Posted on 04/03/2005 4:54:31 PM PDT by quidnunc
Charles's problem is that he's living off the fat of the land, and those who are taxed to their eyeballs to keep a roof over his head have a right to civil discourse with him occasionally. He hasn't come to terms with this, but his mother has.
But the story is still true, jumped over Queen or not. LOL
Charles - a tragic waste of skin.
Camilla fills that need for the poor cypher perfectly.
I doubt Milla's using much tampAx anymore.
The QUEEN is lovely, so is William, it's only bonnie priince Chuck that makes a poor job of it,
Oh dear, you're right. Alas, those secretly taped conversations between he who would be King and his Milla, would now most likely involve Depends.
They would have to be.
They were Heads of State.
Think about in logical terms. Say we had a President for Life. You bet we'd be real interested in who he married, right? So, he better marry for matters of State FIRST. If he didn't, well, you get the picture.
Prince William is going to marry Princess Caroline's oldest daughter from her first marriage. You watch.
Diana was not a nitwit ... Charles played her as a pawn while he continued to boink Clamydia. If he had any cajones he would have married who he wanted to in the first place and taken the consequence like a real man instead of ruining Diana's life in order to please Mummy.
The true art of flirting does not involve being vulgar and cheap ...but then again, we are talking about Charles and Camilla ......
Here, Here Sterlis ... well stated!
Sir Elton John's hissy fits are at least flambuoyant, vocal and amusing!
Rocket Man is da man over Rotty Man anyday........
I respectfully disagree ... Charles' love of his life is himself.
An excerpt from Anne Kingsmill Finch, Countess of Winchilsea:
The MAN and his HORSE.
Within a Meadow, on the way,
A sordid Churl resolv'd to stay,
And give his Horse a Bite;
Purloining so his Neighbours Hay,
That at the Inn he might not pay
For Forage all the Night.
With Heart's content th' unloaded Steed
Began to neigh, and frisk, and feed;
For nothing more he car'd,
Since none of all his Master's breed
E'er found such Pasture, at their need,
Or half so well had far'd.
I believe this says it all .........
Princes are different from the rest and no, Charles could NOT just marry Camilla, when he wanted to. You don't understand any of this. Pity that.
That sentence needed a barf alert. Royal wedding ping!
I agree - it's so romantic.
Love conquers all!! ;-)
Funny then that Lady Diana was the most admired Royal ever and the most photographed person in the world. Are you suggesting that the majority of the British population and millions of others around the world who loved Diana are all misinformed? No need to educate me about Princess Diana's life, thank you, I am well aware of her family life. If everyone whose parents are divorced and who are jealous of a sibling is emotionally damaged -- God help 3/4 of the world population if not more.
Furthermore, Princes are SUPPOSED to be different from the rest (ie: cultured, regal and respected) -- all of which Charles is not. That's why the British Monarchy is a farce to the rest of the world. The royal blood has been diluted beyond reversal. How else can one explain that the so-called future king of England would be so pathetic as to profess to a married woman that he wished he were her tampon. You don't call that emotionally damaged?
quote: "Charles could NOT just marry Camilla" -- So What is the difference now for Prince Charles? I don't understand your rationale because it makes no sense.
Charles needs to shit or get off the Throne. Can't have your cake and eat it too ......
Yes, I agree .... without the tourism produced by royalty in certain countries, there would be nothing left -- just a rainy, cold and boring place with bad food to boot.
Here's an idea ... get rid of the Monarchy and train or hire some decent chefs -- guaranteed to garner more respect and tourism from other countries.
For starters, Diana was NOT "the most admired royal ever". Many English Kings, Queens, Princes, and Princesses have been far more admired; not to mention influential.
Secondly, when it comes to the most photographed royal ever, The late Queen Mum was exceedingly popular,admired, and well photographed. The Queen of Romania, in the early to mid decades of the 20th century, makes the "cult of Diana" look like nothing and then there was her late Great Uncle , when he was the Prince of Wales........Diana couldn't hold a candle to the number of his photos and drooling sycophants.
But probably THE most popular, admired, influential, royal, in more or less modern times, bar none, was Queen Victoria, who single handedly not only began but profited by the first grand PR campaign!
