Discussion:
How C & C Destroy thru Seward, Junor, Bolland and others
(too old to reply)
p***@yepmail.net
2005-07-01 20:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Charles and Camilla have a long record of destruction between them with
Diana and Kanga just two of many victims either dead or by the way
side.

Excerpted from The London Telegraph :

Two and a half years after sharing her first married kiss in St
George's Chapel, Windsor - deliberately shielded from the cameras and
crowds - Sophie Wessex is close to breaking point.

After a comprehensive demolition of her personal and professional
reputation, one of her closest friends says "she is at her wits' end"
and resigned to being cast in the gold-digging role once ascribed to
the Duchess of York.

However, they ( the Wessexes ) have not been the sole architects of
their downfall in the public mind. Which "senior royal aide", they
wonder, told the Daily Mail that the Prince of Wales's attitude towards
his younger brother's wife "borders on contempt"?

Was it the same aide who, at the height of the kerfuffle over the
behaviour of the Ardent film crew at St Andrews, was quoted in the
Daily Mail as saying, "The arrogance of this man [Prince Edward] is
breathtaking."?

And when Sophie Wessex came to the defence of her pilloried husband,
arguing that the incident was being blown up out of all proportion and
observing that we "live in a democracy", which "St James's Palace
courtier" told the Daily Mail: "Fine, if it's a democracy she wants,
let's vote the Wessexes out."?

The Wessexes are in no doubt about who is responsible. Such briefings
bear the unmistakable hallmark of the Prince of Wales's own deputy
private secretary, Mark Bolland.

Despite his youth and ordinary background - he is still only 35 and
attended a comprehensive school in Middlesbrough - and his apparently
junior position at court, Mr Bolland is recognised as the real power
behind the future King of England.

He is the man credited with transforming public attitudes to Prince
Charles's problematic relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles.

Even Mr Bolland's detractors - and there have been an increasing number
of late - would admit that his skilful handling of the press, born of
his days at the PCC when he was in regular personal contact with the
most powerful editors of Fleet Street, has worked wonders with Prince
Charles's public image.

Unfortunately for Mr Bolland the campaigning has not been without
casualties.

In the minutely-plotted world of spin and manipulation, it seems that
if the Prince's stock is to rise, another's must fall. The Earl and
Countess of Wessex are not alone in believing that they have been the
victim of an aggressive campaign to blacken their names.

The Prince is known to want to slim down the monarchy so that it
includes only him, his heirs and the Queen and Prince Philip. But there
are those inside the Royal Family who believe that Mr Bolland's
promotion of the Prince is taking place at the expense of the wider
interests of "the Firm".

Royal patience with Mr Bolland appears to have finally expired last
October following days of reports that Prince Charles was
"incandescent" with rage about Ardent's filming of Prince William.

The briefing by Mr Bolland to the Daily Mail was so intimate that it
included a detailed account of Prince Charles sitting in his drawing at
Highgrove refusing to take his younger brother's call.

The turning point - and Mr Bolland may subsequently reflect that here
he made a grave miscalculation - was when a report appeared in the
Daily Mail alleging that Prince Philip believed that Prince William was
being "over-protected" by his father and that he had "over-reacted" to
the Ardent film crew.

The story was sourced, once again, to that "highly-placed courtier" at
St James's palace. Only Richard Kay, the Mail's royal correspondent,
will know to whom he was referring but other family members, like the
Wessexes, are in no doubt.

A source said:"They know it's Bolland. Everyone knows who's running the
show." Prince Philip was so exasperated that he issued a rare public
statement in which he said that the views attributed to him by the
Daily Mail were "totally without foundation". However, Mr Kay stood by
his story and the authority of his source.

It is known that both the Wessexes and Prince Andrew have specifically
raised the issue of the leaks and the behaviour of Prince Charles's
staff with Prince Philip and the family's Way Ahead Group.

A friend of the Wessexes said: "The whole thing has got completely out
of control. The other members of the family are being pigeon-holed.
Edward is supposed to be this useless idiot who doesn't know what he's
doing, Andrew is characterised as this feckless, playboy prince. And
they all know who's behind it."

Mr Bolland's capacity for mischief-making is boundless. He is the type
of man, according to one former colleague, "who can't resist tossing
rocks into a perfectly still millpond. Sometimes he just can't help
himself, he loves the destabilised environment. He loves playing the
game".

Diana, Princess of Wales was his first notable victim when, a year
after her death, the royal author Penny Junor published her book
Charles: Victim or Villain?. The Princess, we learned, was not the
Queen of Hearts but a neurotic, scheming woman prone to eating
disorders and throwing herself down the stairs.

The book attracted outrage and predictable denials that help had come
from St James's - even though Mr Bolland admitted he had spoken to the
author.

There are others, including senior courtiers at Buckingham Palace and
the Prince of Wales's old friend, Hugh van Cutsem, who are alive to
defend themselves against Mr Bolland, but have stayed silent out of
loyalty to the Queen, Prince Charles and the monarchy as a whole.

Mr van Cutsem discovered, to borrow Penny Junor's phrase, that Mr
Bolland can be a "dangerous man" when he wrote complaining that he had
heard reports that Mr Bolland had made "highly damaging" remarks about
the behaviour of his sons, who are childhood friends of Princes William
and Harry.

His eldest son, Edward, was a page boy at Prince Charles's wedding. In
a solicitor's letter, Mr van Cutsem asked Mr Bolland to deny the
allegations, adding that his main concern was that "this highly
delicate and sensitive matter . . . be settled discreetly".

Mr van Cutsem was naive to think that the letter would remain private.
It appeared in the Mail on Sunday in an article which made clear he had
been ostracised from the Prince's inner circle.

