little bit above your pure head and observes your nice daily routine each second. Do quietly and carefully what you should, be always honest in your job and that should keep you out of this nasty moment of ...emptiness when your next US Holy Father will die. I think about the emptiness that will come surely - maybe not because JAMES Paul II has just died but because he has been such a nice, honest and hardworking daddy and you are such a total, lazy, mess-making zero compared to him. :( :( :(
God bless you:)
:)))
real_lord:)))

Guest

Re: hello nice woman from US:)

Postby Guest » Sat Apr 09, 2005 8:01 pm

real_lord wrote: And now the most important - I have watched a nice documentary about royal family in GB and it was told there that Diana Spencer knew BEFORE MARRIAGE they were three of them inside this particular relationship. So was she wise marrying such a ugly, boring and stupid man while could marry someone more interesting probably +more handsome but ....poorer? :roll:
Do you still think I should worship her as a "queen of hearts"?
real_lord:)))

So it was true that she was having an affair. :roll:

real_lord

hmmm,

Postby real_lord » Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:09 pm

question is great but who can answer it?!? Good Lord alone probably. Sometimes it seems to me this "poor" woman wanted to beat his even poorer husband. They say two women in his life and in her life - five men, six men or seven maybe.
Good Lord - who can count it? On the other hand I am neither any Hercules Poirot to trace any criminals nor Agatha Christie to write detective stories about it! I am not paid for that - it's sure:)))
Any other questions, dear young lady from California?:)))
real_lord, Poland:)))

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:55 am

Wasn't her marriage with Charles arranged? They decided that she was the best suitable maiden for him or something like that. Or it was some kinda tabloid again?

real_lord

another hmmm,

Postby real_lord » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:48 am

probably her marriage has been arranged though I don't know.
They say she had a job and loved kids - somehow I have doubts today. Interesting, why? :roll:
Yes - she was young while marrying - about 20 or less. Couldn't she the more wait? What for such a hurry?
And family - I know, I know, I know. But all in all I have my own common sense and brain and my mistakes will always be MY MISTAKES (not my family's mistakes) and I can blame myself for my own stupidity. I think it's more sincere than blaming my parents or whomever, don't you think? :roll:
Never better,
real_lord
PS. They say it's tradition that EACH Prince of Wales has always had a lover. So surely Diana Spencer must have known about such a great tradition or really dumb woman was she!
And looking at the polls - Brits don't want Charles for the next king, they prefer William. ~ story, don't you think?
In Poland noone cares about any polls but in Britain who knows what end of royal family there when Charles and Camilla will start their disliked reign? Maybe revolution or what? :roll:
Nice day though, :)
r_l

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:41 pm

Thanks for your answer :D . I think I read about that "arranged" marriage of theirs in People Magazine long time ago. I was a bit shocked about her decision. I remember Diana said in the article that it was love at first sight for her. And she chose to be in the royalty family because she thought Charles was a lonely man without love. My memory about this is not vivid right now; therefore, the information I'm giving could be wrong. I'll try to find that article again, so I could share with you all here. ;)
One thing I wanted to point out from this whole thing is that I feel sorry for both of them. I mean, if they were not people from upper-class or related to the royalty in any way, their love could be acceptable to anyone. Let's remember, he's not the only widow man who gets married again. There are so many widow men out there are re-married after their wives have passed away. That's life! One's gotta move on with his/her life; that person can't just stay in the same state forever if he/she could find love again. That's unfair. It's because he/she was not the one who died first, he/she couldn't move on????? But for Charles's case, it's unacceptable because Diana is their goddess and she was or still is a bigger people person than Cammy. Also, to them it is Charles's fault that Deedee has passed away. Sad sad sad to me that love can't be accepted.
Another point is about William and Harry (is it Henry or Harry?!?!?!). I haven't read about them much on the news so I don't know what their reaction about this is, but based on Laura's post I think they've accepted the wedding. Is there anyone with me who thinks their acknowledgment is mature and thoughtful. They've opened their arms to welcome the woman who is the love of their father's life. That's what family is about. Be there and be happy and be supportive for each other. I think they've done a good job. High-five for them. 8)

real_lord

High-five?!? hahaha:(((

Postby real_lord » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:03 pm

I don't think life is so simple. Really. High-five but when no children. With children high-five?!? Maybe your point of view - not mine. But people must differ somehow.
Personally I think Camilla is HOPELESS. She is HOPELESS - I repeat. Maybe I sound boring but she became a reason of divorce, she neglected her two kids because of Charles and he forgot about his wife and became commited with Camilla.
This all seems to be quite an awful hell and I know that some situations in life have only one solultion-WAIT and OBSERVE.
And solution will come, you will see.
Probably Camilla will be fed up with her sweetheart after honeymoon. Quite different thing is have a sex with four lovers and quite different slip over their dirty socks close to bed or this kind of daily mess, you know. They say this guy is unable to put a toothpaste on his toothbrush without servants - are you really sure Camilla thinks about anything but her title of queen etc. when she ruined her family - specially kids?!?
Hahaha - from my point of view to you, then.
BUT if Diana was wiser - some royal mothers are - instead of looking for another and another lover she would have rather commited the more to charity etc. and the more should have taken care of her two kids. Now no chances old, stupid Charles would have as a next monarch and she could love him out!
And people would always be on her side.
What more?
love - what is love simplyblessedwithlove?!?
I ve always tried to guess WHERE THE TRUTH IS?!?
Love is blind - that is what I know about love.
Good luck in your life nice girl - and many other nice persons whom I got known thanks to EC:)))
real_lord

User avatar
Shazzam
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
Location: Australia

Postby Shazzam » Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:32 am

Here here! Couldn't agree more. The kids are really the issue here. Not who arranged what or who died first. Sounds like no member of the Royal Family has learnt anything along the way (in connection with parenting). It is unfortunate that the the word 'affair' ;) is used to describe Charles and Camilla's relationship. It is obvious that it was always more than that. I think if it had just been sex, Diana probably would have accepted it. There is more to their relationship than just sex by the looks of things. I must admit though I have found some of the discussion on this issue really interesting. It has been a horrendous fortnight. We have lost a GREAT Pope a man who was loved and respected throughout the World. Then we have the issue of should Charles be King. What a week. :(

Time will tell. No matter what anyone thinks.

