Camilla wrote Di off

[grinner]

okay, I am not a Royal watcher of any sort... but please... someone explain to me, why this is important news?
Camilla wrote Di off

By REBECCA ENGLISH in London

June 25, 2004

CAMILLA Parker Bowles branded Princess Diana a "ridiculous creature" in a letter to Prince Charles, it was claimed yesterday.

Her blunt dismissal of Diana is revealed in love letters said to have been written to the prince at least a year before the royal couple separated.

In them Mrs Parker Bowles tells Charles she will be his "forever". She says her "heart and body ache" for him and lists where and when they could meet secretly.

She proclaims her affection with phrases such as: "I yearn to be with you day and night, to hug, comfort and love you" and calls him "My most precious darling".

The revelations threaten to reignite concerns over how Diana was treated by Charles during their 15-year marriage and could also undermine the campaign to win public acceptance of Charles and Camilla's relationship.

The letters were found by Diana, according to her biographer Andrew Morton, whose latest book Diana: In Pursuit of Love is published in Britain today.

In researching the biography, Diana: Her True Story in 1991, Morton claims Diana showed him the letters after being annoyed he doubted her claims that Charles was having an affair with Mrs Parker Bowles.

He says Diana was shocked at the lengths Charles and Camilla apparently went to to meet – including using the houses of acquaintances.

In one letter, Camilla is said to reminisce about a "magical night" they spent together at a friend's house in the country.

Diana also told him about a holiday Charles was taking at a friend's chateau in France. She believed Camilla was going too and encouraged Morton to send a photographer to follow them.

Camilla refers to a lunch she and her husband Andrew were due to attend, at which Charles would also be present, and declares: "I dread the acting part."

Any guilt should be erased from Charles' mind, she advises the prince. She also urges him to rise above what she calls "the onslaughts of that ridiculous creature", an obvious reference to Diana.

In the same letter Camilla calls herself "your devoted old bag" before signing off: "Your hopelessly besotted old friend".

She speaks of writing another note while hiding in a lavatory on the Queen Mother's 91st birthday. "I just hate not being able to tell you how much I love you," she says.

In one letter she apologises for speaking "gibberish" while on the phone to Charles, explaining that her husband had walked through the door.

According to Morton, Diana's discovery of the letters left her devastated and in no doubt that her marriage was over. She and the prince separated the following year.link (http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1268&storyid=1529067)

[scrape_medic]

Its not
Camilla as the wicked witch of the west and make more money for the likes of Mr. Morton.

ETA that should have said " just another attempt to paint Camilla as.....

[abbadon]

Its not
Camilla as the wicked witch of the west and make more money for the likes of Mr. Morton.

"I'll get you My Pretties...."
*excerpt from Harry "Pothead" Windsor and the prisoner of Ascot/car/Ban

[scrape_medic]

abb, very funny...:lol

Theres only one conspiracy surrounding the royal family and that is the one run by the media and other money grabbing b&^*£&$d, to prevent Charlie from marrying the woman he loves. (It never happens like that in Mills and Boon books)

[grinner]

why does he care? isn't he like the soon to be King... or did his mum pass him over.

and besides... what exactly do the Royals do, other than live off of the work of the average Englishman. Like parasites.

[Jellyfish]

why does he care? isn't he like the soon to be King... or did his mum pass him over.
and besides... what exactly do the Royals do, other than live off of the work of the average Englishman. Like parasites.Now now grinner thats not a very nice thing to say...... how very republican of you. The Royal Family work very hard on behalf of the British public and create a lot of employment for their various servants whom they don't bugger very often either. And can I point out that they do not live off the work of the average Englishman they live off the work of all Englishmen, Scots, Welsh and Ulstermen.

The news story is very important as you have clearly failed to appreciate the important fact that it shows that a horse can not only speak but also write love letters.

Its no wonder that Dianna went mad.

[scrape_medic]

It's not about him caring...and he will be the king, eventually. Its the anti-royalists who give a damn, and they tend to be the controlling influences in the press.

The press, as usual, can't get past the idea that they are there to report news, not create it. Every little rumour or scandal surrounding the Royals is reported as gospel, without verification or providence. Its not helped by the likes of Andrew Morton, Paul Burrell, Mohammed Al-Fayed and other former "associates" of Diana Princess of Wales who are convinced that her death was a conspiracy, or at least claim it to be, all the while making money and notoriety for themselves. How they can claim to be doing it in her name, to keep her memory alive or to vindicate her, I don't know.