His humiliation was not complete, however, until the following December
when a second article appeared, this time in the Daily Mail, noting
that for the first time in years the van Cutsems had not been invited
to Prince Charles's annual Christmas shooting party at Sandringham.

The article concluded with the observation that the van Cutsems had
recently moved from Anmer Hall, their house near Sandringham, to a new
property several miles away.

And then finally, again, the voice of that deadly "royal aide" applying
a final twist of the knife: "They can't hear the guns from there. If
they'd still been at Anmer the sounds would have been a bleak reminder
of what they are missing."

The story was factually incorrect. Although he does often shoot with
the Prince, Mr van Cutsem has never been a regular guest at the
Sandringham Christmas shoot.

A third story, which also appeared at this time, claiming that the van
Cutsems had been crossed off the Prince's Christmas card list was also
incorrect. Even Mr Bolland's own colleagues at St James's have suffered
during his tenure. His detractors will say this is no coincidence.

Sandy Henney, the Prince's former press secretary, who was installed
before Mr Bolland's arrival, was said to have the best relationship of
any courtier with Prince William, who is known to refer to Mr Bolland
as "Lord Blackadder".

She was dispatched during the row over the copyright of Prince
William's 18th birthday photographs, taken by Ian Jones, The Telegraph
photographer. Others who have suffered at the hands of the St James's
Palace machine are less worthy of headlines but, as Mr Bolland himself
often takes pleasure in admitting, the list of his enemies is long and
varied.

After the death of the Princess, it was Mr Bolland who was charged with
rationalising the many trusts, charities and projects which the Prince
had set up to pursue his interests in architecture, environment and
helping the underprivileged.

There was need for reform, particularly at the troubled Institute of
Architecture, but, as one former adviser to the Prince recalled, there
was soon a "sense of revolution at the door".

Before long the guillotine was working flat out. Under the auspices of
the great tidying-up operation, the old advisers, deemed too out of
touch and a retrogressive influence on the shaping of the Prince's new
image, were swept aside by the new man who now had the ear of the
Prince.

One former adviser recalled how Mr Bolland - known as "Lip Gloss" for
his smooth talking - would deal with the out-going courtiers. He's very
effective. When you first meet him, he's very gossipy, open and you
think he's on your side.

"He runs down people you see as your rivals and leads you in. Then you
realise he's been behaving the same way to everyone else and the knife
is in your back before you realise it."

The well of Mr Bolland's power is said to run deep. Friends say that he
has formed a very close attachment to Camilla Parker Bowles, who
secures his favour with the Prince. And even more than the Prince, she
will hear nothing against the man who made it possible for her to
co-exist openly with the man she loves.

One acquaintance of Mrs Parker Bowles recalled a summer holiday spent
at the private villa of a wealthy mutual family friend during which she
regularly telephoned Mr Bolland "two or three or times a day".

The source added: "Bolland is really a Camilla appointment. The Prince
of Wales is a man who needs constant reassurance. Mrs Parker Bowles
tells him he's wonderful all of the time and Bolland is part of the act
to boost the Prince of Wales's confidence."

It was Camilla Parker Bowles's divorce lawyer, Hilary Browne Wilkinson,
who first proposed hiring Mr Bolland in the press office, according to
the account given by Penny Junor.

The Prince of Wales, who was prone to fits of gloom about his position,
was said to have found Mr Bolland's self-confidence infectious. The
account of their first meeting set the tone for the frank relationship
that was to follow.

"If you could bear to do this . . .", the Prince said to Mr Bolland, to
which he replied he would be delighted to take the job, and would have
fun doing it. If you don't have fun in a job there's no point in it. It
doesn't all need to be so terrible. Things can get better."

Another source, who was close to St James's for many years, attributes
Mr Bolland's apparently untouchable position to the Prince of Wales's
belief that that his man might one day be able to bring public opinion
to accept the logical conclusion of "Operation PB" - his marriage to
Camilla.

However, the Queen is understood to remain implacably opposed to this.
The source added: "When he arrived at St James's we were told that this
was the man to ensure that the marriage takes place. This is the man,
we were told, who could achieve it. It was almost like an official
announcement."

So what now for Mr Bolland? For five years he has revelled in his role
as the puppet-master who pulls the strings at St James's Palace. But
after the events of recent months the magic is starting to wear off. Mr
Bolland is said to be looking for a new playground to practise his
undoubted skills - most likely a career in the private sector.

He was said by one authoritative source yesterday to be actively
planning to launch his own PR consultancy in which Mrs Parker Bowles
and the Prince of Wales would be the star clients, used as bait for
other high-profile signings.

Others said Mr Bolland might soon be heading for a job in the corporate
world, now that the main plank of his original mission - to enable
Prince Charles to step out freely with Mrs Parker Bowles - has been
achieved.



( Bolland admits he worked closely with Penny Junor on her Charles
biography that trashed the late Princess in every paragraph. )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/01/nroyal01.xml
James Dalton-Thompson
2005-07-02 03:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@yepmail.net
Charles and Camilla have a long record of destruction between them with
Diana and Kanga just two of many victims either dead or by the way
side.
..... more text.....world without end.
Would you, please, consider confining these sorts of postings to agr?
That's the proper venue for venting and spewing (and receiving)
personal vitriol. It should be easy to stop cross-posting.

This newsgroup has a different focus; it would be kind of you to
recognize and respect it as such.

With thanks (and crossed fingers.)
Q
2005-07-02 03:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Dalton-Thompson
Post by p***@yepmail.net
Charles and Camilla have a long record of destruction between them with
Diana and Kanga just two of many victims either dead or by the way
side.
..... more text.....world without end.
Would you, please, consider confining these sorts of postings to agr?
That's the proper venue for venting and spewing (and receiving)
personal vitriol.
No, it's *not* the proper venue for "venting and spewing (and receiving)
personal vitriol."

Those of us who read and post to AGR don't like it either. -- Q
Post by James Dalton-Thompson
It should be easy to stop cross-posting.
This newsgroup has a different focus; it would be kind of you to
recognize and respect it as such.
With thanks (and crossed fingers.)
P***@excite.com
2005-07-02 07:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Whatever did happen to Prince Charles's dear friend Kanga?
BettyG
2005-07-02 08:04:04 UTC
Permalink
She died.
Lux
2005-07-02 12:47:59 UTC
Permalink
It is a news article; it is not "spewing vitriol." How interesting
that people think they can stop others from posting to a public board.

Well, I would say that all those years spent with Bolland were not lost
on Charles, and Camilla especially. (What kind of nutter talks to her
PR man 3x per day?)

It remains as true as it has ever been that Charles cannot be made to
look good without putting someone else down. Interesting, isn't it?
Stan Brown
2005-07-02 18:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lux
It is a news article; it is not "spewing vitriol." How interesting
that people think they can stop others from posting to a public board.
No one "thought they could stop" -- James asked you, politely, to
refrain from posting to an inappropriate place.

There is a difference, you know, between politeness and compulsion.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Susan Cohen
2005-07-03 02:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Lux
It is a news article; it is not "spewing vitriol." How interesting
that people think they can stop others from posting to a public board.
No one "thought they could stop" -- James asked you, politely, to
refrain from posting to an inappropriate place.
There is a difference, you know, between politeness and compulsion.
You are talking to someone who thinks that

"Charles and Camilla have a long record of destruction between them with
Post by Stan Brown
Diana and Kanga just two of many victims either dead or by the way
side."
is "a news article".

You will never win out with facts, logic & sense.

SusanC
p***@yepmail.net
2005-07-03 05:38:32 UTC
Permalink
The newspaer report belongs at alt talk and alt gossip. An open mind
can see it's validity and historical significance.
The Queen surely did and had Peat sack Bolland post haste !!
Lux
2005-07-06 01:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Er, nobody asked me to do or not do anything. You are confused. I
will say it is a bit tasteless for you to advertise on such a site
though.
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Lux
It is a news article; it is not "spewing vitriol." How interesting
that people think they can stop others from posting to a public board.
No one "thought they could stop" -- James asked you, politely, to
refrain from posting to an inappropriate place.
There is a difference, you know, between politeness and compulsion.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
p***@yepmail.net
2005-07-03 05:36:06 UTC
Permalink
It is a news article; it is not "spewing vitriol." How interesting
that people think they can stop others from posting to a public board.

Well, I would say that all those years spent with Bolland were not lost

on Charles, and Camilla especially. (What kind of nutter talks to her
PR man 3x per day?)

It remains as true as it has ever been that Charles cannot be made to
look good without putting someone else down. Interesting, isn't it?


Good points all , Lux...they're too thick to see this is a newspaper
report...they have never even heard of the BROADSHEET that is the
London Telegraph !!! Nor can they master the CLICK that carries them to
the article !!!
Your acumen is much appreciated.
p***@yepmail.net
2005-07-05 21:19:21 UTC
Permalink
It is a news article; it is not "spewing vitriol." How interesting
that people think they can stop others from posting to a public board.

Royal news articles and royal biographies are the correct contents of
any sort of Royal Forum. Those too thick to assimilate that should
really not expose their ignorance.


Well, I would say that all those years spent with Bolland were not lost

on Charles, and Camilla especially. (What kind of nutter talks to her
PR man 3x per day?)


A nutter he!!-bent on the destruction of those she perceives as her
enemies. IOWs, those who are her betters and she can't overcome
honestly; she searches relentlessly for the hook or crook to do it
dishonestly.


It remains as true as it has ever been that Charles cannot be made to
look good without putting someone else down. Interesting, isn't it?

That holds true for those who are fond of Charles. They cannot hold a
rational conversation but must initiate constant personal harrassment
embellished with their outlandish lies and suppositions.
Danny
2005-07-06 00:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lux
It is a news article; it is not "spewing vitriol." How interesting
that people think they can stop others from posting to a public board.
Royal news articles and royal biographies are the correct contents of
any sort of Royal Forum. Those too thick to assimilate that should
really not expose their ignorance.
Well, I would say that all those years spent with Bolland were not lost
on Charles, and Camilla especially. (What kind of nutter talks to her
PR man 3x per day?)
A nutter he!!-bent on the destruction of those she perceives as her
enemies. IOWs, those who are her betters and she can't overcome
honestly; she searches relentlessly for the hook or crook to do it
dishonestly.
It remains as true as it has ever been that Charles cannot be made to
look good without putting someone else down. Interesting, isn't it?
That holds true for those who are fond of Charles. They cannot hold a
rational conversation but must initiate constant personal harrassment
embellished with their outlandish lies and suppositions.
you are spot on.
James Dalton-Thompson
2005-07-02 03:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@yepmail.net
Charles and Camilla have a long record of destruction between them with
Diana and Kanga just two of many victims either dead or by the way
side.
..... more text.....world without end.
Would you, please, consider confining these sorts of postings to agr?
That's the proper venue for venting and spewing (and receiving)
personal vitriol. It should be easy to stop cross-posting.

This newsgroup has a different focus; it would be kind of you to
recognize and respect it as such.

