You know, I'm starting to actively dislike the all too many Freepers who are so nasty on a consistent basis. No wonder the FR website gets knocked for the meanness of a lot of their posters.
What did Charles ever do to any one of you? What do you have against the monarchy which is pretty much in name only? Without the monarchy, there wouldn't be much reason tourist-wise to visit that rainy country. It's the monarchy that draws people to it. Plus, without the monarchy, the tabloids would be out of business (which would probably be a good thing as they are as vicious as some of our posters). Charles had to produce an heir to the throne and thus was pretty much told by his family to find a young virgin, thus he married Diana. It was his royal obligation. For the first years of their marriage they got along fine, obviously had a close relationship as they produced two sons, and it was only, I believe, when Charles gradually discovered that his wife's head wasn't screwed on too tight, that he went back to an old flame Camilla. (Example of Diana's instability: while pregnant she tossed herself down a stairway, much to the horror Charles, as an attention-getting mechanism, or because of her schizoid tendencies.) Leave Charles alone to enjoy the later years of his life with a woman he has been loyal to for 30 years, and had circumstances not been what they were, should have been with from the get go. Get off his back.
I have a problem with adultery in general. I don't have to accept the mistress once she becomes a wife.
I wonder why you singled me out. Compared to some comments on this board, mine was pretty mild. What's up?
Said by someone who has obviously never been there.
Plus, without the monarchy, the tabloids would be out of business
We have no monarchy and our tabloids are still in business.
For the first years of their marriage they got along fine
That's a whopper. Diana threatened to stop the marriage because of Charles' adultery with Camilla. Her friends convinced her to go through with it lest it damage the royal family. Even as she was walking down the aisle you can see her looking around. She said later that she was looking to see if Charles had brought Camilla there!
when Charles gradually discovered that his wife's head wasn't screwed on too tight
She went crazy from Charles' constant open bedding of Camilla. What would you do if you knew your husband was in bed with his mistress before and during your marriage? Even as you were pregnant with his child?
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.
Thank you Miss Crabtree...
Now carefully step off the barstool and into your ride home...
Your cab has arrived.
Charles was always in love with Camilla. That is sort of sweet in and of itself. Charles was married to one of the worlds most beautiful women, but still could not love her. He loved Camilla...hello people!
Those who harp on Camilla's looks, should know that when the dashing Prince Phillip married Queen Elizabeth, I can't recall anyone calling her a ravishing beauty, albeit she not unattractive but cute and poised.
I simply think that we shouldn't take what's happening in England so personally. AND those who say Charles hasn't done anything with his life, are the same ones who want Prince William to take the rightful place of Charles in succession. So WHAT has Prince William accomplished? Nothing yet.
Charles and Camilla should live happilly ever after with what little time they both have left.
sw
Cheated on and destroyed the life of what seemed to be a lovely 19 year old lady with whom the British public was openly in love with. Given the public forum, this is quite appropriate behavior on our part.
Yes, I am particularly upset about it. Royalty takes it upon itself to destroy another life due to politics? I'm rabid over it. You should be, too. Whining Royalty simply doesn't earn much compassion in my book, particularly one who apparently has upset our allies so much.
Thanks for your comments. Yes, Prince Charles has put a great deal of thought and effort into making the Duchy of Cornwall profitable.
I agree with flaglady47 about the despicable nastiness that comes up on FR whenever the British monarchy is discussed and probably on a lot of other threads that I'm not aware of. Frankly, most of the comments on this thread make me sick. I'm not sure I even feel like trying to argue with these Jacobins masquerading as "conservatives." I'd have more in common with Canadian liberals who support the monarchy than with these creeps.
One doesn't have to be as passionate a monarchist as I am to see that knee-jerk hostility to royalty and monarchy is profoundly un-conservative. I once e-mailed a somewhat well-known American right-wing internet commentator about this unfortunate tendency. His response: "Yes, it's disturbing that Americans in general have this attitude. For conservatives to have it is totally unacceptable. It means they subscribe to the liberal view that everything in history prior to 1789 or 1776 was chaos and old night. And if that's their view, how can they defend our civilization? All they can defend is liberal rights."
OK, so Prince Charles is a sinner. Well, I'd like to know, who are all these FReepers who are so perfect? Prince Charles is also a hardworking representative of one of Western civilization's greatest institutions who has done a great deal to help urban youth through his Prince's Trust and who cares deeply about issues that ought to matter to conservatives such as architecture, hunting, and the countryside in general.
I'll admit that sometimes I wonder why I ever got it into my head that it would be a good idea to sign up for a place like "Free Republic" with the intention of defending monarchy. Most of the comments on this thread and others like it only strengthen my conviction that the wrong side won in 1781.