Wednesday, August 29, 2007
10 years on
Monday it was announced that Camilla, newish wife of Prince Charles of England, would not be attending the 10th anniversary memorial service for Diana. First of all, let me say that my own reaction when I heard that was "duh, gee, no kidding." I mean, what would have possessed the woman even to consider attending? (Who can forget the "squiggey tapes" and "three people in this marriage" after all?) I guess she's even more clueless and vapid than one might have imagined.
On Monday, musing Laura wrote about this, too, and had a similar reaction. The comments to her post were quite funny, including one saying that the writer never "got" the ideology of Diana (as I never did, either, I have to admit) and one about what children of Camilla and Charles would have looked like (a bit unkind, but true). While un-gentility is afoot, let me add that I watched the interview with the princes a few weeks ago and was somewhat startled to conclude that neither of them seems to have a lot going on. They're both ruggedly handsome, it goes almost without saying, but neither seemed able to form sentences nor suggest they'd thought about anything very seriously. Perhaps being incredibly rich and royal isn't good for people.
On Monday, musing Laura wrote about this, too, and had a similar reaction. The comments to her post were quite funny, including one saying that the writer never "got" the ideology of Diana (as I never did, either, I have to admit) and one about what children of Camilla and Charles would have looked like (a bit unkind, but true). While un-gentility is afoot, let me add that I watched the interview with the princes a few weeks ago and was somewhat startled to conclude that neither of them seems to have a lot going on. They're both ruggedly handsome, it goes almost without saying, but neither seemed able to form sentences nor suggest they'd thought about anything very seriously. Perhaps being incredibly rich and royal isn't good for people.
Labels: celebrities, headlines, reflections
Permalink | 
| posted by jau at 9:17 AM
— at 9:04 PM, August 29, 2007:
ligneus — at 10:50 PM, August 30, 2007:
| posted by jau at 9:17 AM
4 more:
— at 9:04 PM, August 29, 2007:
On the upside, Diana knew how to dress, an accusation no one would dare make against Charles.
But I suspect that the very environment of royalty - surrounded, as you are, with people who earn a living by catering to your ever whim - is probably hazardous to one's psychological structure.
But I suspect that the very environment of royalty - surrounded, as you are, with people who earn a living by catering to your ever whim - is probably hazardous to one's psychological structure.
< home >
ligneus — at 10:50 PM, August 30, 2007:
Two things come to mind. Diana dancing around the house [palace?] listening to Wham! on a Walkman like a not too bright fourteen year old.
Camilla after being referred to in the tabloids as Charles' Rotweiler used to answer the phone, "The Rotweiler here". Shows a grown up with a self deprecating sense of humour.
They should have let Charles marry her when he first knew her, what a lot of trouble it would have prevented. [Unless of course Diana became the third person in that marriage!]
Camilla after being referred to in the tabloids as Charles' Rotweiler used to answer the phone, "The Rotweiler here". Shows a grown up with a self deprecating sense of humour.
They should have let Charles marry her when he first knew her, what a lot of trouble it would have prevented. [Unless of course Diana became the third person in that marriage!]
< home >
< home
< home >