Truth - Diana & Will
PK
Carling's blonde label
Amid scandal over the fairer sex, ex-English rugby captain admits
passion for Di
Own Correspondent: London
FORMER England rugby captain Will Carling - described as a "sex-mad,
serial womaniser with a weakness for super-fit blondes" by a British
tabloid newspaper this week - has said that even if he had had a
sexual relationship with Diana, Princess of Wales, he would not
disclose it.
"I was attracted to her but I never made a pass at her," he said in an
extract from his autobiography, Will Carling: My Own Story, published
in the Mail on Sunday newspaper. "I'm actually very, very shy, and I
can't conceive how you would say 'What about it?' to a princess."
Carling was labelled a "rat" and a "lying, cheating toe-rag" by the
Sun newspaper this week for dumping his fiancée, Ali Cockayne, the
mother of his 10-month-old son, Henry, just days before their wedding.
Cockayne, 29, discovered he was having a fling with Lisa Cooke, the
wife of one of his former team-mates.
Meanwhile, writing in the Mail on Sunday, Carling said "it would not
be right" to discuss the details of his relationship with Princess
Diana.
Carling's former wife, Julia, blamed the late princess for the
break-up of her marriage to the rugby star. But Carling says his
marriage was already doomed before the news of his friendship with the
princess broke.
Carling first met Diana in 1993 at a rugby match. He met her again
twice later that year.
"On none of those occasions did our conversation get past the 'Hello,
nice to meet you' stage," he said.
They became friendly at the Harbour Club, a fashionable gym in West
London after Carling told the princess she did more weights than any
other woman he knew. Diana's personal trainer responded: "She looks
good on it, doesn't she?"
"Not really," Carling quipped. "It was a light-hearted remark but true
nevertheless. I thought she was putting too much emphasis on her
weight training and did not need to."
The comment did not faze Diana in the least, said Carling, and she
called him a "cheeky bastard".
"Maybe that was why we got on with each other," Carling said. "She
could not stand pomposity . . ."
They got to know each other better when, during another routine
training session, she asked him to join her for coffee in the gym's
restaurant.
"I found her immensely attractive and I was flattered that, once or
twice a week, she sought me out for a coffee . . . It was fascinating
to chat to her because of where she had been and whom she had met,"
said Carling.
Diana invited him to Kensington Palace for lunch - "but there, too, we
were surrounded by butlers, cooks, policemen". Sometimes princes
William and Harry were present.
But the relationship was doomed. Carling's former personal assistant
leaked the details of their friendship to a tabloid newspaper.
"Once the publicity blew up there was no way we could remain buddies,"
Carling said. "The captain of England and the Princess of Wales were
what mattered to the press, not the feelings of the people trapped
inside those titles."
My notes:
The Carlings were married less than a year. Julia named Diana because
it had more cache to name a Princess than the women Will was seeing on
the side.
Some of them came forward and said he was their 'man' ... Julia didn't
name Diana in the divorce action.
As an astute poster has pointed out....IF Camilla can't have broken up
Diana's marriage, because that's not how marriages are broken up, how
could Diana have broken up Julia's marriage?!?!?!!?!?!?!?
DUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I might add that Will has written his autobiography with no mention of
an affair with Diana, although he speaks of their brief friendship.
PK
PK
Sacha
p...@e-garfield.com wrote on 2/7/03 5:08 pm:
All this innocence would explain why Julia Carling forbade him to see Diana
again, why he broke the promise he made her and why Julia had to be
persuaded not to name Diana in her divorce suit - according to *other*
reports of the time. Not.
--
Sacha
Sacha
> http://www.suntimes.co.za/1998/10/04/arts/ane03.htm
Oh well, you'll just have to make do with Oliver Hoare, then. He was
married, remember?
--
Sacha
Nynthlyfe9
Sacha
============
This sounds exactly like the G/F bracelet scenario Sacha....only Diana was the
begga in this case.Why the different standards?
If the parker-bowles did something it was innocent, if Diana did a similar
thing it was
the mark of Cain?
Diana "can" break up a happy marriage..
Parkerbowles can not....
Diana lies about a persons "intrusion" into her marriage.
Carling does not.
t
everyone knows it
from the Queen of England
to the Hounds of Hell
Nynthlyfe9
Oh well, you'll just have to make do with Oliver Hoare, then. He was
married, remember?
--
Sacha
______________
Well, what is the accusation here then?
Adultery?
jflexer
"Nynthlyfe9" <nynth...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030702124728...@mb-m19.aol.com...
Don't twist my statements from an earlier thread. I've never said that
there were different standards. The only place I've seen such an idea is in
a quote from the lovely PK... And I only saw it because you all quoted her.
You and PK are the only ones trying to polarize Diana and Charles as
"Uber-Persons" - extremes of good and evil.
My point is that Diana (and other women) do have a magical power: Show yer
gams and any man will abandon his wife and family and run to your side. If
Carling was interested in his wife/partner and interested in his commitment,
Diana's attempts to establish a relationship would've failed.
It is quite possible that, when presented with a "new option" in Diana,
Carling chose to explore a relationship with Diana. But - HE CHOSE!
Further, if he was interested in finding other relationship opportunities,
then if not Diana, it would've been someone else.
One could argue that a man or woman should not express interest in another
if they know that they are in a relationship. Regardless of your opinion of
that kind of an action, I do not believe that such an inquiry is capable of
"DESTROYING" an otherwise healthy relationship.
I have not in the past, nor do I now believe Diana had any responsibility
for the collapse of ANY relationship but her own.
KirkVin
again, why he broke the promise he made her and why Julia had to be persuaded
not to name Diana in her divorce suit - according to *other* reports of the
time. Not.
--
Sacha
Oh, Sacha, Sacha! . . . Forget the *other* reports of the time and listen to
JULIA!
She told The Mirror in 1999:
Julia said: "I'm sure it would have been the wrong move to cite Diana in the
adultery case. He was by then having an affair with Ali.
"For a while I wanted to know exactly what happened between them, and
why. But I don't any more."
<end excerpt>
You see? Julia herself says she was not going to cite Diana and that she never
knew exactly what happened between Will and Diana. And, of course, her
husband had moved on to another woman [the mother of his son] whom he then left
for yet another woman.
Don't the truth git ya? <g>
Ellie
Loreen
>gams and any man will abandon his wife and family and run to your side. If
>Carling was interested in his wife/partner and interested in his commitment,
>Diana's attempts to establish a relationship would've failed.
>
>It is quite possible that, when presented with a "new option" in Diana,
>Carling chose to explore a relationship with Diana. But - HE CHOSE!
>Further, if he was interested in finding other relationship opportunities,
>then if not Diana, it would've been someone else.
>
>One could argue that a man or woman should not express interest in another
>if they know that they are in a relationship. Regardless of your opinion of
>that kind of an action, I do not believe that such an inquiry is capable of
>"DESTROYING" an otherwise healthy relationship.
>
>I have not in the past, nor do I now believe Diana had any responsibility
>for the collapse of ANY relationship but her own.
This is, of course, the classic adulterer's apologia.
>^..^<
yaffaDina
> >
> > I might add that Will has written his autobiography with no mention of
> > an affair with Diana, although he speaks of their brief friendship.
> >
> > http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1840321652/qid=1057160485/sr=1-2/ref=
> > sr_1_0_2/026-1354331-5194018
> >
> > PK
> >
> > PK
> Oh well, you'll just have to make do with Oliver Hoare, then. He was
> married, remember?
> --
>
> Sacha
Aren't you the one who said this is more old ground being re-dug and
with as much result as before?
yD
PK
Charles and his life and Diana and hers...isn't at all new and I
wasn't the first to notice it, far from it!!
PK
PK
Not 'was', he is married, AND, as he said, he certainly never had an
affair with Princess Diana. It's you who seems to forget, if you ever
knew.
