Posted on 02/26/2005 3:58:41 PM PST by wagglebee
Was it his "royal obligation" to commit adultery, as well... or was that a voluntary choice on his part?
?????
A flaw in your argument, Charles didn't go back to Camilla after several years and two children, he was with her the night before they got married.
That took nerve.
Pot, kettle, all that.
In terms of "hands on," there have been several allegations of sexual harrassment (not by the Prince, but his staff). I read a story a while back (during one of the lawsuits) that reported how he will call a servant to pick-up a piece of paper he is reading if he accidently drops it on the floor.
Tell it to Mummy.
Thank you Miss Crabtree...
Now carefully step off the barstool and into your ride home...
Your cab has arrived.
I am well aware of heirs who squander wealth; however, it is very difficult to do with the amount of wealth that Charles inherited. Moreover, the royal family's wealth is primarily in real estate, which is generally a very secure form of wealth. And, if I am not mistaken, Charles does not have the complete authority to sell off his holdings as other heirs would.
"Thank you Miss Crabtree...
Now carefully step off the barstool and into your ride home...
Your cab has arrived."
You make my point.
"Pot, kettle, all that."
It takes one to know one, and all that.
There is no source anywhere saying they were sleeping together that nite, which is what you seem to infer. She was married at that time, and their affair had ended pre-Diana (while Camilla was not married). That doesn't mean they didn't still care for each other; obviously they did, she gave him the infamous cufflinks. As I stated in my reply earlier, if circumstances would have been different they should have been together from the start. But it didn't work out that way. Life is funny.
Yeah, but I wasn't pontificating about it.
And I wasn't the one excited about Terri Schaivo dying.
Dear wagglebee,
It's true that it's unlikely that Prince Charles could run his entire estate completely into the ground.
Nonetheless, he could have harmed his estate. Other royals have done so. Instead, he has enhanced it, significantly. In the case of one set of holdings, they have gone from unproductive to very productive.
That is an accomplishment.
I make no claim that Prince Charles is a business genius, or any other sort of genius, for that matter.
But he is not without significant accomplishments.
sitetest
All inherited wealth was stolen from the proletariat and should be returned to them.
No offense intended, but seriously, who wouldn't want to do business with the heir to the Thrown?
I have no problem with his inherited wealth. I also think this is a cheap shot since it was allegedly said 2 years ago and we really don't know the context. However, Prince Charles does seem to have a knack for stepping in it.
I think the continuation of the monarchy is important to British history and culture. I do think that the Queen's children have been particularly disgraceful - perhaps no more than any previous children of monarchs, what with today's penchant for tabloid journalism.
Their behavior certainly doesn't endear people to them - particularly that of the week following Princess Diana's death.
Dear Endeavor,
"No offense intended, but seriously, who wouldn't want to do business with the heir to the Thrown?"
Nonetheless, not every heir has done as well.
Just 'cause folks initially want to do business with you doesn't mean if you don't keep up your end of the bargain, they're going to keep coming back.
sitetest
Give it a rest. This isn't a Schiavo thread. Why don't you go on it and leave poor Charles and Camilla alone. Although I doubt you can do that, as you can't leave Michael Schiavo alone either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.