After all the controversy about the video being shown I couldn't resist tuning into the programme the other night on C4. I should have started reading "War & Peace" it would have been more interesting!
What all the hoo-ha was about I fail to understand. And I wonder why C4 wasted money showing it during primetime viewing. Did it tell us anything different than what was probably common knowledge. In fact the only thing I didn't know was that Andrew Parker Bowles - Camilla's husband at the time - as an officer in the Household Cavalry, escorted the Princess's coach on her wedding day.
And I'm sorry to say that the whole thing was 'amateurish'; the Princess's speech therapist (who was conducting proceedings) could be heard, not very clearly, from time to time, posing questions or making comments. Princess Di's narrative, apart from the few serious replies, consisted of giggling and comments that were not that easy to hear.
What a lot of hype for such a bland broadcast -nothing at all that most people already knew, and nothing really to embarrass William and Harry. Diana could have commented on Charles and Camilla spending the night before her wedding, on the Royal Train, and the 'Camillagate' phone calls where Charles said he wished he was a tampax! That would have embarrassed her sons!
I think that it was a C4 'Despatches' documentary years ago that was interesting. Many questions were asked, such as why were the lights and cameras switched off in the tunnel that night, why was Diana kept in an ambulance for hours before being transferred to a nearby hospital, why she was embalmed when that was illegal, under what circumstances did the death of the driver of the white Uno die?. Looking at the state of the crashed car, the rear wasn't seriously damaged, when the front was. The car had been stolen recently -where, and from whom was it recovered?
As we know Charles and Camilla went to the EU Court of Human Rights in order to get around the Royal Marriages Act, and Charles had to be a widower, not a divorcee in order to remarry in the Church of England.
Perhaps C4 should re air that programme in order to regain any creditability.
Woodrow, that is exactly what I hope will happen. If not, that woman will definitely be queen. Remember the TV interview when Charles stated that he had no intention of remarrying? How can we accept an adulterous liar as king. Any involvement in Diana's death is, of course, just speculation! (lower case deliberate)
Been wracking my brain , trying think of a past Prince of Wales who did not have a mistress.? Always seemed o be known about and accepted as a way of life. Much as I admired Diana , she had problems before entering this marriage nd when you look at her life as a whole , never seemed capable if holding onto any of the men in her life , Why ? Who knows. The poor girl had emotional problems from way back .
Don't forget Charles was pushed and manipulated every bit as much as she was. If she needed a hint before the ceremony that he was not a willing partner she certainly was given many
I can't remember any Prince of Wales not having a mistress either; in fact don't forget that Camilla's great-grandmother, Alice Keppel, was Edward VII's mistress.
As to how Camilla can become Queen....well, I suppose just like the adulterous Anne Boleyn became Queen of England...because that's what the King wanted her to be.
Perhaps Charles may do the same! The mental picture of them both, in full coronation regalia, tottering down the nave of Westminster Abbey, hand in hand, always makes me smile, not to mention the compulsory Buckingham Palace balcony appearance afterwards!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum