No, perhaps the great mystery. But the wonders of the world are chosen for their remarkable achievements. What, exactly, is so great about what Camilla has "achieved?"
One could argue that she was a major factor in Diana's unhappiness, perhaps indirectly in her death.
Perhaps more directly than we care to think.
2007-11-24 23:04:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by auntb93 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, I never was a fan of the royal family and feel that they took horrible advantage of the naive Diana Spencer. To play the devil's advocate, though....
If you are in love with someone, you generally do not WANT to be in love with anyone else. Although Diana's bulimia and severe depression probably were the direct result of social and political pressure, she was often out of control and very hard for Charles to understand. These are not exactly circumstances which would have lent themselves Charles 'learning to love Diana' as strongly as he felt for his mistress. In fact, Camilla was probably a great comfort to Charles when Diana was cutting herself and doing vatious other things which were very hard to just sit back an watch. The world saw Diana from far away; Charles saw her from very close up. Ultimately, I think itis pretty clear that the two just weren't compatible. It would have been nice to have a fairy tale ending, but that is obviously not what happened.
I hope that the Crown will remember what happened and realize that the kids should just be allowed to marry whomever they want without experiencing the pressure to choose from a very narrow margin of society. As it is, the papparazzi alone is stessful to ANY royal romance. I think William in particular has already been the focus of far too much media attention, but that' also not to suggest that Harry has remained unaffected.
And Diana, of course, becomes the martyr figure. She didn't have a happy life, so I hope that she is finally resting in peace.
2007-11-25 06:43:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
She is not a wonder of the world. There is one thing you appear to have failed to consider. Princess Di could have been a royal pain in the butt. In other words, if you are thinking of Di as a pain, and Camilla Parker Bowles as nice, but rather plain looking, then it is no contest. I would choose as he did.
But this is all guesses because I have no idea about Princess Di or Bowles
2007-11-25 14:37:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Are you in love? Do you remember what it was like to realise you loved someone? Charles has always loved Camilla, have you not seen the films/pictures of them together in the seventies. He has always loved her and always will, you cant turn these things on and off.
2007-11-25 06:23:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The person who you fall in love with is not necessarily the most anything to anyone else. That's not what makes it happen - you just look at someone one day and think 'yep, that's the one!' As my eternally devoted parents used to say, 'for every old stocking, there's an old shoe'.
Helen
2007-11-25 06:23:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by cinnamonbrandy8 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Seems like he never loved Diana, and never stopped loving Camilla.....regardless of her looks.
2007-11-25 06:21:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by Kerry 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I'd worry about bigger issues. Obviously they have had sparks since before he and Di married.
They are now married, so, live and let live. She's not a great beauty or anything, I agree.
2007-11-25 06:27:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by Jen 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
you are taking it on what a person looks like(as a lot of people do)and not what the person is like when you are alone together.it will probably go down in history as one of the great love stories
2007-11-25 06:26:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
they say that beautiful is skin deep but ugliness goes to the bone and prince Charles is waiting for queen Elizabeth to die so he can become queen .
2007-11-26 03:11:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by atlantismeditation@sbcglobal.net 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
NO
Not a wonder of the world
2007-11-25 06:21:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by StretfordEnder 7
·
2⤊
0⤋