Anyone with half a heart would not go round claiming some of things that they claim, and ultimately hurting her sons if they really cared about her or the things she loved and cared for.

Personally, I never like the woman, but I won't get into it here. I think Charlie is alright, a bit barmy but likeable none the less. He obviously has always loved Camilla, but was probably prevented from marrying her by the family or something. She then went on to get married herself and Charles was left on his own. But being the futrue king he was expected to do his duty and provide an heir, so he had to get married.

Not being with the woman you love is not the soundest fondation on which to base a marriage, so rather unsurprisingly it was a loveless affair which resulted in an acrimonious breakup.

Camilla now being divorced herself is again available to him, so why should he not be allowed to marry her and find happiness after all; he has done his duty and has two sons to carry on the lineage.

[abbadon]

Now now grinner thats not a very nice thing to say...... how very republican of you. The Royal Family work very hard on behalf of the British public and create a lot of employment for their various servants whom they don't bugger very often either. And can I point out that they do not live off the work of the average Englishman they live off the work of all Englishmen, Scots, Welsh and Ulstermen.

The news story is very important as you have clearly failed to appreciate the important fact that it shows that a horse can not only speak but also write love letters.

Its no wonder that Dianna went mad.


:spew:

[grinner]

fine... I should have said... average UK Citizen :P:P:P

[abbadon]

fine... I should have said... average UK Citizen :P:P:P

Nothing average about our scrape.... ;)

ETA meant to get the word exceptional in there...oops

[VBKatLou]

OT - what does ETA mean?

[DRD2001]

So do y'all really think he'll be the next king? I've always heard that his son will most likely follow Queen Elizabeth to the throne.

As for Charles, I think he is a spineless dip. He should have stood up for himself. Not having the fortitude to do that, he should not have tried to make Diana's life a misery. Plus, I don't think I'll ever get past that letter he wrote about wanting to be Camilla's feminine hygene product. Ewwww...

[grinner]

OT - what does ETA mean?
edited to add

[Third EYe]

so these people known as the royals are real? I always thought that princess di was some sort or actress playing a role cause she wasn't everything they said about here, and kings/queens? aren't they just muppets?

I'm so damned confused, and camilla? what's she about? isn't she part of some canine society?

anyway, who cares about these slobs.

[fermicat]

I don't understand why a modern country needs to maintain a "royal family" anymore.

[Jellyfish]

I don't understand why a modern country needs to maintain a "royal family" anymore.The reason is that if you have a hereditary head of state then you can always claim that you are not responsible when they screw up whereas when you elect them then you can't.

[abbadon]

I don't understand why a modern country needs to maintain a "royal family" anymore.


So we can stay .....Happy and glorious and
Send her victorious....

[BaseLine]

I don't understand why a modern country needs to maintain a "royal family" anymore.

I'm also not so fond of our Royal family, but the primary reason is tradition. It's part of the rich culture.

[abbadon]

I'm also not so fond of our Royal family, but the primary reason is tradition. It's part of the rich culture.

Don't you guy's have an Aussie in there now?

[BaseLine]

Don't you guy's have an Aussie in there now?

Do you mean Máxima Zorreguieta? She's Argentinian. Married with crown prince Willem-Alexander.

[grinner]

so... who(which nation) has the most inbred of Royals? Don't they have to marry like to like? Or is that a practice that was ended.

[scrape_medic]

You could also argue the same case for why any modern country should have a single leader....president, prime minister, queen or otherwise etc....

Okay we don't get to vote for who will be king but that's not the point.

I am not anti-royal, but then again I am not a royalist, and yes they ae expensive to maintain but then I also see that the whole fact we have a royalty and all its sundry trappings generates alot of tourism in this country.

You could argue that a great deal of English Heritage would fall into disrepair if the royals were disbanded or that alot of the great artworks would be lost to private buyers and hidden from the public if the royalty where sold off.

I think that most of the royal palaces are open to the public when the royals are not in residence, even if it is only on a temporary basis.