PK
Sacha
nynth...@aol.com wrote on 2/7/03 5:47 pm:
Not at all. Absolutely not. In your haste to defend Diana you have missed
the intention of my original reply. ALL concerned in this gallimaufry
committed adultery. Both women were involved with married men - one may have
been involved with two married men. Neither is innocent of adultery and at
the very least of placing a marriage in peril. Nor are any of the men
involved innocent. That's all. I see it as a level playing field with all
the players having choices as to how they - er - played the field.
I should perhaps have made it clear that I simply don't care who bonked whom
where or when, how many times, gas masks on, wearing Chelsea strip or
smothered in strawberry jam with a dollop of yoghurt. I really don't.
To me, it is the most dreary roundabout agr harps on. It is of absolutely
no consequence whatsoever except to those involved. I think it's a private
matter and has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your life or mine.
I simply don't care if the PoW slept with the band of the Dagenham Girl
Pipers and Diana with the entire Brigade of Guards. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with his ability to be a monarch or for Diana to have been
his consort. That is why I become so irritable when agr goes off on yet
another 'who did what first to whom'. It is of NO IMPORTANCE. Good
monarchs are not made or broken by their fidelity or lack of it. Given
less self-absorption on both sides, I think they'd have done a *fabulous*
job as a team and I only wish I'd had the task of knocking their silly heads
together. Both of them had the capacity to irritate the hell out of me and
many people I know. Talk about being give the world on a plate and chucking
it away with both hands........
Right. Having got that off my capacious chest, I will not be joining any of
these discussions any further. Nothing can be changed as regards to the
protagonists - what is important now is to go forward.
Sacha
Sacha
Oh dear, yes he did. You really DO have to extend your reading material.
Private Secretary. Cigar. Smoke Alarm. Embarrassed people.
--
Sacha
Jean Sue Libkind
sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 7/2/03 6:10 PM:
> Given
> less self-absorption on both sides, I think they'd have done a *fabulous*
> job as a team and I only wish I'd had the task of knocking their silly heads
> together. Both of them had the capacity to irritate the hell out of me and
> many people I know. Talk about being give the world on a plate and chucking
> it away with both hands........
That has long been my contention, too, Sacha.
Oh, if the Windsors would only consult us...... (and we could even be
invited to dinner, too, since we look so damn good in tiaras).
js
Sacha
jea...@bookschlepper.com wrote on 2/7/03 11:38 pm:
And jeans. And Dachshunds and Jack Russells. And indignation. ;-)
--
Sacha
julian
===============================================
Go back and *read* for a change--just because it doesn't fit your
hate-filled perspective doesn't mean it's not the facts. The fact is,
she never "broke up" his marriage--in the first place, by your and
others insistence, a happy marriage "can't ever" be broken up a third
party. In the second place, he denies *himself* that Diana was any
source of his marriage floundering. In the third place, he's
obviously not a model of marital fidelity himself. In the fourth
place, Julia Carling like most women who wanted to turn a divorce to
their own advantage clearly saw an opportunity to make maximum
publicity out of hers.
julian
=====================================
Who's twisting what? You and others have insisted that a happy
marriage cannot be broke up by interfering third parties...now you
sing a different tune automatically because of the case in point..
The only place I've seen such an idea is in
> a quote from the lovely PK... And I only saw it because you all quoted her.
> You and PK are the only ones trying to polarize Diana and Charles as
> "Uber-Persons" - extremes of good and evil.
=========================================
Um, no, you are at least one of the ones however who are trying to
sanctify Charles and Camila's every action.
>
> My point is that Diana (and other women) do have a magical power: Show yer
> gams and any man will abandon his wife and family and run to your side. If
> Carling was interested in his wife/partner and interested in his commitment,
> Diana's attempts to establish a relationship would've failed.
=============================================
Magical powers are purely your opinion. Did you meet her somewhere.
Gee, I thought she wasn't allowed to be an "Ueber-Person" (whatever
that is) so why do you concoct laughable attributes about sexuality?
>
> It is quite possible that, when presented with a "new option" in Diana,
> Carling chose to explore a relationship with Diana. But - HE CHOSE!
> Further, if he was interested in finding other relationship opportunities,
> then if not Diana, it would've been someone else.
==============================
But it wasn't her at all...just a lie that Sacha et al. have been
bandying around for years.
>
> One could argue that a man or woman should not express interest in another
> if they know that they are in a relationship. Regardless of your opinion of
> that kind of an action, I do not believe that such an inquiry is capable of
> "DESTROYING" an otherwise healthy relationship.
>
> I have not in the past, nor do I now believe Diana had any responsibility
> for the collapse of ANY relationship but her own.
===================================
Then perhaps your refutation should be directed at the relevant
parties who have long harped on about the false Diana/Carling
"relationship"...a lie put to rest yet again by this article.
julian
=============================================
Oh dear, are you really so advanced in your Alzheimer's, Slacha? You
just posted previously that you really didn't care about who did what
to whom, went on and on once you were clearly busted on the facts as
outlined in this article and by other posters, yet you clearly do care
when your own lies and storytelling are exposed on this subject.
Even a glaring hypocrite like you should extend their awareness of
their own glaring double standards.
lol!
quondam
Actually, it puts the blame right where it belongs -- directly on the adulterer. Blaming
the"other woman" and calling her names is the rationalization of women with cheating
husbands who have decided to keep these husbands around nevertheless, possibly for
companionship, possibly because they wish to retain the name, property and checkbook,
possibly out of competitiveness with other women.
This kind of sick obsession with revenge over what happened (or possibly didn't) in
somebody else's marriage seems really sick to me. -- Q
Nynthlyfe9
----------------
This thread is coming from a complaint about the parkerbowles "singing to the
Sun...just singin' to the Sun!".
IMO, this was a diabolical action,certainly worthy of La Marquise de Merteul.
There are "other women", and then there are Other Women.
G-B
PK wrote:
====
I'm not really up with the Carling drama but I recall the wife's statements a bit. So *did* he or did he *not*
have an affair with Diana? - Not that he would obviously admit it because at least he is reasonable about that
but why would his wife be so vehement about it? Which is what - at least what does whatever evidence there is
point to?
Gioff
Sacha
quo...@thesquare.comnospam wrote on 3/7/03 3:38 am:
Couldn't agree more.
--
Sacha
Sacha
on 3/7/03 9:02 am:
As he always denied it, there was no proof at all but it has been the
subject of intense speculation and a good deal of nudge, nudge, wink, wink
stuff in our press. Let's say that he isn't famed for the strength of his
knicker elastic.
What made everyone very suspicious is that when his wife found out about
this 'relationship', she made him promise never to see Diana again.
However, knowing this both he and Diana DID meet and Julia Carling went for
a divorce. At the time, paper reported that she was persuaded not to name
Diana in the divorce case. What is also though-provoking about this is that
however much a woman might dislike her husband's friendship with another
woman, it doesn't normally lead to a divorce unless or until it becomes
infidelity.
Diana and Carling also behaved very jumpily and guiltily when photographers
spotted them together. The general feeling *at the time* was that Diana had
got away with that one by the skin of her teeth.
As to the Oliver Hoare affair there IS proof in the shape of Diana's PPO,
Ken Wharfe who found a half-dressed Hoare smoking a cigar outside Diana's
bedroom. (He'd set off a smoke alarm!)
--
Sacha
G-B
Sacha wrote:
=====
Thanks. I knew about the Hoare bit but wasn't sure about Carling. You're right,
most women, even if they do not like a particular female friend of their husbands,
would not head for the divorce court. That's what made me think there could be
'something' more to it.
Gioff
Sacha
on 3/7/03 10:44 am:
As in all these things, there are some issues where we will never know the
truth and the newspapers can't say more for fear of a libel case. But the
hints at the time were *very* heavy. Some people felt Julia Carling carried
on the way she did because she was seeking personal publicity but even if
that's so, there's no denying that he had an 'inappropriately close'
relationship with Diana which both tried to keep secret at one point, at
least.