With thanks (and crossed fingers.)
p***@yepmail.net
2005-07-03 05:50:26 UTC
Permalink
It's NOT gossip old man.....It's a pretigious report from a respected
newspaper.
Try to assimilate.
TIA
The Focus of Talking Royalty is to better understand the actions,
history of the principles and even their shortcomings.
It's a factual report with interesting input from the Duke of
Edinburgh, among others.
It's impact on the British Monarchy is significant.
Mr Bolland has gained recognition for making it possible for Prince
Charles to wed Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles. He shall soon be rewarded
handsomely.
The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, was made to give up a profession
that he was very adept at....his series of 'Crown and Country' was not
only educational but award winning. Even the prejudiced Ingrid Seward
was obliged to note that Edward was NOT, I repeat NOT , at St Andrerw's
Ueniversity when Charles claims he was...I rather think Ingrid wanted
to stay on th Queen's good side on this one given Edward was badly
treated.
I only respond with applicable reaction when my posts are wrongly
abused....and my character as well. Please keep that in mind...I cannot
control the abusive replies given by know nothings.
Q
2005-07-03 13:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@yepmail.net
It's NOT gossip old man.....It's a pretigious report from a respected
newspaper.
What makes the report "prestigious?"
Post by p***@yepmail.net
Try to assimilate.
TIA
The Focus of Talking Royalty
And where does "Talking Royalty" come from? "Google Groups?"
Post by p***@yepmail.net
is to better understand the actions,
history of the principles and even their shortcomings.
Maybe you should loor at the alt.talk.royalty FAQ.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/75e8d30a2a803ba3?dm
ode=source&hl=en
Post by p***@yepmail.net
It's a factual report with interesting input from the Duke of
Edinburgh, among others.
It's impact on the British Monarchy is significant.
Mr Bolland has gained recognition for making it possible for Prince
Charles to wed Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles. He shall soon be rewarded
handsomely.
The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, was made to give up a profession
that he was very adept at....his series of 'Crown and Country' was not
only educational but award winning. Even the prejudiced Ingrid Seward
was obliged to note that Edward was NOT, I repeat NOT , at St Andrerw's
Ueniversity when Charles claims he was...
Edward may not have been at St. Andrews, but a film crew that he had
subcontracted the work to certainly was.
Post by p***@yepmail.net
I rather think Ingrid wanted
to stay on th Queen's good side on this one given Edward was badly
treated.
I only respond with applicable reaction when my posts are wrongly
abused....and my character as well.
LOL Your character comes into question when you accuse the Prince of Wales
of being a bi-sexual, murdering thief, yes.
Post by p***@yepmail.net
Please keep that in mind...I cannot
control the abusive replies given by know nothings.
You *can* control your own know-nothing abuse, however. -- Q
t***@nyc.rr.com
2005-07-03 16:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Q: Trying to reason with Phyllis is like farting into the wind.
The point of posting an article (more an opinion piece) from The
Telegraph of December 2001 is far from clear...especially as Mr Bolland
is long gone and there is a completely new atmosphere in Clarence
House. IMO Phyllis trolls through old news stories in order to bolster
her firmly-held beliefs, and then makes totally untenable Statements
and "predictions" (Duke of Edinburgh's "input", Mark Bolland will
"soon be rewarded handsomely"). Oh, really? And of course, like so
many others, she gets so involved with the private lives of others, she
gets angry when other posters ask her for proof or backup. I suppose
treating members of the Royal Family like rock or film
celebrities...rather than concentrate on the their public work and
contributions (why should I care about Tom Cruise's opiniuons about
clinical depression? The Prince of Wales's sex life? how
boring)...will lead to this sort of constant PERSONAL criticism.
TRH obviously do not measure up to Phyllis's high moral standards.
Well, what can she do about it? Absolutely nothing really...except
clog cyberspace. None of us can control the actions of others. IMO
this must be frustrating to her and others...THEY won't do what they
want. I wonder what HER family life is like, and why she should be so
involved with the the lives of people she doesn't even know (but thinks
she does because she selectively reads newspapers). This occurred to
me in September 1997 when 1000s presumed to give HM The Queen and
members of her family torrents of "advice"...unasked for of course.
They and their advisers listened then acted as they deemed appropriate.
It's the way it still is. There will be mistakes and misjudgements
along the way but that's the way it is...in any system and in any
country.
But rather than observing in a DETACHED way, and trying to UNDERSTAND
this particular system (the British monarchy) it seems it is much
easier to brand the people involved as criminals and general
miscreants. To feel oneself superior??
Q
2005-07-03 22:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@nyc.rr.com
Q: Trying to reason with Phyllis is like farting into the wind.
The point of posting an article (more an opinion piece) from The
Telegraph of December 2001 is far from clear...especially as Mr Bolland
is long gone and there is a completely new atmosphere in Clarence
House. IMO Phyllis trolls through old news stories in order to bolster
her firmly-held beliefs, and then makes totally untenable Statements
and "predictions" (Duke of Edinburgh's "input", Mark Bolland will
"soon be rewarded handsomely"). Oh, really? And of course, like so
many others, she gets so involved with the private lives of others, she
gets angry when other posters ask her for proof or backup. I suppose
treating members of the Royal Family like rock or film
celebrities...rather than concentrate on the their public work and
contributions (why should I care about Tom Cruise's opiniuons about
clinical depression? The Prince of Wales's sex life? how
boring)...will lead to this sort of constant PERSONAL criticism.
TRH obviously do not measure up to Phyllis's high moral standards.
Phyllis has no high moral standards at all. She is a pathological liar.
Even her denunciation of adultery -- which is the immediate excuse for her
Charles-bashing -- is a smokescreen for a wide-ranging hostility that
encompasses many groups, including women, the wealthy, and people whom she
perceives to be better than she is. That takes in quite a lot of territory.
Post by t***@nyc.rr.com
Well, what can she do about it? Absolutely nothing really...except
clog cyberspace.
... and encourage others to do it.
Post by t***@nyc.rr.com
None of us can control the actions of others. IMO
this must be frustrating to her and others...THEY won't do what they
want. I wonder what HER family life is like,
I think you may assume it is the sort of family life a person gets when the
person is a chronic liar who makes distasteful and embarrassing scenes in
public places.
Post by t***@nyc.rr.com
and why she should be so
involved with the the lives of people she doesn't even know (but thinks
she does because she selectively reads newspapers).
She also involves herself with the lives of other posters who challenge what
she posts. The tactic seems to be to first accuse them of various forms of
moral turpitude and sexual deviance, and -- as things progress -- to accuse
them of having committed actual crimes.
Post by t***@nyc.rr.com
This occurred to
me in September 1997 when 1000s presumed to give HM The Queen and
members of her family torrents of "advice"...unasked for of course.
They and their advisers listened then acted as they deemed appropriate.
It's the way it still is. There will be mistakes and misjudgements
along the way but that's the way it is...in any system and in any
country.
But rather than observing in a DETACHED way, and trying to UNDERSTAND
this particular system (the British monarchy) it seems it is much
easier to brand the people involved as criminals and general
miscreants. To feel oneself superior??
She seems to be driven by some kind of personal vendetta on behalf of a
person she did not know. But her linguistic extremes (there have been posts
about Satan and excrement to AGR) suggest that she is profoundly
disturbed. -- Q
c***@hotmail.com
2005-07-04 08:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Personally I don't begrudge what C +C did. Mark Bolland etc was
necessary. Camilla was treated like crap by the newspapers and public
for years. At on point she was the most hated women in the UK. Child
molesters have been treated better. I can appreciate/sympathize on why
Camilla liked Mark Bolland so much.
I am not an expert on Charles, Camilla is my interest and I like her,
but personally I think this is the first time in his life he had to
take a stand on something that really mattered to him. He is second in
Line, The Queen makes the decisions. How many major decisions that are
truly important does he have to make? I am not trying to belittle him.
I think he has done a remarkable job making a career for himself (where
none really existed) with the Prince's Trust etc.
How do you think the English Monarchy have survived for so long? They
do what is necessary and for Charles, Camilla is necessary. You might
not like Mark Bolland's PR and everything else that was done to make
Camilla acceptable to the publc but it is 21'st century equivalent to
murder, deceit etc this is what the Monarchy does to survive
FJae
2005-07-04 12:22:12 UTC
Permalink
I wonder how you got passed over for an invitation to the wedding!
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Personally I don't begrudge what C +C did. Mark Bolland etc was
necessary. Camilla was treated like crap by the newspapers and public
for years. At on point she was the most hated women in the UK. Child
molesters have been treated better. I can appreciate/sympathize on why
Camilla liked Mark Bolland so much.
I am not an expert on Charles, Camilla is my interest and I like her,
but personally I think this is the first time in his life he had to
take a stand on something that really mattered to him. He is second in
Line, The Queen makes the decisions. How many major decisions that are
truly important does he have to make? I am not trying to belittle him.
I think he has done a remarkable job making a career for himself (where
none really existed) with the Prince's Trust etc.
How do you think the English Monarchy have survived for so long? They
do what is necessary and for Charles, Camilla is necessary. You might
not like Mark Bolland's PR and everything else that was done to make
Camilla acceptable to the publc but it is 21'st century equivalent to
murder, deceit etc this is what the Monarchy does to survive
p***@yepmail.net
2005-07-04 15:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Personally I don't begrudge what C +C did. Mark Bolland etc was
necessary. Camilla was treated like crap by the newspapers and public
for years. At on point she was the most hated women in the UK. Child
molesters have been treated better. I can appreciate/sympathize on why
Camilla liked Mark Bolland so much.

