Queen Camilla Gets C4 Treatment
An intriguing, in-depth documentary about Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall (pictured right), was broadcast by Channel 4 last evening. It dealt principally with her prospects of becoming Queen Consort when Prince Charles becomes King.
The programme ranged widely over her life, and included some prurient material, clearly leaked beforehand to attract viewers who might not otherwise watch.
The most startling claim was that Clarence House fed negative stories about other Royals to the press with the intention of making Camilla seem fragrant by comparison. The mastermind behind these assaults is alleged to have been Mark Bolland, Prince Charles’ former press secretary. Bolland, who now runs his own PR firm, might well regard some of the statements as actionable. They were certainly not helpful to the Royal Family.
The main purpose of the documentary, though, was to assess the Duchess’s chances of becoming Queen. It concluded, quite reasonably, that by law she will be in any case, and that Charles is determined that she will. Various experts and talking heads gave their views and most concluded in favour.
The ever-present Christopher Wilson even suggested that she will play a Queen Mother-like role to Charles, in that she is a calming influence and gives stability to him in much the way that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons did for the highly-strung George VI.
Wilson’s opinion was that Charles is not capable of being King without her, and that Camilla could become the rock of the Monarchy, as was the late Queen mum.
Why then didn’t Charles marry her sooner when he had the chance? It seems there were physical reasons to prevent a match back in the 1970s when Camilla’s previously rich romantic life was seen as a bar to her being Queen.
Overall, this was an excellent stab at summarizing the riddle of Camilla’s long relationship with the future King. One unspoken thought emerged from it, though. If Charles needs a strong, faithful rock of stability by his side to succeed as Monarch, how on earth would Diana have coped with that role?
Diana would have coped well by his side when he acceded the throne!!! Camilla has no views that don’t mirror Charles. This show was nothing more that a suck up to Clarence House and an insult to peoples intelligence. What Camilla is being hailed for is her ability to be Charles mummy figure 24/7
By Trudie on June 1st, 2007 at 11:06 am
Well, actually, Trudie, it accused Clarence House of a sustained campaign against other members of the Royal Family to make Charles and Camilla seem almost saintly. It was a very thought-provoking show, whichever “side” you’re on in the never-ending Charles-Diana dispute.
By John on June 1st, 2007 at 11:20 am
I really can’t see Camilla as a rock or something. Her best quality is to be calm. Is this enough for being the rock of the Monarchy? I don’t think so. Enough of making comparisions between Diana and Camilla but I really wonder how Charles’ friends could have said that Camilla was a wonderful woman full of qualities with an amazing intelligence. I can’t see any. Of course I can’t see how she is when she is at home. Maybe she must be wonderful with her valets when she asks for her cornflakes in the morning. But thats not what makes a queen of England.
Of course it is easy to blame Camilla as she is rather old now, but at least Diana made something useful with her title.
I also doubt Charles will be the next king. I doubt that the Queen let him have both Camilla and the Throne. Im sure they have made an arrangement or something. Wills will be the next king.
By Lilyfromfrance on June 1st, 2007 at 11:42 am
You could well be right, Lily, life always surprises us.
By John on June 1st, 2007 at 11:47 am
Thats why surprises are what make and keep life interesting
By Lilyfromfrance on June 1st, 2007 at 11:55 am
I agree with Trudie and Lily from France. With the exception of those who seek to ingratiate themselves with Clarence House, no one believes that Camilla has the character or qualities to be married to a senior member of the Royal family, let alone to become Queen. As for comparing Camilla with the Queen Mother, that is simply outrageous, and a smear on the memory of that incredibly wonderful and gracious lady whose devotion to her family and to Britain is the single reason the Royal family survived the Abdication Crisis. No PR campaign Clarence House can concoct can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. If Camilla and Charles come to the throne, and it is my most earnest prayer that this never happens, they will be the least worthy persons to occupy the British throne since medieval times.
By Gigi on June 1st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Not to mince your words, eh, Gigi?
By John on June 1st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
By Gigi on June 1st, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Let’s hope you continue to speak your mind, Gigi — even though we may disagree a little on some points.
By John on June 1st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
John I have read on another site that the narrator of this documentary gushed that Camilla has ensured the future of the monarchy. That is absolute nonsense!!!. It was Diana who ensured the future of the monarchy anyone remember William and Harry? As Lily said Diana also made good use of her title and the monarchy was more popular with Diana. It is also well known that it was Camilla who spoke and leaked to the press tidbits about Charles and Diana especially about Diana’s thirtith birthday. I am not touting the endless qualities of Diana that speaks for its-self but just WHAT has Camilla done that has all those friends and courtiers gushing how wonderful she is when all she did was break up a marriage and never worked or showed interest in charity until after Diana was gone and Charles told all and sundry that she was non negotiable. As Gigi said you can’t make a silk purse from a sows ear.