As for the leadership it provides, personally I think the royalty has been a stabilising influence on the government of the UK for centuraries. Theoretically speaking, and I may have this wrong, if any Government went too far, the Queen could immediately disband it and remove power from the ruling party. She has the power to disband it, therefore anything it tried to pass as law after that would not hold in up in the courts.

Okay that scenario is highly unlikely, but it could be seen to prevent an extremist Government from having too much power.

The Queen is also the leader of the Church of England and as such has a role in religion in England. Okay that has more to do with the rampant rages of Henry the Eigth, historically speaking, but the position still stands.

The royals act as permanent diplomats to the country, who allegiances, thoeretically, are to the UK and not to the sitting Government.

They also act as a focus for many celebrations and national days in the country.

The whole concept of the commonwealth acts to bring together countries as diverse as Canada, Australia, South Africa and India. And okay that was based on the old Empire but that was history, and now it is a uniting force rather than a devisive one.

Parasites, maybe not, useful, I think so. JMHO

[BaseLine]

so... who(which nation) has the most inbred of Royals? Don't they have to marry like to like? Or is that a practice that was ended.

I think the English Royal Family is very strict in that matter. The dutch royal family however has a lot of German blood, now mixed with some Argentinian.

ETA: Funny...just noticed we've lost from both Argentina and Germany in the finals of the World Cup.

[grinner]

I think the English Royal Family is very strict in that matter. The dutch royal family however has a lot of German blood, now mixed with some Argentinian.
yeah, but I thought I read somewhere that the Argentinian lady was of German descent...

[scrape_medic]

Not that strict.....Prince Phillip is Greek

[abbadon]

Do you mean Máxima Zorreguieta? She's Argentinian. Married with crown prince Willem-Alexander.

Yeah I think I was thinking of her....for some reason I thought There was an Australian link....She didn't happen to study/work/grow up there did she?

[grinner]

but he is of Hapsburg descent... isn't he?


nope... Elizabeth married Prince Philip of Greece, whose family name was Mountbatten

[scrape_medic]

You may be right there grinner, they did change the surname at some point

[grinner]

You have the Hapsburg, Windsor(which isn't their original Family Name. That is House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha)... Tudor... I need to find that book that I have that accurately discribes the familial relationships in the Royals of Europe.

[BaseLine]

yeah, but I thought I read somewhere that the Argentinian lady was of German descent...

Nope, she's clean.

[grinner]

here's (http://www.royalty.nu/Europe/) an interesting site.

[abbadon]

You may be right there grinner, they did change the surname at some point


From Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor given the anti german sentiments at the out break of WW1

[grinner]

Nope, she's clean.
hmm... I wonder which one is married to the person from South America, whose family fled during WWII... hmm???

[scrape_medic]

abb you are thinking of this royal wedding in Denmark (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3715449.stm)

[BaseLine]

Yeah I think I was thinking of her....for some reason I thought There was an Australian link....She didn't happen to study/work/grow up there did she?

I do know she lived and worked in New York before moving to Holland. It could be that she lived in Australia for a while.

[abbadon]

abb you are thinking of this royal wedding in Denmark (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3715449.stm)


Aha...That was it....Thanks scrape that would have bugged me..... ;)

[BaseLine]

hmm... I wonder which one is married to the person from South America, whose family fled during WWII... hmm???

I said she's clean. :D

[grinner]

Ahhhhhh... Got ya. So it is the one that I am thinking of...

[scrape_medic]

grinner that is a great site...I especially liked the bit on early irish royalty......:lol

One of the greatest high kings was Niall of the Nine Hostages, whose reign began in AD 379
By 984 Brian was the ruler of the southern half of Ireland. To strengthen his authority in the north he arranged a marriage between his daughter and Sitric Silkbeard, the Viking king of Dublin. Brian himself married Sitric's mother, Gormflaith

[abbadon]

grinner that is a great site...I especially liked the bit on early irish royalty......:lol


yep just dont make kings Like good old Sitric Silkbeard anymore..... :(

[grinner]

The Real Prince Dracula (http://www.royalty.nu/Europe/Balkan/Dracula.html)

[Jellyfish]

I've always wondered why he was called Vlad the Impala I thought it was cause he was difficult to catch.

[abbadon]

I've always wondered why he was called Vlad the Impala I thought it was cause he was difficult to catch.

