Nobody has nominated her for sainthood. But Charles acted badly, royal precedent or not. He had many years to sow his wild oats and then behave appropriately, or at least discreetly. His grandfather, Elizabeth’s father, did not dishonor the Queen Mother. His father Phillip has kept his rumored dalliances completely out of the limelight, and never has wavered in serving the Queen with distinction over 60+ years. And no queen has been beheaded for disappointing the King since Henry VIII. Charles was not “entitled” to humiliate a young girl and enter falsely into a non-committal union at the altar of the Church of England, as heir to the title Defender of the Faith. He has played the weasel at every level, including the Church.
I suppose there would be a lot to say about any of us, if we had had to make all of our personal mistakes on a spot-lighted world stage, under temptations that most of us can’t even imagine.
His friend has told us that, as he knows Charles today, the Prince is a good man. That’s enough for me. Past is done.
I don’t like Charles, either-he is more in the mold of the less admirable royals of the past than he likes to think-just another royal who thinks he IS entitled to do anything he wants to anyone below him in rank-and I’m also convinced he is not playing with a full deck...
People-especially a lot of Brits-have all but canonized Diana-I find it annoying-she was not a totally unknowing victim in the situation though-she played the game, too after awhile-my neighbor pointed out that was endlessly published after the “squidgy” tapes of her phone conversations with some guy or another.
If Phillip, his grandfather, or any other royal had been subjected to the media coverage of today’s world, they wouldn’t have been able to keep mistresses or anything else out of the public eye unless they’d taken a private jet to a cabin in Siberia for their liaisons-and not even then if they’d texted the plan to anyone or left on the GPS of a cell phone...