By Trudie on June 1st, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Yes, we may all hope and pray that the Queen lives to be very old yet still spry and wait until Chucky and his bride are too old and infirm to think of ascending the throne.
It is too bad that Charles let all this happen. In spite of his relationship troubles - he has been a very good Prince of Wales for the most part. And as for his relationship with Camilla, it is too bad for the both of them that society frowned on her ‘past’. It was for this reason that he had to reach so far down the age groups and choose Diana even though for all practical purposes, they had almost nothing in common. Had society been more accepting, it is likely that he could have married C back then.
Whether we like her or not, you do have to admit that he (and she) are very happy now. No, we do not like how it came about to be - but again - society failed them when they were young. All this hurt and animosity might well have been avoided.
True, we would have never known the beautiful Princess Diana and never would have had two wonderful princes. (No doubt far better looking than Chucky and Bride’s kids would have been)
By On The Outside on June 1st, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Well Camilla for all intents may have been able to have Charlie back then it seems he just loves the essex girl in her. All this rubbish that they have loved each other all these years is pure bull!!!! When Charlie went to sea she could have waited for him if she really loved him but She was in love if she knows the meaning of the word with APB and married him. All she ever wanted was for a man to take care of her and give her respectability despite the fact that she is a woman of low moral values. During her marriage she benefitted financially from both men. It was Camilla who vetted Diana for Charlies bride because she thought Diana was complient and quiet and would play the game. Well Diana exposed this woman for the evil selfish being she is and now the people are to accept her as Queen? Pleaaaaaaaaaaase the only true woman who had the qualities to be Queen was Diana and Charlie was stupid enough to leave her for this. Ok John you can bash me for this commentary but in a way your ? How would Diana have coped was like taking a swipe at her.
By Trudie on June 2nd, 2007 at 1:15 am
Ick, have you guys read the new Mail article on Camilla’s loss of virginity? The whole thing is so distasteful and inappropriate. Though, I will say the question posed at the end is an interesting one to consider.
By Bex on June 2nd, 2007 at 5:55 am
Trudie, the problem I’ve always had with Diana is that she was cut out more for screen celebrity than boring Royal duties for the rest of her life. She was a free spirit, and experience tells us that in the Royal Family free spirits look like loose cannons.
Camilla’s great strength is that she doesn’t lark about, keeps her thoughts to herself and behaves with calm dignity.
Around half of the British public warmed to Diana, but the rest loathed her. The British like their Monarchs to be unifiers of the nation, not divisive and controversial figures. It’s a paradox I know, but it remains true.
If you live in the States, you’ll not get a proper perspective on it. Hollywood stars are the equivalent of your Royalty. Over here, Hollywood is truly Tinseltown — Las Vegas on speed. We like our Royals to be very British. More Hugh Grant than Borat.
By John on June 2nd, 2007 at 9:19 am
John Diana carried out her boring duties with total grace a free spirit she may have been but that was what made her so special and to lark about made her accessible. MY guess is that the half of the British public that did not like Diana was the establishment but of course this was because unlike Camilla she keeps her thoughts to herself. She really has no thoughts other that what Charlie thinks and as for doing her duties she is as lazy as can be. Diana was not going to sit back and let her husband and this woman manipulate her. You say the British like their Monarchs to be the unifiers of the nation and not divisive and controversial figures you just contraidicted your self it is Charlie and Cams who brought controversy and divided everyone on the future of the monarchy with their tawdry antic.
By Trudie on June 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 am
Diana had many affairs too, Trudie, some completely off the wall. Her behaviour with Oliver Hoare was quite without dignity.
But I don’t want to rake over old sores. We have Cameo, so should make the best of her. There’s a great piece on her in today’s Daily Mail, which Bex has already mentioned. It shows how vivacious she is in private. See it here.
By John on June 2nd, 2007 at 10:58 am
Trudie, I agree with you. It is difficult to determine which is more pathetic and unworthy, Charles or Camilla. Here in the USA we say “thank goodness they are married to each other so they don’t wreck the lives of two nice people.” Unfortunately, in the case of Charles and Camilla, they have already been there and done that. It is sad for Britain that the heir to the throne has made himself a public joke, but there you have it.