Guest

Re: High-five?!? hahaha:(((

Postby Guest » Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:34 am

real_lord wrote: I don't think life is so simple. Really. High-five but when no children. With children high-five?!? Maybe your point of view - not mine.

What are you mumbling about? :?

real_lord wrote:But people must differ somehow.
Personally I think Camilla is HOPELESS. She is HOPELESS - I repeat. Maybe I sound boring but she became a reason of divorce, she neglected her two kids because of Charles and he forgot about his wife and became commited with Camilla.

When Diana was still alive, you mean? :?

real_lord wrote: love - what is love simplyblessedwithlove?!?
I ve always tried to guess WHERE THE TRUTH IS?!?
Love is blind - that is what I know about love.
Good luck in your life nice girl - and many other nice persons whom I got known thanks to EC:)))
real_lord

You've said it yourself, love is blind! Or it's blind when you can blind the other person into loving you. Whatever. It's hard to explain love because there are so many meanings for love. There are so many ways to express love, to be in love, to be loved, to love, et cetera. I remember some sentences about love that I've read from Scott Peck's book.
"Love is not simply giving; it is judicious giving and judicious withholding as well. It is judicious praising and judicious criticizing. It is judicious arguing, struggling, confronting, urging, pushing and pulling in addition to comforting. It is leadership. The word "judicious" means requiring judgment, and judgment requires more than instinct; it requires thoughtful and often painful decisionmaking."
To be loved, in love, to love require more than just "I love you" words and everything will be solved. The feelings of sacrificing, the risk of loss, independence as well as dependence, commitment, confrontation, and so on make love love. Thus, was there love between Charles and Diana? Was it real that it could fade so fast with time? Was it true that they finally decided to go on in their separated ways? Which love is real, his love for Diana or his love for Camilla? Is it wrong that she can't pull her heart out of the loving feelings she has had for the man she loves for the rest of her life? Is it wrong that parents get divorced although their kids don't mind about it, but in others' eyes they have abandoned theirs????? More and more questions I'd like people who think their thoughts are just to answer. :roll:

User avatar
Shazzam
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
Location: Australia

Re: High-five?!? hahaha:(((

Postby Shazzam » Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:22 pm

Personally I think Camilla is HOPELESS. She is HOPELESS - I repeat. Maybe I sound boring but she became a reason of divorce, she neglected her two kids because of Charles and he forgot about his wife and became commited with Camilla.
This all seems to be quite an awful hell and I know that some situations in life have only one solultion-WAIT and OBSERVE.
And solution will come, you will see.
Hahaha - from my point of view to you, then.



BUT if Diana was wiser - some royal mothers are - instead of looking for another and another lover she would have rather commited the more to charity etc.



I have taken these sections from your conversation as they seem to link up. What is so disappointing about this debate is that we have forgotten that Diana didn't want a divorce she fought against it. She didn't want her children to come from a broken family; as she had come from one herself.

Yes she made mistakes; they both did. But I believe that she thought that maybe one day there could possibly be a reconcilliation between them. In addition I don't know of any other person from the Royal Family (or private person for that matter) that supported as many charities as Diana did. Her foundation today still supports the charities that she championed. She was tireless. She worked with lepers; aids victims, landmine victims, etc (basically the untouchables of society).

I also don't believe that it was an arranged marriage. If you read some of the material available ie. A Princess in Love; A Royal Duty (Paul Burrell) or even the Morton Book; Diana. You will see (as the public in Australia saw when they came here not long after there marriage) that she really loved Charles and I believe that in his own way he was in love with her too. There are different types of love and obviously theirs wasn't the everlasting type. However they did produce two beautiful boys. I hope for their sake that the World does remember that their parents did love each other; and unfortunate as it is, one feel out of love with the other. Also I would like to raise the point about her running off and leaving the boys; the boys were at college she was away whilst they were at school (as they were in boarding school). She was heading back to be with them for the school holidays when the accident happened.

There is no doubt that Charles was in love with Camilla his whole life (just about). Typical he procrastinated; and she married another.

The Royal Family, I think is trying to bring its traditions in line with the new milleniuim; however there are some traditions they can't escape.

One of which is that the reigning Monarch is the head of the Church of England. Having this title means you have to abide by the stipulations placed by the Church.

Comes with the job! :lol:

Now that Charles has found true happiness with his new bride the focus should be "is he fit to be King; and indeed the head of the Church of England?"

There lies the question!

[/quote]
Last edited by Shazzam on Wed Apr 20, 2005 3:54 am, edited 3 times in total.

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:06 pm

Image hmmmmm.... one interesting post, shazzam1452. I'm gonna check out her books in the library. I have never read her books or books about her; I've read articles about her here and there only. Maybe there are some missing links that I need to chain them together?!?!!? :?

User avatar
Shazzam
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
Location: Australia

simply blessed

Postby Shazzam » Wed Apr 20, 2005 3:50 am

Sorry about the first part of my post (i tried to copy what real lord had put in) unfortunately it did't come up as a quote. I hope you can determine what my message was from real lord's.

I definately recommend the Paul Burrell Book (A Royal Duty) it is a really good read. [/quote]


Return to “Current News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests