2007-07-15 11:06:38 · 22 answers · asked by Dominice 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Your question made me think about Charles and "the Rotweiller", as Camilla was apparently nicknamed by Diana, Princess of Wales.
I quote Keat's Ode to a Grecian Urn where he says "'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' --that is all/Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
In this context, "beauty" is a complex word, not to be confused with the superficially beautiful, and in some ways life is a battle to distinguish the ugly from the beautiful, particularly when the ugly presents as the beautiful and vice-versa.
The confusion is often at its most intense in personal relationships where we want the beautiful to be true, even when it is ugly. In an age of celebrity this is particularly true, so while we are treated to all the tackiness of the personal lives of the stars and daily see proof of their failings, we are disproportionately influenced by them because they look good - the triumph of form over substance.
For me the love triangle between Charles, Camilla and Diana has always been about beauty. Diana was very conscious of the power of physical attractiveness, hence the rotweiller nickname.
On the surface the "fairy-tale" romance looked beautiful, but away from the public it was ugly. For whatever reasons Charles was in a relationship with Di and Camilla, when he should have just been in a relationship with Camilla.
While the resolution of the triangle has been very ugly, the result is, for me, satisfying. Charles has at last gone for the substance. Not that this undoes the tackiness of his relationship with Di; but inasmuch as I care about the Royal family, I wish him well.
Not so the public, it would seem. For them the appeal of the attractive would seem to overwhelm the substance. They would rather cherish the dream of the picture-postcard royal family, even if it was cancerous to the core, than the truth.
It's often that way in divorce.
2007-07-15 17:43:12 · answer #1 · answered by Raul L 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
the whole Camilla thing just shows that Charles apparently isn't a superficial person...after all Diana was light years better looking and yet there's something about Camilla that drew Charles to her...and Charles is not exactly good lucking himself...all I can say is Thank God the princes got their looks from their mother!
2007-07-16 14:35:57 · answer #2 · answered by krpsky 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a lot of other misfits live in luxury and have servants to do their chores, then yes, I guess you could say they are. Ugly is an objective thing. Prince Charles's sons are certainly good looking. Even with all of the rumors flying all over England, one of the sons is his.
2007-07-15 18:16:00 · answer #3 · answered by techtwosue 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What`s a misfit and what so bad about being one?
I don`t get it. You sound very intolerant.
2007-07-15 18:10:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Who cares? If they love each other why shouldn't they be married, Diana's dead, Andrew Parker-Bowles has remarried.
Ugly? Well beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Misfits? Please define and explain why they are.
2007-07-16 05:05:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Shove off!
2007-07-19 03:06:42 · answer #6 · answered by marzmargs12 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even looking as bad as they do,they look infinitely better than namdms mother who is employed full time as a house haunter.
2007-07-15 22:11:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
They may be that, but they are higher up the food chain than we are; which means they eat better and dress better than we do.
2007-07-15 22:25:56 · answer #8 · answered by Mawia 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Don't judge. Because of who they are. They are happy together.
2007-07-16 15:22:26 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Golly - did asking that question really make you happy? Look to yourself.
2007-07-15 18:21:54 · answer #10 · answered by Older&Wiser 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