:snicker:


I was going to buy a couple of those but Then I thought....No they're just too Dear.....

[Antrobus]

Only goes to show that arranged marriages are useless and, in the case of this one, destructive. I think Diana wa probably not treated well, but perhaps not to the extent that her supporters say.

Charles is a royal doofus! Diana let her well founded paranoia get the best of her. As for Camilla, well I guess if she was truly in love with Prince Charles then that was a a stroke of bad luck for her.

The British do like their monarchy it would seem. Such turn outs for Diana And then later for the Queen Mother would indicate that anyway. I do think they serve some good in various ways which have already been mentioned. AND, the queen does pay taxes now!!

As I understand it Queen Elizabeth is in great health and not expected to check out anytime soon. So the next you see ascend the throne will probably be Prince William.

[AgentSun]

lets hope william doesn't learn from his father.

[Mrelia]

I think they keep the royals around so every time they have a scandal, the politicians can say, "Hey, aren't you glad they're not in charge of anythin important?"

[Madre Farbot]

Here's another interesting link (http://www.throneout.com/default.asp)

When Princess Diana married Prince Charles it was just like a fairy-tale marriage, in the sense that it reminded oneself that it felt good to be English, and in a way, proud too. But of course fairytale marriages don't really happen in real life, and that's what this one was; It was a make-believe marriage right from the start!

I've got mixed feelings about the royal family. I don't like them nor do I dislike them. From a money-wise point of view I think my bank account would greatly appreciate a finincial rendezvous, but other than that I wouldn't want to touch 'em with a barge-pole.

When Princess Diana died I think a little bit of everyone died. I'd never felt that way for anyone or anything before. It was like a massive wave of sadness and emptyness that swept over the entire country. I remember signing the book of condolence at I think St. James's Palace? Anyway, it was quite funny really, having waited for like twelve hours or more and finally writing something down worthwhile, I couldn't quite think of what to put down. I suppose I must 'av put down about three lines in all. But the strangest thing was that some people that were signing the book(s) of condolence had brought with them reams and I mean, frelling reams of paper with prepared texts that they were going write down.

I suppose there's a couple of things I'd like to say about the royals. I'm not altogether sure that it will be a good idea to get rid of the royal family. After-all, it is our identity, and it gives us a sense of historic tradition. Still, having stated that it would be nice to get rid of those tax-dodging, art treasure-hoarding, urine-extracting mutha fuggers otta our hair, especially those Kents; Bunch o' **nts.

[BritAngie]

Here's another interesting link (http://www.throneout.com/default.asp)

When Princess Diana died I think a little bit of everyone died. I'd never felt that way for anyone or anything before. It was like a massive wave of sadness and emptyness that swept over the entire country.

Yup I totally agree... the reaction to her death was just.. numbing and soo sad. It was so sudden and so unexpected I think was part of it and also so tragic. The news just really touched people in ways they didn't expect. One work colleague had her daughter ring her in floods of tears with the news and they ended up sobbing on the phone together. Neither of them are particularly interested in the royal family but for some reason it just touched them to the core and it was pretty much the same in that if affected many many people really deeply here. I guess on some level many of us had known Diana through the media since the wedding and in some ways many had grown fond of her. She was probably the best of a bad bunch..but she did seem to try and use her image in a positive way for charities and the like.. For me it was a case of losing someone who I felt was trying to be a good person and whom seemed very loving to her family whereas the rest of the windsors come across as very cold and detached. I guess as with all of us there are some public losses in life that touch us all.. For me in recent years it's been Diana and Douglas Adams.. but there are many more... :(

[scrape_medic]

Gotta say what I hated about all that went on around diana death was the press and the public dictating to the royals how they should deal with her death....for instance insisting that they had a big funeral and that the royals should come out and declare how upset they were.

People should be allowed to deal with a death in the family in thier own way, but because it was diana people felt they could dictate terms on to the grieving family. The royals first duty was to her sons, the lads who had lost thier mother, not the public.

Sure, alot of the public wanted to show thier support of Diana and grieve in thier own way, but to my mind it all got rather nasty and out of hand.