--
Sacha
yaffaDina
Hmmm what happened to: "Right. Having got that off my capacious chest,
I will not be joining any of
these discussions any further. Nothing can be changed as regards to the
protagonists - what is important now is to go forward."
just askin'
yD
yaffaDina
Again? After "Right. Having got that off my capacious chest, I will
not be joining any of
these discussions any further. Nothing can be changed as regards to the
protagonists - what is important now is to go forward" when will you
mean it?
yD
Loreen
>not be joining any of
>these discussions any further. Nothing can be changed as regards to the
>protagonists - what is important now is to go forward" when will you
>mean it?
>yD
LOL...can you say N-E-V-E-R ??
>^..^<
Jean Sue Libkind
sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 7/3/03 5:29 AM:
> Let's say that he isn't famed for the strength of his
> knicker elastic.
LOL. I never heard that one before!
js
yaffaDina
uh uh -- no -- I try never to say never. Life has a nasty habit of ...
:)
yD
Sacha
yaffa...@netscape.netSPAM wrote on 3/7/03 2:55 pm:
You're right. 'bye.
--
Sacha
KirkVin
---------------------------
And did she lie? Since there are many here who are so concerned about stamping
out the lies thrown about, do we need to toss this poster into that category?
Ellie
Susan Cohen
I think you can be forgiven for wanting to set the record straight; the
pursuit of truth is certainly no crime - it's usually the opposite :-)
SusanC
> --
>
> Sacha
>
PK
I think if you read the other posts, by Ellie , for instance, you will
get the Full Picture. There was no affair between either Diana and
Carling or Diana and Hoare....
I think most normal posters will be able to recall times when they
spent the night talking with a member of the opposite sex when no
Sexual activity took place....it happens quite a lot...That two people
may talk all night Or all day in a private home doesn't automatically
indicate sexual intercourse...except of course to those who are Dying
for it to have been. <G>
PK
PK
Unfortunately she seems to think that Ken Wharf was a Secretary, when
of course, he a PPO with Special Branch. And even more disappointing,
she has allowed the facade to slip and reveal that she is one of those
who think all private conversations/visits between two adults includes
sexual intercourse .
Many among us have spent hours in the company of a male or female
friend...over night, for instance, without sex occuring...it's part of
life IF you have good friends.
PK
Loreen
Well, it IS our duty to protect other posters from those who would
"deliberately try to mislead the group" isn't it?
>^..^<
Loreen
>of course, he a PPO with Special Branch. And even more disappointing,
>she has allowed the facade to slip and reveal that she is one of those
>who think all private conversations/visits between two adults includes
>sexual intercourse .
Well, unless you're Camilla, and then you never had sex with anyone but Charles
and then only because he is the love of your life!
>Many among us have spent hours in the company of a male or female
>friend...over night, for instance, without sex occuring...it's part of
>life IF you have good friends.
>
>PK
Indeed it is.
>^..^<
Andy.3rd
>friend...over night, for instance, without sex occuring...it's part of
>life IF you have good friends.
>
>PK
So you had a few kinky johns who would rather talk about it than do it.. sounds
like easy money to me!
His Illustrious and Most Serene Jadedness, Andy, RSM
julian
> >Unfortunately she seems to think that Ken Wharf was a Secretary, when
> >of course, he a PPO with Special Branch. And even more disappointing,
> >she has allowed the facade to slip and reveal that she is one of those
> >who think all private conversations/visits between two adults includes
> >sexual intercourse .
>
> Well, unless you're Camilla, and then you never had sex with anyone but Charles
> and then only because he is the love of your life!
===================================
I assume you're being facetious since she clearly went through the
motions in her marriage to produce those two kids of hers...I would
have used the phrase "closed her eyes and thought of England" here
except since one turned out to be a known drug addict then it should
be "closed her eyes and thought of the poppy fields of Afghanistan..."
Loreen
>Charles
>> and then only because he is the love of your life!
>
>===================================
>
>I assume you're being facetious
yes
since she clearly went through the
>motions in her marriage to produce those two kids of hers...I would
>have used the phrase "closed her eyes and thought of England"
IOW, she did her duty
here
>except since one turned out to be a known drug addict then it should
>be "closed her eyes and thought of the poppy fields of Afghanistan..."
>^..^<
Susan Cohen
"Andy.3rd" <agh...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20030703154602...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> >Many among us have spent hours in the company of a male or female
> >friend...over night, for instance, without sex occuring...it's part of
> >life IF you have good friends.
> >
> >PK
>
> So you had a few kinky johns who would rather talk about it than do it..
sounds
> like easy money to me!
Yeah, very funny.
(Andy - what makes this better than any of the crap you complain about her &
her puppets making up???)
SusanC
Nynthlyfe9
----------------
NAW!
Its a pain!
Shows how "little" you know dear. :)
Nynthlyfe9
====
I'm not really up with the Carling drama but I recall the wife's statements a
bit. So *did* he or did he *not*
have an affair with Diana? - Not that he would obviously admit it because at
least he is reasonable about that
but why would his wife be so vehement about it? Which is what - at least what
does whatever evidence there is
point to?
Gioff===========
UMM Diana was very vehement also about
the Parkerbowles, and Diana's husband, but *some* on agr say this points out a
psychosis. Is it your position that Mrs will is pychotic?..or that Diana was
correct?
Nynthlyfe9
Gioff
-----------------
Julia Carling divorced due to finding out about Will's illegitimate child, and
Mrs Hoare is still[acording to Sacha] still,Mrs. Hoare.
Nynthlyfe9
I think you can be forgiven for wanting to set the record straight; the
pursuit of truth is certainly no crime - it's usually the opposite :-)
SusanC
> --
>
> Sacha
>
==================
yes...YES...Y E S
But you all keep changing the rules for Diana as oppossed to every other
female.
eg Diana is "crazy" for suspecting the parkerbowles and her husband...but Julia
Carling, by telling the press, is just showing the "truth".
Loreen
>But you all keep changing the rules for Diana as oppossed to every other
>female.
>
>eg Diana is "crazy" for suspecting the parkerbowles and her husband...but
>Julia
>Carling, by telling the press, is just showing the "truth".
>t
And Diana acting "jumpily" and "guiltily" with another man means they're having
an illicit affair, but Charles and his intimate assistant acting jumpily and
guiltily means they were doing nothing wrong and just responding to Diana's
paranoid intrusion into their official business meeting.
>^..^<
PK
And of course Mily has never done anything for England, quite the contrary.
PK
Andy.3rd
>Its a pain!
>Shows how "little" you know dear. :)
>t
Having been one of Steve Price's "boys" I'm WELL accquainted with the business
:)
Easiest money I ever made was during Opera season when I got dinner, an opera,
and an after hours party just because some older guy wanted a good looking
younger guy on his arm- and on most of those occasions there was no hint of
sex.
Sacha
owned...@aol.comnospam wrote on 4/7/03 2:14 am:
When did the PoW and Fawcett meet at a gym and leap out of sight when
spotted?
--
Sacha
Susan Cohen
The minute Charles or his assistant is found with the other in a bathrobe &
cigar after hours, I'll heartily agree there's an affair.
SusanC
Nynthlyfe9
-----------
Ellie?
Annie?
Your turn.
:)
julian
===============================================
Not much of a facade, IMO. The woman is clearly extrapolating from
her own life experience. And speaking of people who take divorce as a
joke, no one could top the likes of her in that department either.
She could keep a firm like Mishcon Reya comfortably in business
single-handed.
PK
It's too silly by half that she thinks Diana arranged to meet the
bloke at the gym because they ran into each other there, since both
had memberships...And if they were trying to have a conversation and a
creatue with BIG EARS came along, they'd have to keep from being
overheard. It is a Public Place where members are bound to cross
paths. In fact, that's where they met!
PK
julian
==================================================
Since he himself denies that anything ever happened beyond
conversation, I think you can guess (if you haven't already) that this
entire non-episode is being spun desperately for the umpteenth time
just to obscure the facts about those with BIG EARS who indeed
cavorted clandestinely at the time.
Sacha
Oh dear, why DO you say these things? Both were photographed trying to hide
from the cameras but sticking their heads round a door (separately) to check
if the coast was clear! And this was *after* Julia Carling had told her
husband never to see Diana again. And then there was his excuse that he'd
visited KP just to give the boys a present.........
--
Sacha
Sacha
juli...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/7/03 7:35 am:
Not at all. I haven't seen anyone talking about the Carling/Diana affair
deny that Prince Charles (gosh, your mature humour had me just rolling with
laughter) was also having an affair. This thread started on women breaking
up other peoples' marriages, remember?
--
Sacha
Nynthlyfe9
> Since he himself denies that anything ever happened beyond
> conversation, I think you can guess (if you haven't already) that this
> entire non-episode is being spun desperately for the umpteenth time
> just to obscure the facts about those with BIG EARS who indeed
> cavorted clandestinely at the time.
Not at all. I haven't seen anyone talking about the Carling/Diana affair
deny that Prince Charles (gosh, your mature humour had me just rolling with
laughter) was also having an affair. This thread started on women breaking
up other peoples' marriages, remember?
--
Sacha
--------------
And [ignoring PKs personal insults{I wish you wouldnt PK}].... what "our side
is pointing out is...AHEM...using a newspaper, to report on the "downs" of a
still new marriage[remember the timetable here] is taking being the "Other
Woman" to the Nth degreee.
IMO, this is why you all[who do not want to face the reality that the future
Queen of England has more in common with Catherine de Medici, than the
late-Queen Mum, or Queen A] side step the issue, and start with the .."but
Diana did"....
And again, gently reminding you that you{all} use one set of rules for Diana,
and one set for everyone else!
Diana's surety of her husbands infidelity meant she was "mad,bad and
etc."....Julia's announcments to the press mean "oh she was very sure, so
"that" means Diana and Will were having it on!"
A picture of Tiggy and PC, in a lip lock, means nothing, a picture of Diana,
and Hoare dressed in PJs ]in the middle of the night, talking, and looking
embarrassed for setting off an alarm, is uncontestable evidence that Diana and
Hoare were having "it" on!
You[all] change the burden of proof according to whom you write of, and when
faced with examples of your bias, segue into yet another attack on Diana.
julian
==========================================================
The Carling/Diana "affair" never happened. Period. The point is that
as usual, you concoct and lie when you can't deny an indisputable fact
which the Charles/Cammilla affair always has been. If there's a valid
example of women breaking up other people's marriages then only the
latter is any valid example.
Sacha
nynth...@aol.com wrote on 5/7/03 6:48 pm:
If I may say so ( and I will anyway) I'm really not interested in an 'our
side, your side' thing. I say what I think. If others agree fine, if they
don't fine.
I think your arguments disingenuous, to put it mildly. As I said, nobody
denies that Charles was having an affair with Camilla. Yes, he kissed Tiggy
on the lips. It's not unknown for people to do that who are not having a
sexual liaison. I know a few myself who do it, I don't because I don't like
it.
Diana was not discovered in her pyjamas by anyone in the middle of the
night. Hoare was discovered by Ken Wharfe outside Diana's door in his
next-to-nothings have a post-coital cigar because, Wharfe said, Diana
wouldn't allow anyone to smoke in her bedroom.
Now - some of this may be true, all of it may be true and none of it may be
true but ALL of it has appeared in some publication or other and is all any
of us has to go on. Claiming that Diana *never* had an affair with Carling
is simply silly because all the implications were that she did. Those
implications might be wrong BUT they are there. She most certainly had an
inappropriately close friendship with a married man - IF standards applied
to others are to be applied to her. It's just that simple. Maybe,
conjecture, press stories on both sides etc.
Frankly, I don't care who she did or didn't sleep with. It was her
business, not mine.
--
Sacha
Sacha
You have absolutely NO idea whether it happened or whether it didn't.
Unless of course, you want us to believe that you're Will Carling or Diana.
The *point* is that our press was hinting very heavily that it was a done
deed and you're trying to pretend that isn't so. And as I've said upthread
I am most certainly NOT denying Charles and Camilla were having an affair.
That is beside the point.
I do not lie, never have, see no need to. You, trying to persuade agr that
the British press didn't report that relationship with heavy innuendo that
it *was* an affair, would be lying.
--
Sacha
Susan Cohen
>> Frankly, I don't care who she did or didn't sleep with. It was her
> business, not mine.
Those of us who point out "but Diana did" are trying to make those who want
to paint Camilla to be the Wicked Witch of the West as opposed to Saint
Diana recognize and understand that it is *they* who have the different set
of standards.
SusanC
>
> --
>
> Sacha
>
Tara O.
news:3f078...@vienna7.his.com...
>
> Those of us who point out "but Diana did" are trying to make those who
want
> to paint Camilla to be the Wicked Witch of the West as opposed to Saint
> Diana recognize and understand that it is *they* who have the different
set
> of standards.
They're all guilty. I don't believe either Diana or Camilla were
homewreckers because I don't believe in the term anyway. The onus falls to
the spouse not to cheat. If the spouse cheats then its he/she that wrecked
the "home" not the person he/she cheated with. Women ought to have enough
respect for other women, especially if its been done to them already, to not
sleep with a married man no matter how bad he says his marriage is. To do
so only aids & abeds the cheating husband. Same rules apply to men but I
tend to think women should carry the heavier of the moral burden because we
think with our heads before the act whereas alot of men are already in
below-the-belt mode with their braincells having flown out their ears.
Either way though, if you're married you shouldn't be cheating. If you
cheat then its your fault your marriage breaks down, not the other person's.
They had a moral obligation in the matter but they weren't bound by vows,
faith & trust like the spouse.
--
Tara
julian
==================================================
I have an idea, and it's that it never happened. You on the other hand
want to believe that something did. You have absolutely *no* hard
evidence that it did, and the assertion is coming from people like
you, years later, when there is no conclusive evidence.
> Unless of course, you want us to believe that you're Will Carling or Diana.
I don't care what you believe, I'm stating what I believe and what I
continue to believe.
> The *point* is that our press was hinting very heavily that it was a done
> deed and you're trying to pretend that isn't so.
The point is that *some* of the press made innuendoes and printed
photos that people could read what they wanted into. People with
narrow, vicious, sycophantic minds...like yours.
And as I've said upthread
> I am most certainly NOT denying Charles and Camilla were having an affair.
> That is beside the point.
It's not beside the point at all, since (a) it persists into the
present, and if only an alleged affair that supposedly happened
briefly years ago is any point to make, that an affair that probably
never stopped from the moment it began before Charles' marriage is
certainly part of the context.
> I do not lie, never have, see no need to. You, trying to persuade agr that
> the British press didn't report that relationship with heavy innuendo that
> it *was* an affair, would be lying.
===========================================
Wrong, I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything. As I said, I'm
stating a point of view that's been stated more than once on this
forum. You, trying to persuade agr that innuendoes by some constitute
proven fact *would* be lying. So if this all about "Will and Di" then
you, not me, are once again the liar.
Holly W.
> All this innocence would explain why Julia Carling forbade him to see Diana
> again, why he broke the promise he made her and why Julia had to be persuaded
> not to name Diana in her divorce suit - according to *other* reports of the
> time. Not.
> --
> Sacha
> ---------------------------
>
> Oh, Sacha, Sacha! . . . Forget the *other* reports of the time and listen to
> JULIA!
>
> She told The Mirror in 1999:
>
> Julia said: "I'm sure it would have been the wrong move to cite Diana in the
> adultery case. He was by then having an affair with Ali.
>
> "For a while I wanted to know exactly what happened between them, and
> why. But I don't any more."
> <end excerpt>
>
> You see? Julia herself says she was not going to cite Diana
No, she doesn't say that. Read the excerpt again. In the article
cited above, Julia is reflecting on *past* events and looking at past
actions. She does *not* say that she did not wish to cite Diana *at
the time* of the adultery case.
and that she never
> knew exactly what happened between Will and Diana.
No, once again she doesn't say this. What she says is that she wanted
to know for awhile what did occur between them, but now (in her time
of 1999) she no longer wants to know. It's not quite the same thing as
"never knowing."
And, of course, her
> husband had moved on to another woman [the mother of his son] whom he then left
> for yet another woman.
>
> Don't the truth git ya?
Yeah, it does--and maybe it should "git ya" as well.
>
> Ellie
Sacha
Where have I lied? I have made it *quite* clear that the papers were full of
innuendo and hints. I have also said that nobody divorces their husband
*only* over a close friendship. Both are perfectly true. It is also true
that *at the time* the papers did everything BUT declare they were having a
sexual affair and hat their behaviour didn't discourage that belief - and
that is certainly what the papers wanted people to believe.
Whether people do so or not is up to them.
--
Sacha
yaffaDina1
> "Andy.3rd" <agh...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> news:20030703154602...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> > >Many among us have spent hours in the company of a male or female
> > >friend...over night, for instance, without sex occuring...it's part of
> > >life IF you have good friends.
> > >
> > >PK
> >
> > So you had a few kinky johns who would rather talk about it than do it..
> sounds
> > like easy money to me!
>
> Yeah, very funny.
> (Andy - what makes this better than any of the crap you complain about her &
> her puppets making up???)
>
> SusanC
Absolutely nothing! In fact, his is worse because it's always
unadultered filfth. At least this time he didn't pretend to be an
English Jew, so be grateful for small mercies.
yD
yaffaDina1
Does that mean this time you really will not discuss Diana's real and
imagined affars? Or bring themup when Charles and Camilla's *current*
situation is being discussed?
yD
yaffaDina1
Nonsense! Whenever Charles & Camilla's affair and living conditions
*today* are being discussed someone always "points out" that there are
stories about who Diana slept with and even in the face of denial by
at least one man, these same people persist in keeping her name up
front -- even when Diana has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
under original discussion. She's dead! Move on. Charles is in line
for the throne and Camilla will be right there with him. What has
Diana to do with that?
yD
> >
> > --
> >
> > Sacha
> >
Sacha
yaffa...@netscape.net wrote on 6/7/03 2:28 pm:
It means that if people call me a liar, I'll respond. Or when they twist
facts about the current situation to suit the past one, I'll respond. I do
HOPE that's okay with you.
--
Sacha
PK
> > Since he himself denies that anything ever happened beyond
> > conversation, I think you can guess (if you haven't already) that this
> > entire non-episode is being spun desperately for the umpteenth time
> > just to obscure the facts about those with BIG EARS who indeed
> > cavorted clandestinely at the time.
>
> Not at all. I haven't seen anyone talking about the Carling/Diana affair
> deny that Prince Charles (gosh, your mature humour had me just rolling with
> laughter) was also having an affair. This thread started on women breaking
> up other peoples' marriages, remember?
> --
>
> Sacha
>
> --------------
> And [ignoring PKs personal insults{I wish you wouldnt PK}]....
What personal insult did I make?
what "our side
> is pointing out is...AHEM...using a newspaper, to report on the "downs" of a
> still new marriage[remember the timetable here] is taking being the "Other
> Woman" to the Nth degreee.
> IMO, this is why you all[who do not want to face the reality that the future
> Queen of England has more in common with Catherine de Medici, than the
> late-Queen Mum, or Queen A] side step the issue, and start with the .."but
> Diana did"....
> And again, gently reminding you that you{all} use one set of rules for Diana,
> and one set for everyone else!
> Diana's surety of her husbands infidelity meant she was "mad,bad and
> etc."....Julia's announcments to the press mean "oh she was very sure, so
> "that" means Diana and Will were having it on!"
> A picture of Tiggy and PC, in a lip lock, means nothing, a picture of Diana,
> and Hoare dressed in PJs ]in the middle of the night, talking, and looking
> embarrassed for setting off an alarm, is uncontestable evidence that Diana and
> Hoare were having "it" on!
> You[all] change the burden of proof according to whom you write of, and when
> faced with examples of your bias, segue into yet another attack on Diana.
>
> t
>
> Such honest reasoning won't sit well with the Other Camp who can't resist dragging Wm and Harry's beloved Mum into any off-colour threads about the Woman who ALREADY calls herself Queen, Mrs PB [whilst claiming she doesn't rilllly want to be one]
Then too you're trying to reason with those who don't even know the
Basics of the debate issues, and have never read any royal bios or
other enlightening materials on the subject at hand. In a word,
hopeless.
PK
PK
I lament that those with Big Ears....not a ref to Old Juggy, have the
ability to twig.
PK
PK
And those fabrications have become her personal Truths to the
detriment of even the prince she blindly grovels before...
I would say that her maties should ask HER to leave off the personal
jibes...there's no reason that a bully like she should be shielded
from the repercusssions of her own poisoned tongue, such as her pet
snake's demented ramblings and stalking.
PK
Loreen
>> business, not mine.
>
>
>Does that mean this time you really will not discuss Diana's real and
>imagined affars? Or bring themup when Charles and Camilla's *current*
>situation is being discussed?
>yD
Too late for that, I'm afraid! LOL
>^..^<
Nynthlyfe9
SusanC
>
--------------------]
Ah! the parkerbowles was calling a reporter, and reporting on the marriage of
the Wales.
When did Diana call newspapers to tal about*anothers* marriage?
t
still waiting for an answer, not an evasion.
quondam
>
> "Sacha" <sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:BB2D02F8.BB31%sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk..
> > business, not mine.
>
> Those of us who point out "but Diana did" are trying to make those who want
> to paint Camilla to be the Wicked Witch of the West as opposed to Saint
> Diana recognize and understand that it is *they* who have the different set
> of standards.
>
> SusanC
> >
> --------------------]
> Ah! the parkerbowles was calling a reporter, and reporting on the marriage of
> the Wales.
> When did Diana call newspapers to tal about*anothers* marriage?
> t
> still waiting for an answer, not an evasion.
Teri, you keep treating the Camilla/Higgins business as if it were proved information, when
actually, it is nothing of the sort.
As of now, nobody is in a position to know for a fact that Camilla is responsible for leaks to
the Sun. I think the confusion of supposition -- and very likely -- wishful thinking -- with
fact (visavis this alleged misdeed) has gotten way out of control.
Even if it turns out to have been the case, I don't see how any thinking person -- which
excludes most of the people on this board -- would imagine that Camilla would have done a
thing like that -- except at the specific suggestion of the P of W.
Also, FYI, people who leak sensitive material about royal marriages -- or anything else --
tend to do so very surreptitiously, and not sitting -- week after week -- in public restaurants
with well-known reporters. -- Q
>
>
julian
Who she blindly grovels before is merely part of the make-up of such
jumped-up, self-important, blustering know-nothings, so don't be
surprised by it--it's all in character. The woman is a caricature of
everything ugly, false and pretentious that lurks at the corners of
British life.
KirkVin
--------------------]
> Ah! the parkerbowles was calling a reporter, and reporting on the marriage of
> the Wales.
> When did Diana call newspapers to tal about*anothers* marriage?
> t
> still waiting for an answer, not an evasion.
Teri, you keep treating the Camilla/Higgins business as if it were proved
information, when actually, it is nothing of the sort.-Q
----------------
Then Stuart Higgins is a liar? Because here are two sources quoting him
directly. I saw his lips move on the A&E tape.
Stuart Higgins said on the A&E Camilla Biography tape:
[Speaking of before Charles's marriage]. "Camilla was ever present at all the
various kinds of equestrian events the Prince of Wales attended, and at that
stage one could be forgiven for thinking the relationship was going to go
somewhere even though she was married to Andrew Parker Bowles -- there was a
real kind of sexual chemistry between them even at that time.