It is really very sick of them to tell malicious lies about Diana,
Sophie, Philip, Edward and Andrew in a failed attempt to make a woman
who cheated on her Soldier husband for years before Charles even
married look 'better.'
Camilla is trashy and proud of it according to all her biographies and
friends.
She's a 'Woman of the World', a ' Mans' Woman'...even Bolland calls
her 'lazy', 'nervy' and selfish of her creature comforts ( see the
archive here ).
Camilla was so livid when the truth came out that her son Tom was
dealing and taking drugs that she ruined one of Charles' oldest
Friendships, that of Hugh van Cutsem, in her retaliation...and it was
TRUE !! Tom Parker Bowles was ARRESTED for D R U G S !!
Now C & C through Seward in the new 'psychic' book with Simone Simmons
claim Diana used cocaine....Camilla is insane in her gridges and
vendettas...any fool can see that...she won't sop until she thinks she
has persuaded all her enemies that Diana was worse about drugs than her
precious Tommy and much more of a criminal.
The van Cutsems, STILL friends with the Queen didn't even bother to
show up when C & C were 'married' at the Guild Hall and REFUSED to
invite either of them to their son Edward's wedding !! Camilla takes no
prisoners...she' in it for the KILL...just like her adoration of the
Hunt when the LIVE fox is ripped to shred in the ferocious JAWS of the
hounds !!
She earned that hatred and flaunts it like a MEDAL !!!!!


I am not an expert on Charles, Camilla is my interest and I like her,
but personally I think this is the first time in his life he had to
take a stand on something that really mattered to him.

Charles took a stand on carbuncular ( according to him ) architecture
and geneticly modified food stuffs aka as Frankenstein Food and other
topics...
He has never taken a 'stand' on Camilla, he pays others to do that.



He is second in
Line,


No. He is first. William is second.


The Queen makes the decisions. How many major decisions that are
truly important does he have to make? I am not trying to belittle him.
I think he has done a remarkable job making a career for himself (where

none really existed) with the Prince's Trust etc


He puts on quite a show with a cast of thousands of lackies.The last
Prince of Wales made more of career for himself and didn't cheat on his
wife...and was always much more popular and beloved by ALL the people
in the Kingdom than Charles has ever been After his engagement to
Camilla was announced, Charles went to Australia and was for the most
part I G N O R E D...the People complained in the Aussie papers that he
had invited himself and they didn't want the expense of his
security...in Perth a man was hauled off by the police for protesting
aginst Charles , shouting that he didn't want a 'bi-sexual king.'
Charles has REALLY taken a stand on Michael Fawcett and he is ALWAYS by
Prinny's side, even when Camilla is back home bleaching her locks.