I would have had nothing to do with it but was asked to work providing medical cover for the crowds attending that event. I along with my colleagues were posted to Staples Corner, the point at which the cortage joined the M1 motorway. The experience was esoteric to say the least. What was for most of the day a wide open space, became a claustrophobic crowd just before the cars went past. I was forced to stand in the road, aiding the police with "crowd control"......erm ....excuse me. I was worried about myself or someone around me being pushed in front of the cars by the crowd trying to vie for the best video or still pictures of the event.
Show your respect, yeah for sure, but don't forget your souvenirs of the events here guys. wtf?

It really felt like there were poeple there who were trying to show how much more they 'loved' Diana than the person next to them, arguing over who rose that was that had been thrown in front of the vehicle. I feel sure that this kind of behaviour was not an isolated event.

The next day, Sunday, I spent the day thinking about the event that had happened at the funeral, and to be honest it troubled me. I began to appreciate that many of the people there had no real desire to show respect, but wanted instead to be able to say that they were there.

Later that evening I decided to travel into London and see what was going on for myself; okay, you could argue that I got suckered in myself, but all I wanted to do was see for myself the sea of flowers and read some of the cards that had been left. I got into town at eleven at night and parked up in Picadilly. I walked first to Buckingham Palace, and then from there down the bridle path to Kensington Palace, and later to Harrods were a book of condolence was set up on the street outside the shop. (Reaching there at three in the morning, I was surprised to see poeple still signing the thing).

But it was Kensington Palace that amazed me most. Despite the late hour, the grounds were full of poeple, there were flowers, cards, candle and stuffed toys everywhere. The trees had messages hanging from them like some strange kind of blossom, and groups of people sat in small circles around a number of candles, like camp fires in the park.

As I wandered around I listened to the comments being made around me, and despite it bieng the centre of London, there was a strange quiet which made hearing what people were saying easy. Occasionally someone made a 'negative' comment about the crowd or about Diana. Personally I think this is fair enough, free speech and all that, but it was the crowds reaction to it that really surprised me. That person, who did nothing more offensive than voice his own humble opinion, was rounded on by what bordered on a lynch mob. And that was it, that was what was bothering me, the crowd mentallity of it all.

[grinner]

on the subject of what it costs Briton's to support the Royals... I found this article
Queen costs Britons only two glasses of milk per day

The royal upkeep of Queen Elizabeth II and her family costs each Briton the equivalent of a mere two glasses of milk per day, Buckingham Palace announced.

For only 36.8 million pounds last year, Britain got a royal household busy with a half million pounds of garden parties, use of a private train, renovation of Prince Charles’ home and extra legal work to muzzle potentially indelicate snitches on the staff, the palace said Thursday.

The royal staff has in the past used the price of bread as its index for comparing the public costs of the monarchy. No reason was given for the new focus on dairy.

In the 2003 budget announcement, Buckingham Palace said 61 pence was spent per British subject on Queen Elizabeth, her son and heir to the throne Prince Charles, and some expenses of other members the House of Windsor. The budget was marginally higher than a year earlier - 1.7 percent - but after inflation represented a drop of one percent.

New costs included the quadrupling of the Windsor’s legal budget, thanks mostly to new employee contracts with confidentiality clauses that will keep them from selling their insider scoops to Britain’s gossip-trading tabloids.

That contract work, plus lawyers’ fees related to recent revelations by former employees, ratcheted legal costs up from 32,000 pounds in 2002 to 117,000 pounds last year.

Keeping up the appearances of the royal palaces cost taxpayers 16.5 million pounds, just a bit more than normally allowed by traditional spending ceilings, while the queen’s famed garden parties ate up an additional 514,000 pounds.

While the fires of the royal kitchens roared year-long for 432,000 pounds, wine expenditure was a mere 6,000 pounds - a teetotaller’s sum compared to the 27,000 pounds spent in 2002.

Prince Charles’ official residence, Clarence House, also got a 2.3-million-pound renovation.

It cost Britain 4.7 million pounds for the Windsors to travel last year — including 18 trips on the royal train, for use only by Queen Elizabeth, her husband Prince Phillip and the Prince of Wales, at 43,400 pounds a ride.

Queen Elizabeth’s carriage processions in England cost roughly 69,000 pounds each. The budget does not include all costs related to the Windsor household, particularly security costs. afplink (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_27-6-2004_pg9_1)