I used to speak to her on the phone probably once a week for at least ten
years, uh, little did I know I was missing the greatest story in history
(laughing) knowing what was going on behind my -- behind closed doors."
---------------------------------------
From Sally Bedell Smith's book, "Diana In Search of Herself":
". . . Stuart HIggins, editor of The Sun from 1994 to 1998, conducted regular
off-the-record conversations with Camilla Parker Bowles from 1982 to 1992, when
he was a reporter and junior editor. He had first known her when he was
covering weekend sporting events [My Note: the equestrian events he mentions
above on the tape], and when he returned from an assignment in the United
States in 1982, he got in touch with her.
"I talked to her once a week for ten years," said Higgins. "I talked to her
ABOUT CHARLES AND DIANA [emphasis added]. She guided me on things that were
not true, or things that were off beam. Everything was behind closed doors,
and
I didn't write about her, although I spoke to her ALL THE TIME [emphasis added]
during that period. I didn't sense that she and Charles were out of touch. I
felt she was involved, but not necessarily in a romance or affair with Charles.
I never sensed that she was out of contact, though I definitely believe there
was a cessation in the realtionship and that Charles put an effort into the
marriage. Camilla spoke reliably about CHARLES AND DIANA [emphasis added], and
she became a trusted SOURCE [emphasis added] for Higgins, who protected her by
keeping their relationship confidential. "Our relationship was two ways, "said
Higgins. "We had some long conversations. She was really trying to gauge
whether the press was on to her [and Charles], so it was a question of her
keeping in touch, too."
Ellie
-----------------
As of now, nobody is in a position to know for a fact that Camilla is
responsible for leaks to the Sun. I think the confusion of supposition -- and
very likely -- wishful thinking -- with fact (visavis this alleged misdeed)
has gotten way out of control.
Even if it turns out to have been the case, I don't see how any thinking person
-- which
excludes most of the people on this board -- would imagine that Camilla would
have done a thing like that -- except at the specific suggestion of the P of W.
Also, FYI, people who leak sensitive material about royal marriages -- or
anything else -- tend to do so very surreptitiously, and not sitting -- week
after week -- in public restaurants with well-known reporters. -- Q
-------------------------
Stuart Higgins stated that they spoke by telephone once a week for ten years.
He and Camilla never met in a restaurant.
Ellie
Nynthlyfe9
Ellie
-----------------
Ellie
==================
max hastings from The Princess and the Press transcript
q: Finally,. I'm fascinated by the Sun--the fact their political editor has
won an award for his political reporting but the Editor of the Sun tells me it
was mainly for his royal scoops. What do you make of the Sun being used as the
vehicle for the rehabilitation of Mrs Parker Bowles and the Prince? There are a
number of stories about her charitable activities and so on. What's going on
there?
a: Well there have been rumours which I have no idea whether they are true or
not that Mrs Parker Bowles and the Sun have had some traffic with each other
but on what terms I simply don't know. What is true is a number of the mistakes
I would have to own up to eleven or twelve years down the line, is that one
used to believe that when the Sun published royal stories, as with a good many
other Sun stories, that they were to put it politely, not very reliable.' But
we've all grudgingly had to face the fact that the Sun's royal stories are far
more often accurate than anybody else's.
There have been lots of jokes about trying to find a member of the royal staff
not in some way on Rupert Murdoch's payroll but this may be said, I'm sure the
Editor of the Sun would say 'This is the jealousy of Fleet Street rivals.' I
don't know. All we have to face is however they get the stories, their royal
stories tend to be pretty on the mark.
t
PK
this verified information until we turn blue and YET, it continues to
be challenged simply to bully and bait.
Those who are important already know the truth of it. = )
PK
Susan Cohen
"Tara O." <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:be83ip$28r6h$1...@ID-92443.news.dfncis.de...
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
> news:3f078...@vienna7.his.com...
> >
> > Those of us who point out "but Diana did" are trying to make those who
> want
> > to paint Camilla to be the Wicked Witch of the West as opposed to Saint
> > Diana recognize and understand that it is *they* who have the different
> set
> > of standards.
>
> They're all guilty. I don't believe either Diana or Camilla were
> homewreckers because I don't believe in the term anyway. The onus falls
to
> the spouse not to cheat. If the spouse cheats then its he/she that
wrecked
> the "home" not the person he/she cheated with. Women ought to have enough
> respect for other women, especially if its been done to them already, to
not
> sleep with a married man no matter how bad he says his marriage is. To do
> so only aids & abeds the cheating husband. Same rules apply to men but I
> tend to think women should carry the heavier of the moral burden because
we
> think with our heads before the act whereas alot of men are already in
> below-the-belt mode with their braincells having flown out their ears.
Well, if you want to excuse men this easily, I'll have to disagree.
SusanC
Tara O.
>
> "Tara O." <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:be83ip$28r6h$1...@ID-92443.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > homewreckers because I don't believe in the term anyway. The onus falls
> to
> > the spouse not to cheat. If the spouse cheats then its he/she that
> wrecked
> > the "home" not the person he/she cheated with. Women ought to have
enough
> > respect for other women, especially if its been done to them already, to
> not
> > sleep with a married man no matter how bad he says his marriage is. To
do
> > so only aids & abeds the cheating husband. Same rules apply to men but
I
> > tend to think women should carry the heavier of the moral burden because
> we
> > think with our heads before the act whereas alot of men are already in
> > below-the-belt mode with their braincells having flown out their ears.
>
> Well, if you want to excuse men this easily, I'll have to disagree.
I'm not excusing them at all as the rest of my original post said. I think
any cheating man is scum, not that they care. I have known plenty of women
though who were in the dating/single scene and would flat-out refuse to
continue a conversation with a man if they found out he was married, let
alone go to bed with him. I don't believe it was due to the impossibility
of a future relationship so much as the women both having enough respect for
the clueless wife at home as well as losing all respect for the man. On the
flip side, I've known plenty of men who have slept with married women not
giving thought #1 to the clueless hubby at home nor losing respect for the
woman.
--
Tara
yaffaDina1
> in article bd357a98.03070...@posting.google.com, yaffaDina1 at
> yaffa...@netscape.net wrote on 6/7/03 2:28 pm:
>
> > Sacha <sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<BB2D02F8.BB31%sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk>...
> >> in article 20030705134823...@mb-m11.aol.com, Nynthlyfe9 at
> >> nynth...@aol.com wrote on 5/7/03 6:48 pm:
> >> Diana was not discovered in her pyjamas by anyone in the middle of the
> >> night. Hoare was discovered by Ken Wharfe outside Diana's door in his
> >> next-to-nothings have a post-coital cigar because, Wharfe said, Diana
> >> wouldn't allow anyone to smoke in her bedroom.
> >> Now - some of this may be true, all of it may be true and none of it may be
> >> true but ALL of it has appeared in some publication or other and is all any
> >> of us has to go on. Claiming that Diana *never* had an affair with Carling
> >> is simply silly because all the implications were that she did. Those
> >> implications might be wrong BUT they are there. She most certainly had an
> >> inappropriately close friendship with a married man - IF standards applied
> >> to others are to be applied to her. It's just that simple. Maybe,
> >> conjecture, press stories on both sides etc.
> >> Frankly, I don't care who she did or didn't sleep with. It was her
> >> business, not mine.
> >
> >
> > Does that mean this time you really will not discuss Diana's real and
> > imagined affars? Or bring themup when Charles and Camilla's *current*
> > situation is being discussed?
> > yD
>
> It means that if people call me a liar, I'll respond. Or when they twist
> facts about the current situation to suit the past one, I'll respond. I do
> HOPE that's okay with you.
Of course it's okay, but thank you for checking. But I was actually
asking about discussion about Diana's sex life, on or off topic, not
your correcting what someone says about you. Never mind.
yD :)
yaffaDina1
> <snip>
> > -------------------------
>
> Stuart Higgins stated that they spoke by telephone once a week for ten years.