How do you think the English Monarchy have survived for so long? They
do what is necessary and for Charles, Camilla is necessary. You might
not like Mark Bolland's PR and everything else that was done to make
Camilla acceptable to the publc but it is 21'st century equivalent to
murder, deceit etc this is what the Monarchy does to survive

Charles has ALWAYS 'had Camilla'...he never gave her up...they now
admit it..
Camilla still isn't acceptable to the public, that's why she is called
'the Duchess of Cornwall.
Yes, they think they will get away with murder...but I doubt it.
t***@nyc.rr.com
2005-07-04 15:22:03 UTC
Permalink
See what I mean??? Totally whacko.....
p***@yepmail.net
2005-07-04 15:27:55 UTC
Permalink
See what I mean??? Totally whacko.....

You always take comments out of context....how boring for you.
Thanks for the encouragement...I replied to a Poster who TYPED 'MURDER'
helps the Monarchy survive...looks like you agreed with them !!
You are infibitely amusing in your rambles...do continue !
'Whacko ' is almost as much a compliment as 'bonkers'....but not quite.
Q
2005-07-05 04:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Personally I don't begrudge what C +C did. Mark Bolland etc was
necessary. Camilla was treated like crap by the newspapers and public
for years. At on point she was the most hated women in the UK. Child
molesters have been treated better. I can appreciate/sympathize on why
Camilla liked Mark Bolland so much.
It is really very sick of them to tell malicious lies about Diana,
Sophie, Philip, Edward and Andrew in a failed attempt to make a woman
who cheated on her Soldier husband for years before Charles even
married look 'better.'
The person you refer to -- in your typically maudlin way -- as "the soldier
husband" was a notorious womanizer and it's a well-known fact -- discussed
in all those books about Camilla you like to cite -- that he was habitually
unfaithful to her.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Camilla is trashy and proud of it according to all her biographies and
friends.
All her friends?
Post by c***@hotmail.com
She's a 'Woman of the World', a ' Mans' Woman'...even Bolland calls
her 'lazy', 'nervy' and selfish of her creature comforts ( see the
archive here ).
That doesn't mean "trashy".
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Camilla was so livid when the truth came out that her son Tom was
dealing and taking drugs that she ruined one of Charles' oldest
Friendships, that of Hugh van Cutsem, in her retaliation...and it was
TRUE !! Tom Parker Bowles was ARRESTED for D R U G S !!
We just got through hearing from one of your protegees that drug use is an
everyday occurance among people she knows.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Now C & C through Seward in the new 'psychic' book with Simone Simmons
claim Diana used cocaine....
She certainly associated with people who used cocaine.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Camilla is insane in her gridges and
vendettas...any fool can see that...
In fact, *only* fools can see thatl.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
she won't sop until she thinks she
has persuaded all her enemies that Diana was worse about drugs than her
precious Tommy and much more of a criminal.
The van Cutsems, STILL friends with the Queen didn't even bother to
show up when C & C were 'married' at the Guild Hall
Were they invited? And why do you have *married* in quotes? Are you mad
enough to believe they're somehow not married?
Post by c***@hotmail.com
and REFUSED to
invite either of them to their son Edward's wedding !! Camilla takes no
prisoners...she' in it for the KILL...just like her adoration of the
Hunt when the LIVE fox is ripped to shred in the ferocious JAWS of the
hounds !!
Princess Anne also enjoys fox hunting.. I guess she's also in it for the
KILL, right?
Post by c***@hotmail.com
She earned that hatred and flaunts it like a MEDAL !!!!!
I am not an expert on Charles, Camilla is my interest and I like her,
but personally I think this is the first time in his life he had to
take a stand on something that really mattered to him.
Charles took a stand on carbuncular ( according to him ) architecture
and geneticly modified food stuffs aka as Frankenstein Food and other
topics...
He has never taken a 'stand' on Camilla, he pays others to do that.
He is second in
Line,
No. He is first. William is second.
The Queen makes the decisions. How many major decisions that are
truly important does he have to make? I am not trying to belittle him.
I think he has done a remarkable job making a career for himself (where
none really existed) with the Prince's Trust etc
He puts on quite a show with a cast of thousands of lackies.The last
Prince of Wales made more of career for himself and didn't cheat on his
wife...and was always much more popular and beloved by ALL the people
in the Kingdom than Charles has ever been After his engagement to
Camilla was announced, Charles went to Australia and was for the most
part I G N O R E D...the People complained in the Aussie papers that he
had invited himself and they didn't want the expense of his
security...in Perth a man was hauled off by the police for protesting
aginst Charles , shouting that he didn't want a 'bi-sexual king.'
Charles has REALLY taken a stand on Michael Fawcett and he is ALWAYS by
Prinny's side, even when Camilla is back home bleaching her locks.
How do you think the English Monarchy have survived for so long? They
do what is necessary and for Charles, Camilla is necessary. You might
not like Mark Bolland's PR and everything else that was done to make
Camilla acceptable to the publc but it is 21'st century equivalent to
murder, deceit etc this is what the Monarchy does to survive
Charles has ALWAYS 'had Camilla'...he never gave her up...they now
admit it..
Camilla still isn't acceptable to the public, that's why she is called
'the Duchess of Cornwall.
Yes, they think they will get away with murder...but I doubt it.
Sacha
2005-07-04 20:05:19 UTC
Permalink
On 2/7/05 4:02, in article
Post by James Dalton-Thompson
Post by p***@yepmail.net
Charles and Camilla have a long record of destruction between them with
Diana and Kanga just two of many victims either dead or by the way
side.
..... more text.....world without end.
Would you, please, consider confining these sorts of postings to agr?
That's the proper venue for venting and spewing (and receiving)
personal vitriol.
<snip>