By Gigi on June 2nd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
John, believe me, no one in the USA with any intelligence considers those self-obsessed backward children known as Hollywood stars to be anything even remotely approaching royalty. Americans know the difference between royalty and celebrities. If there is such a thing as American royalty, those persons would be historical figures who by their deeds and devotion earned their recognition as true patriots. George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson are the most prominent among those who qualify as American royalty.
By Gigi on June 2nd, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Amen amen amen Gigi! I totally resent that implication that we Americans view Hollywood ‘celebrats’ as “American Royalty” Bullcrapola!! The people mentioned by Gigi above are most certainly the type of people we revere as the true patriots. Unfortunately they’re all dead!
By On The Outside on June 3rd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Okay, okay, so Michael Jackson isn’t likely to be made King any time soon. Point taken.
It’s strange, whatever country the Queen visits, she’s almost treated as if she’s their Monarch too. We’ll just have to share her with you, I suppose.
By John on June 3rd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I agree with you, John, that the Queen encounters devotion and respect in many countries across the globe, but I do not find it strange. For one thing, thanks in part to the nine children of Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort, the British Royal Family is related by blood or marriage to the Royal Houses of many countries, including Spain, Portugal, Germany, Bulgaria, Rumania and more. Although many of these countries have deposed their Royal Houses, including Greece and Russia, that does not preclude the people of those countries from loving and revering Royal relations in Britain. In America, people love and revere Queen Elizabeth II because many of the founders of America were subjects or the children of subjects of King George III, the Queen’s ancestor. These feelings are not diminished by the fact that we quarrelled with England, or even that we separated from her. Americans are always tied to Britain with unbreakable bonds of common lineage, customs, language and history. It is not a coincidence that Britain and America have formed a united front during war and other conflicts. Finally, Queen Elizabeth, like Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort, is a truly worthy, admirable, respected monarch who has brought great gifts and strengths to her throne and her nation. Such a monarch is very rare and she deserves the recognition and respect of all who appreciate her qualities. Her longevity is another factor, I believe. I am 59 years old and have a dim memory of King George VI, a good and courageous king who rose to great heights when his country needed him. I have a Coronation book of his and Queen Elizabeth’s coronation (and one of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II) and I have read these many times throughout my life, but the material point is that for nearly all my life, Queen Elizabeth II has been Queen of Great Britain. She is, in my mind, the example of what a monarch should be. I am sure many others share these views.
I appreciate your generosity in sharing Queen Elizabeth II with us!
By Gigi on June 3rd, 2007 at 7:42 pm
True, Gigi, and the Queen loves the States, especially Kentucky.
By John on June 4th, 2007 at 9:13 am
I don’t think people from all over the world like the Queen because of their origins. It would be too complicated
Americans like the Queen ofcourse, Diana, William, Harry and… thats all. Its because of beauty, popularity and the youth which are the great cult in the US.
I think they like her because she is like a maternal figure. The years go by and she is still there, while the world is becoming scary, like an impertubable old fashioned refuge that people like to believe in. Like religion or something.
As for the Americans, Gigi, you’re a great ecxeption!
By Lilyfromfrance on June 4th, 2007 at 11:55 am
And the Queen stays out of politics, which the gret divider of people, always.
By John on June 4th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I see what you mean, Lily, but you are talking about one segment of American society, the young people. My generation was born right after WWII and we are a very large portion of the US population. We are not beguiled by youth, beauty and popularity because we know by experience that these things are fleeting and shallow. Most of the members of my generation are more impressed by solid worth and shared values. Don’t believe what you read in the media. America isn’t even close to being as besotted by Hollywood celebrities and the younger generation as the press would have you believe. The press has an agenda–to sell news–and they are rarely reliable.
By Gigi on June 4th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
And Gigi is right. I was born 20 years after WWII, so I’m kinda in between - not a baby boomer and not whatever it is we call the young’uns around these here parts.
If you knew what the young’uns are saying about Hollywood types, it would make your ears drop off your head. Believe me - the comments are anything but complimentary. Even they know what real talent is and what is just plain old fluff.
Most kids I know probably really wouldn’t give a rip about royalty, real or otherwise - but if they were to run into the Queen, they’d know who she was and would probably stop to watch the show.
By On The Outside on June 4th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
I just wanted to say I agree 100% with what On The Outside said on June 1st about the Queen, Prince Charles, and Camilla.
By Bex on June 5th, 2007 at 1:52 pm