> He and Camilla never met in a restaurant.
>
> Ellie
Well, all that doesn't sound to me as if CPB was acting in Diana;s
interests, nor, indeed, in the interests of helping Charles make his
marriage work.
yD
quondam
>
> <snip>
> --------------------]
> > Ah! the parkerbowles was calling a reporter, and reporting on the marriage of
> > the Wales.
> > When did Diana call newspapers to tal about*anothers* marriage?
> > t
> > still waiting for an answer, not an evasion.
>
> Teri, you keep treating the Camilla/Higgins business as if it were proved
> information, when actually, it is nothing of the sort.-Q
> ----------------
>
> Then Stuart Higgins is a liar?
As a longtime Murdoch employee, I'd say it's not unlikely that Higgins is a very big liar.
>Because here are two sources quoting him
> directly. I saw his lips move on the A&E tape.
>
> Stuart Higgins said on the A&E Camilla Biography tape:
>
> [Speaking of before Charles's marriage]. "Camilla was ever present at all the
> various kinds of equestrian events the Prince of Wales attended, and at that
> stage one could be forgiven for thinking the relationship was going to go
> somewhere even though she was married to Andrew Parker Bowles -- there was a
> real kind of sexual chemistry between them even at that time.
>
> I used to speak to her on the phone probably once a week for at least ten
> years, uh, little did I know I was missing the greatest story in history
> (laughing) knowing what was going on behind my -- behind closed doors."
What he's saying here seems to contradict the notion you're so attached to, which is that
from Day One -- and before it would have been authorized by Charles -- Camilla was leaking
personal stuff about Diana and her marriage.
> ---------------------------------------
>
> From Sally Bedell Smith's book, "Diana In Search of Herself":
>
> ". . . Stuart HIggins, editor of The Sun from 1994 to 1998, conducted regular
> off-the-record conversations with Camilla Parker Bowles from 1982 to 1992, when
> he was a reporter and junior editor. He had first known her when he was
> covering weekend sporting events [My Note: the equestrian events he mentions
> above on the tape], and when he returned from an assignment in the United
> States in 1982, he got in touch with her.
Again, it makes clear that such contact that they had was at Higgins' instigation, and not
Camilla's.
>
> "I talked to her once a week for ten years," said Higgins. "I talked to her
> ABOUT CHARLES AND DIANA [emphasis added]. She guided me on things that were
> not true, or things that were off beam. Everything was behind closed doors,
> and
> I didn't write about her, although I spoke to her ALL THE TIME [emphasis added]
> during that period.
Here's what Higgins wrote in the Guardian (May 18,1998) about his relationship with CPB:
"I have known Camilla Parker Bowles off and on for the past 20 years. We have met three
times and spoken on the telephone an embarrassing number of times. Usually it was me
doing the talking and her doing the wriggling. She has occasionally guided me, perhaps
misled me and sometimes even pumped me into telling her what was the lastest rumor or
gossip."
However surreptitious Higgins claims it all was, Diana was certainly well aware of Higgins'
meetings and conversations with Camilla, because Diana brought them up when Higgins
wanted an exclusive from her on her work with Bulimia.
>I didn't sense that she and Charles were out of touch. I
> felt she was involved, but not necessarily in a romance or affair with Charles.
> I never sensed that she was out of contact, though I definitely believe there
> was a cessation in the realtionship and that Charles put an effort into the
> marriage. Camilla spoke reliably about CHARLES AND DIANA [emphasis added], and
> she became a trusted SOURCE [emphasis added] for Higgins, who protected her by
> keeping their relationship confidential. "Our relationship was two ways, "said
> Higgins. "We had some long conversations. She was really trying to gauge
> whether the press was on to her [and Charles], so it was a question of her
> keeping in touch, too."
Again, it wasn't confidential. It was very widely known about.
I really don't think you have proved your point, or any point in particular. -- Q
Susan Cohen
>
[snippage]
It was the "I tend to think women should carry the heavier of the moral
burden because we think with our heads before the act whereas alot of men
are already in below-the-belt mode with their braincells having flown out
their ears." with which I took issue. Who are *these* men all cheating with,
then? The same woman?
SusanC
> --
> Tara
>
>
KirkVin
> > Ah! the parkerbowles was calling a reporter, and reporting on the marriage
of
> > the Wales. When did Diana call newspapers to tal about*anothers* marriage?
> > t
> > still waiting for an answer, not an evasion.
>
> Teri, you keep treating the Camilla/Higgins business as if it were proved
information, when actually, it is nothing of the sort.-Q
> ----------------
>
> Then Stuart Higgins is a liar?
As a longtime Murdoch employee, I'd say it's not unlikely that Higgins is a
very big liar.-Q
-------------------------
Then isn't it interesting that St. James's Palace hasn't scrambled to issue
denials on Camilla's behalf as they did for the Junor book and the leak about
William coming to tea.
Ellie
---------------------------
>Because here are two sources quoting him directly. I saw his lips move on
the A&E tape.
>
> Stuart Higgins said on the A&E Camilla Biography tape:
>
> [Speaking of before Charles's marriage]. "Camilla was ever present at all
the
> various kinds of equestrian events the Prince of Wales attended, and at that
> stage one could be forgiven for thinking the relationship was going to go
> somewhere even though she was married to Andrew Parker Bowles -- there was a
real kind of sexual chemistry between them even at that time.
>
> I used to speak to her on the phone probably once a week for at least ten
> years, uh, little did I know I was missing the greatest story in history
> (laughing) knowing what was going on behind my -- behind closed doors."
What he's saying here seems to contradict the notion you're so attached to,
which is that from Day One -- and before it would have been authorized by
Charles -- Camilla was leaking personal stuff about Diana and her marriage. -Q
-------------------------
Eh? Could you provide some evidence of this Notion To Which I Am So Attached?
[And Sacha's e-mail doesn't count!]
I maintain what Stuart Higgins himself says -- and which has NEVER been
contradicted by Camilla's camp -- that his weekly phone conversations with
Camilla began in 1982. This would not have been Day One of the Wales
marriage but Year One, at least.
Ellie
---------------------------
> From Sally Bedell Smith's book, "Diana In Search of Herself":
>
> ". . . Stuart HIggins, editor of The Sun from 1994 to 1998, conducted regular
> off-the-record conversations with Camilla Parker Bowles from 1982 to 1992,
when
> he was a reporter and junior editor. He had first known her when he was
> covering weekend sporting events [My Note: the equestrian events he mentions
> above on the tape], and when he returned from an assignment in the United
> States in 1982, he got in touch with her.
Again, it makes clear that such contact that they had was at Higgins'
instigation, and not Camilla's. -Q
---------------------
Which proves what? Camilla had to answer the phone and participate . . . for
10 years! The fact that she didn't make initial contact doesn't absolve her of
her part in undermining the Wales marriage.
Ellie
----------------------
> "I talked to her once a week for ten years," said Higgins. "I talked to her
> ABOUT CHARLES AND DIANA [emphasis added]. She guided me on things that were
not true, or things that were off beam. Everything was behind closed doors,
and I didn't write about her, although I spoke to her ALL THE TIME [emphasis
added] during that period.
Here's what Higgins wrote in the Guardian (May 18,1998) about his relationship
with CPB:
"I have known Camilla Parker Bowles off and on for the past 20 years. We have
met three times and spoken on the telephone an embarrassing number of times.
Usually it was me doing the talking and her doing the wriggling. She has
occasionally guided me, perhaps
misled me and sometimes even pumped me into telling her what was the lastest
rumor or gossip." -Q
-------------------------
Yes, this story appeared in The Times, too. And it follows along with what he
told SBS. Higgins further is quoted in "Camilla: Her True Story" by Caroline
Graham, 2001:
"Through this telephone relationship ... she guided me as to what may be right
or
wrong, with a clear bias in favour of the man she loved, Prince Charles."