No, that is not, or should not be, the focus of agr. While I accept that
agr's style is not welcome at atr, I think many of those cross-posting don't
realise they're doing so. Nonetheless, it is not correct to assume that the
preference at agr is for what you describe. A great many of us do NOT
welcome the PK school of posting and never have done so.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Danny
2005-07-04 21:43:23 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:05:19 +0100, Sacha
Post by Sacha
On 2/7/05 4:02, in article
Post by James Dalton-Thompson
Post by p***@yepmail.net
Charles and Camilla have a long record of destruction between them with
Diana and Kanga just two of many victims either dead or by the way
side.
..... more text.....world without end.
Would you, please, consider confining these sorts of postings to agr?
That's the proper venue for venting and spewing (and receiving)
personal vitriol.
<snip>
No, that is not, or should not be, the focus of agr. While I accept that
agr's style is not welcome at atr, I think many of those cross-posting don't
realise they're doing so. Nonetheless, it is not correct to assume that the
preference at agr is for what you describe. A great many of us do NOT
welcome the PK school of posting and never have done so.
This is the BIGGEST lie of all from you Sandra/Sacha/whatever. You do
nothing but make personal attacks on posters to this newsgroup. It is
in the archives. Reporting posters to their workplace and/or school
because you do not like what they post is yuor favorite hobbie.
James Dalton-Thompson
2005-07-05 03:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
On 2/7/05 4:02, in article
Post by James Dalton-Thompson
Post by p***@yepmail.net
Charles and Camilla have a long record of destruction between them with
Diana and Kanga just two of many victims either dead or by the way
side.
..... more text.....world without end.
Would you, please, consider confining these sorts of postings to agr?
That's the proper venue for venting and spewing (and receiving)
personal vitriol.
<snip>
No, that is not, or should not be, the focus of agr. While I accept that
agr's style is not welcome at atr, I think many of those cross-posting don't
realise they're doing so. Nonetheless, it is not correct to assume that the
preference at agr is for what you describe. A great many of us do NOT
welcome the PK school of posting and never have done so.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
So you say, Sacha; and I have read enough of you atr. postings to know
that such is not your style; nevertheless, having read agr. bits over
the course of a couple of years, my assessment still stands. It is
carping, vitriol, personal attacks, and threats of legal action.
YAWN!!!! And I respectfully disagree with your opinion that many of the
cross-posters don't realize that they're doing so: of course, most of
them do; hence, PK's (and henchmen's) response to my plea to cease and
desist from using atr. as their venue. They look to derail the
"atr.train". atr. is not agr. , and there is a place for each. A pity
that some posters can't seem to recognize that, and respond in kind,
and to kind.

I feel, however, Sacha, that I am rather preaching to the choir in this
instance!!!
Sacha
2005-07-05 21:03:33 UTC
Permalink
On 5/7/05 4:13, in article
Post by James Dalton-Thompson
Post by Sacha
On 2/7/05 4:02, in article
Post by James Dalton-Thompson
Post by p***@yepmail.net
Charles and Camilla have a long record of destruction between them with
Diana and Kanga just two of many victims either dead or by the way
side.
..... more text.....world without end.
Would you, please, consider confining these sorts of postings to agr?
That's the proper venue for venting and spewing (and receiving)
personal vitriol.
<snip>
No, that is not, or should not be, the focus of agr. While I accept that
agr's style is not welcome at atr, I think many of those cross-posting don't
realise they're doing so. Nonetheless, it is not correct to assume that the
preference at agr is for what you describe. A great many of us do NOT
welcome the PK school of posting and never have done so.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
So you say, Sacha; and I have read enough of you atr. postings to know
that such is not your style; nevertheless, having read agr. bits over
the course of a couple of years, my assessment still stands. It is
carping, vitriol, personal attacks, and threats of legal action.
As to threats of legal action, I plead guilty with the exception that I have
indeed taken such action against one person posting at agr. And that person
knows that further and more serious action could follow. I see no reason to
accept that outright libel and defamation should be overlooked solely
because they're published in a newsgroup.
Post by James Dalton-Thompson
YAWN!!!! And I respectfully disagree with your opinion that many of the
cross-posters don't realize that they're doing so: of course, most of
them do; hence, PK's (and henchmen's) response to my plea to cease and
desist from using atr. as their venue. They look to derail the
"atr.train". atr. is not agr. , and there is a place for each. A pity
that some posters can't seem to recognize that, and respond in kind,
and to kind.
PK will try always to be a nuisance until she implodes and disappears for a
while - then reappears. It's a recurring pattern. Some others do the same
kind of thing but I do think they're in the minority. However, I do think
that many people really do not know they're cross-posting. They see
something they dislike from someone they dislike and hit the 'Reply' button
without electing to delete e.g. ATR from the posting.
Post by James Dalton-Thompson
I feel, however, Sacha, that I am rather preaching to the choir in this
instance!!!
No doubt about that.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Danny
2005-07-06 00:00:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:03:33 +0100, Sacha
Post by Sacha
On 5/7/05 4:13, in article
Post by James Dalton-Thompson
Post by Sacha
On 2/7/05 4:02, in article
Post by James Dalton-Thompson
Post by p***@yepmail.net
Charles and Camilla have a long record of destruction between them with
Diana and Kanga just two of many victims either dead or by the way
side.
..... more text.....world without end.
Would you, please, consider confining these sorts of postings to agr?
That's the proper venue for venting and spewing (and receiving)
personal vitriol.
<snip>
No, that is not, or should not be, the focus of agr. While I accept that
agr's style is not welcome at atr, I think many of those cross-posting don't
realise they're doing so. Nonetheless, it is not correct to assume that the
preference at agr is for what you describe. A great many of us do NOT
welcome the PK school of posting and never have done so.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
So you say, Sacha; and I have read enough of you atr. postings to know
that such is not your style; nevertheless, having read agr. bits over
the course of a couple of years, my assessment still stands. It is
carping, vitriol, personal attacks, and threats of legal action.
As to threats of legal action, I plead guilty with the exception that I have
indeed taken such action against one person posting at agr. And that person
knows that further and more serious action could follow. I see no reason to
accept that outright libel and defamation should be overlooked solely
because they're published in a newsgroup.
Sandra/Sacha whatever name your using today, shut up, your a trouble
making troll. Your an outright liar period.
Post by Sacha
Post by James Dalton-Thompson
YAWN!!!! And I respectfully disagree with your opinion that many of the
cross-posters don't realize that they're doing so: of course, most of
them do; hence, PK's (and henchmen's) response to my plea to cease and
desist from using atr. as their venue. They look to derail the
"atr.train". atr. is not agr. , and there is a place for each. A pity
that some posters can't seem to recognize that, and respond in kind,
and to kind.
PK will try always to be a nuisance until she implodes and disappears for a
while - then reappears. It's a recurring pattern. Some others do the same
kind of thing but I do think they're in the minority. However, I do think
that many people really do not know they're cross-posting. They see
something they dislike from someone they dislike and hit the 'Reply' button
without electing to delete e.g. ATR from the posting.
Post by James Dalton-Thompson
I feel, however, Sacha, that I am rather preaching to the choir in this
instance!!!
No doubt about that.
p***@yepmail.net
2005-07-05 21:12:22 UTC
Permalink
You preach ? Utterly absurd.
All you seem capable of is Personal baiting.
If you don't wish to read about the contents of Royal biographies, you
are cordially dismissed.
Jean Sue Libkind
2005-07-05 22:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@yepmail.net
You preach ? Utterly absurd.
All you seem capable of is Personal baiting.
If you don't wish to read about the contents of Royal biographies, you
are cordially dismissed.
YOU are dismissing the people on ATR??????? You got brass balls, lady.

