General Chat

Of couse Diana did, but thought we were talking about Charles.

As I recall the papers had quite a lot to say about Diana at the time too !!! I don't believe everything I read in the papers, but I would think in this case there would have to have been a grain of truth or they would have been taking a massive risk printing it.

hi marie ,i think you know what im going to say,dont want him as king ,or her as whatever,let william do it,hes a good lad with no baggage,xxxxxxxxjoy

Jess Do you not give Diana the same credit. She had her input in those boys too xx

Ruffling feathers here, but I think with Camilla he has become a nicer person and I think Edward abdicated because he couldn't rule without the woman he loved by his side......................Charles has.........I will now shut up........

...and since when did we believe all we hear about ANYONE in the newspapers- Yes, he's a bit odd, yes he is perhaps a bit strange, but he's a human being! The upbringing he had,are you really suprised that he is a bit odd? - i take my hat off to him, that depite the difference in almost evey thing they have to doo , say ( or not say) his two boys are SO normal. jess , not a royalist by anymean but.......

Thanks for that Liz. I think respect for journalism should be more at risk on a number of counts.

probably the truth there, Felicity, Pity Edward didnt have as much clout as 'Dear Henry The VIII .........' things might have turned out quite differently..... Bob

Liz It was i think during the 'war' at the end of their marriage. There was a bit of tit for tat going on there as Diana had a few of her private calls tapped as well xx

Felicity I wasn't around then !!! However my understanding of it is that the divorce issue was the pivotal issue. However I could be wrong.xx

It was a telephone call that was tapped and a newspaper made it public. It was whilst he was still married to Diana I believe. Liz

Wasn't Wallace Simpson a divorced catholic and wasn't that the greater issue? Could be wrong here, I'm not sure. I certainly know that permission came into it somewhere and just because Edward didn't get the permission required doesn't mean that Charles can't. That's an application of the rules and something different..

Jess I may as well have been !!!!!!!! Would rather not have heard of it to be honest, but I have, and that alone was enough for me to lose respect for him xx

Opening my big gob here, BUT just how much ''Reigning '' does Queenie actually do? I know that she does the garden parties and things and the investitures, but surely,those are pre-decided for her...... Most of the toil is done by Whitehall, so I am led to believe. At the moment, its Tony and his cronies, doing the bizz,everything is sealed and delivered to Queenie to sign?...... Bob

Marie, if it was behind closed doors, who on earth made it public knowledge or can guarantee that it is true? And in any event, so what? We all say things in private that are for no-one elses ears.

His uncle had to abdicate because the woman he wanted to marry was a divorcee. Following along that logic for the rules of succession Charles has no right to be King.

behind that door with them, were you? Please.....! Jess

Elaine Behind closed doors he expressed the wish to be Camillas tampon !!!!!!

As I just said on the other thread about the Royal Family, the rules of succession are rules. We have had good kings and bad kings and only history will tell us which category Charles falls into. He may surprise everyone.

I do not like Prince Charles, I find his behaviour appalling, childish and selfish to the extreme. I have no faith in him as a potential sovereign as I don't believe he is a strong enough character to reign adequately.