Diana's own family members have said that she was an emotional basket case. Her Bulimia was but one symptom of that.
Since the beginning of recorded history,royals have been crude, rude, vile, not in the least bit cultured,regal, nor even respected. The more you type, the more you reveal exactly how disturbing little you know.
Okay,the tampon remark is very crude, but he simply meant that he wanted to "live" inside here. Gross? Yes. Emotionally damaged? NO! Ask any man in the throws of lust,where he'd like to be. Though Charles, as many other princes have been, was indeed damaged by his parents. But then, so were his grandfather and great uncle,grandfather, and so many more.
European royalty is just one relatively incestuous, inbred group and has been for well over 1,000 years. The same is true of Non-European royals as well.
Try reading factual history for a change, instead of "PEOPLE", newbie.
Despite your pompous know-it-all ranting, you didn't provide any answers to my questions. I dare say you come across as being masogynistic in your views. As far as the tampon comment ....admit it -- it's just plain gross!
Diana was the most photographed woman in the world, period. Look it up, Chappy. Perhaps you should shelve your dusty, mouldy old history books and get with the program. History is ongoing -- it didn't end with the last volume on your shelf!
The plain truth is that Charles used Diana as a pawn because he didn't have the balls to marry the old bag Camilla. He knew it would not be acceptable and so he took the coward's way out. What a milquetoast Mummy's boy!
By the way, I did say that the Monarchy is SUPPOSED to be regal, cultured, etc. -- I did not say that all members of British royalty are or ever were. Again, this is why the Monarchy is a farce and has always been.
I'm glad to see you admit that Charles was emotionally damaged by his parents --- so why the double standard?
Read this and weep:
"But it was as the gun carriage passed those gates that the event that stunned me occurred. The Queen clearly and unmistakably bowed to her former daughter-in-law’s coffin as it went by. No one else among the royals moved. But Her Majesty openly rendered to Diana the sort of augustly understated nod that her top courtiers offer her day by day." Explain that incident for me would you please?
Lastly --- again I ask you -- since you stated that he could NOT marry Camilla before -- what is the difference for Prince Charles now?
Rant all you want, the rest of the world believes that the British monarchy ends with Queen Elizabeth. The rest of them should get busy and find real jobs instead of milking the British public. No matter how much the Brits try to grin and bear the upcoming wedding and treat it as though it's a cause celebre, nobody's buying it. They are the laughing stock of the world.
Tell me again how Princess Diana was not loved, admired, respected and influential -- yet Queen Elizabeth bowed at her coffin. Is she attending the wedding by the way ;)
I said that the tampon thing was crude.I don't have to use the same word you did, just because you want me too and BTW, look up crude..it fits better.
Perhaps you should read some books, newbie, instead of PEOPLE. And the ONLY reason Diana was "the most pohotgraphed woman in the world, is because there are now 1) more sleazy magazine and more tabloids 2) idiots bought magazines with her on the cover to read about her latest outrageous behavior 3) being THE MOST POTOGRAPHED WOMAN IN THE WORLD did NOT make her "the most admired", as you stated; just the most overexposed.
The Queen of England, unlike her children and their current and ex spouses understand PR. Queen Elizabeth II was a big fan of her ex-daughter-in-plaw alive or dead. You want an explanation for the head bob? ASK THE QUEEN! It most assuredly wasn't because she "admired" Diana. LOL
No,dear, it is people like you, who believe fairy tales and PR and know no history at all, who believe all that junk about how royalty ( and there ARE more royals than just the English ones! )are all oh so cultured ( Diana was about as "cultured" as your average cockney 13 year old; maybe less,BTW), etc.!
No "double standard" at all. Diana was a bubble/empty headed, manipulative, immature, clinically damaged to the point where she should have been institutionalized emotional cripple; Charles, for all of his problems ( and they are there )isn't now and never was that badly off.
The latest excuse, is that as head of the English church, the Queen isn't attending the wedding; she is; however, ATTENDING THE SUNSIQUENT ANGLICAN BLESSING ANSD THE RECEPTION !
And anyone who "admired" Diana (you, I suppose), no doubt also "admires" any often photograpged airhead, the media pushes. LOL
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.