js
FJae
2005-07-05 22:34:03 UTC
Permalink
ATR dismissed you dear JS, they said the only person worth reading here
was Sacha!
Ha Ha !
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by p***@yepmail.net
You preach ? Utterly absurd.
All you seem capable of is Personal baiting.
If you don't wish to read about the contents of Royal biographies, you
are cordially dismissed.
YOU are dismissing the people on ATR??????? You got brass balls, lady.
js
Jean Sue Libkind
2005-07-05 22:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by FJae
ATR dismissed you dear JS, they said the only person worth reading here
was Sacha!
Ha Ha !
And the one of them who said that would be correct from their
perspective, especially now that Candace is no longer involved. Sacha
has knowledge which the scholars at ATR would appreciate as do some of
us at AGR. Pity we can't say the same for you and your swin-sisters.

BTW, you do have your knickers in a twist, Frankie. Life not going well
among the aristocracy???????

js
FJae
2005-07-05 23:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by FJae
ATR dismissed you dear JS, they said the only person worth reading here
was Sacha!
Ha Ha !
And the one of them who said that would be correct from their
perspective, especially now that Candace is no longer involved. Sacha
has knowledge which the scholars at ATR would appreciate as do some of
us at AGR. Pity we can't say the same for you and your swin-sisters.
You have been rejected.
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
BTW, you do have your knickers in a twist, Frankie. Life not going well
among the aristocracy???????
Sounds like you are theone with knickers in a twist!
Life always going well, aristocracy helps yes...
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
js
Danny
2005-07-06 00:14:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:44:43 -0400, Jean Sue Libkind
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by FJae
ATR dismissed you dear JS, they said the only person worth reading here
was Sacha!
Ha Ha !
And the one of them who said that would be correct from their
perspective, especially now that Candace is no longer involved. Sacha
has knowledge which the scholars at ATR would appreciate as do some of
us at AGR. Pity we can't say the same for you and your swin-sisters.
BTW, you do have your knickers in a twist, Frankie. Life not going well
among the aristocracy???????
I think you should be asking sandra/Sacha that question.
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
js
p***@yepmail.net
2005-07-05 22:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Actually , ATR has more than the one bullying poster. The opinion you
refer to is not universal by any means.
Like the wee joke though !!! =)
Danny
2005-07-06 00:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by FJae
ATR dismissed you dear JS, they said the only person worth reading here
was Sacha!
Ha Ha !
lol, i have never seen a post of interest from JS.
Post by FJae
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by p***@yepmail.net
You preach ? Utterly absurd.
All you seem capable of is Personal baiting.
If you don't wish to read about the contents of Royal biographies, you
are cordially dismissed.
YOU are dismissing the people on ATR??????? You got brass balls, lady.
js
Danny
2005-07-06 00:02:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:29:31 -0400, Jean Sue Libkind
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by p***@yepmail.net
You preach ? Utterly absurd.
All you seem capable of is Personal baiting.
If you don't wish to read about the contents of Royal biographies, you
are cordially dismissed.
YOU are dismissing the people on ATR??????? You got brass balls, lady.
big pendulous (sp) ones, not the plastic things you use for an excuse
to trash people on here.
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
js
Susan Cohen
2005-07-06 10:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by p***@yepmail.net
You preach ? Utterly absurd.
All you seem capable of is Personal baiting.
If you don't wish to read about the contents of Royal biographies, you
are cordially dismissed.
YOU are dismissing the people on ATR???????
& saying that all *he's* capable of is personal baiting...!
Good grief.

SusanC

You got brass balls, lady.
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
js
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...