Ellie
---------------------------
However surreptitious Higgins claims it all was, Diana was certainly well aware
of Higgins' meetings and conversations with Camilla, because Diana brought them
up when Higgins wanted an exclusive from her on her work with Bulimia. -Q
-----------------------------
Yes, it was a sort of *open* secret that Camilla was involved with The Sun;
much as it was an *open* secret that Charles and Camilla were having an affair.
I believe I have in the past even quoted another journalist as saying Diana
baited Higgins when he asked for a meeting with her to which you are referring,
telling him, "I hear you are a friend of Camilla's."
Ellie
-----------------------------
>I didn't sense that she and Charles were out of touch. I felt she was
involved, but not necessarily in a romance or affair with Charles. I never
sensed that she was out of contact, though I definitely believe there
> was a cessation in the realtionship and that Charles put an effort into the
marriage. Camilla spoke reliably about CHARLES AND DIANA [emphasis added], and
> she became a trusted SOURCE [emphasis added] for Higgins, who protected her
by keeping their relationship confidential. "Our relationship was two ways,
"said Higgins. "We had some long conversations. She was really trying to
gauge whether the press was on to her [and Charles], so it was a question of
her
> keeping in touch, too."
---------------------
Again, it wasn't confidential. It was very widely known about. -Q
------------------------
Yes, it eventually became an open secret within some circles just as her affair
with Charles was.
Ellie
-------------------------
I really don't think you have proved your point, or any point in particular.
-- Q
-----------------------------
That's interesting. One of the main parties says, "Yes, this happened.";
there is corroborative evidence given by other journalists, and there is no
denial from the other side; but you don't think the point is proved.
This is a much higher standard of proof than the proof offered by your chum in
the thread about Carling and Diana, and I am confident most posters can see the
difference.
Ellie
quondam
>
> > --------------------]
> > > Ah! the parkerbowles was calling a reporter, and reporting on the marriage
> of
> > > the Wales. When did Diana call newspapers to tal about*anothers* marriage?
> > > t
> > > still waiting for an answer, not an evasion.
> >
> > Teri, you keep treating the Camilla/Higgins business as if it were proved
> information, when actually, it is nothing of the sort.-Q
> > ----------------
> >
> > Then Stuart Higgins is a liar?
>
> As a longtime Murdoch employee, I'd say it's not unlikely that Higgins is a
> very big liar.-Q
> -------------------------
>
> Then isn't it interesting that St. James's Palace hasn't scrambled to issue
> denials on Camilla's behalf as they did for the Junor book and the leak about
> William coming to tea.
> Ellie
I don't think it's interesting. I don't think it proves anything one way or the other. In the
past, SJP has denied things have turned out to be true, and they have also ignored lies.
> ---------------------------
>
> >Because here are two sources quoting him directly. I saw his lips move on
> the A&E tape.
> >
> > Stuart Higgins said on the A&E Camilla Biography tape:
> >
> > [Speaking of before Charles's marriage]. "Camilla was ever present at all
> the
> > various kinds of equestrian events the Prince of Wales attended, and at that
> > stage one could be forgiven for thinking the relationship was going to go
> > somewhere even though she was married to Andrew Parker Bowles -- there was a
> real kind of sexual chemistry between them even at that time.
> >
> > I used to speak to her on the phone probably once a week for at least ten
> > years, uh, little did I know I was missing the greatest story in history
> > (laughing) knowing what was going on behind my -- behind closed doors."
>
> What he's saying here seems to contradict the notion you're so attached to,
> which is that from Day One -- and before it would have been authorized by
> Charles -- Camilla was leaking personal stuff about Diana and her marriage. -Q
> -------------------------
>
> Eh? Could you provide some evidence of this Notion To Which I Am So Attached?
You keep rabbiting on about it (and Camilla's supposed lack of employment as well) as if it
were received truth.
And it's not anything of the sort.
> [And Sacha's e-mail doesn't count!]
Instead of attempting to insult me, why don't you just confine yourself to being wrong.
>
> I maintain what Stuart Higgins himself says -- and which has NEVER been
> contradicted by Camilla's camp -- that his weekly phone conversations with
> Camilla began in 1982. This would not have been Day One of the Wales
> marriage but Year One, at least.
> Ellie
Fine. *You* maintain it. But just because something hasn't been contradicted does not make
it true.
> ---------------------------
>
> > From Sally Bedell Smith's book, "Diana In Search of Herself":
> >
> > ". . . Stuart HIggins, editor of The Sun from 1994 to 1998, conducted regular
> > off-the-record conversations with Camilla Parker Bowles from 1982 to 1992,
> when
> > he was a reporter and junior editor. He had first known her when he was
> > covering weekend sporting events [My Note: the equestrian events he mentions
> > above on the tape], and when he returned from an assignment in the United
> > States in 1982, he got in touch with her.
>
> Again, it makes clear that such contact that they had was at Higgins'
> instigation, and not Camilla's. -Q
> ---------------------
>
> Which proves what? Camilla had to answer the phone and participate . . . for
> 10 years! The fact that she didn't make initial contact doesn't absolve her of
> her part in undermining the Wales marriage.
> Ellie
I think it waters down the culpability considerably if Camilla was leaking to Higgins under
the instructions and supervision of Charles. He used many people to do that. I'm sure we've
not heard the last from the shifty Higgins, so perhaps one of these days, he'll tell us exactly
what it was -- and when -- that Camilla shared with him.
To hear this group carry on, she sat outside that marriage for a year -- quiite on her own --
like a red-eyed Grinch, laying the groundwork that would eventually cause the marriage to
topple. And there's no evidence at all that that's what occurred.
Maybe you did. I don't keep careful records of all of your posts.
Chum? Why don't you just come out and say what you are talking about, so I don't have to
read a thread I'm not very interested in.
If you're trying to say that group members aren't supposed to email each other, that's
ridiculous.
If you think *you've* been the subject of any emails, that's not the case.
If you're attempting to suggest that I take my marching orders from Sacha, then -- while it's
actually none of your business, and also very rude and insulting -- I can only say that my
POV with respect to the royal family is approximately the exact opposite of hers.
I simply don't like it when you and others attempt to use baloney to defend a good cause.
That's an insult to everybody here.
Why are you-- Ellie -- so feverishly interested in all of this twaddle, anyway?
It might make a fascinating subject for the emails I have with my chums. -- Q
PK
--------------------]
Ah! the parkerbowles was calling a reporter, and reporting on the
marriage
marriage?
t, still waiting for an answer, not an evasion.
---------------------
>
> >Because here are two sources quoting him directly. I saw his lips move on
> the A&E tape. Stuart Higgins said on the A&E Camilla Biography tape:
least ten
> I maintain what Stuart Higgins himself says -- and which has NEVER been
> contradicted by Camilla's camp -- that his weekly phone conversations with
> Camilla began in 1982. This would not have been Day One of the Wales
> marriage but Year One, at least.
> Ellie
> ---------------------------
>
From Sally Bedell Smith's book, "Diana In Search of Herself":
regular off-the-record conversations with Camilla Parker Bowles from
1982 to 1992,
assignment in the United States in 1982, he got in touch with her.
> Again, it makes clear that such contact that they had was at Higgins'
> instigation, and not Camilla's. -Q
Naturally Camilla invited him to contact her, otherwise he wouldn't
have been put through to her. PK
---------------------
"I talked to her once a week for ten years," said Higgins. "I talked
to her
ABOUT CHARLES AND DIANA [emphasis added]. She guided me on things
that were
not true, or things that were off beam. Everything was behind closed
doors,
and I didn't write about her, although I spoke to her ALL THE TIME
[emphasis
added] during that period.
Here's what Higgins wrote in the Guardian (May 18,1998) about his
relationship
with CPB:
> "I have known Camilla Parker Bowles off and on for the past 20 years. We have
> met three times and spoken on the telephone an embarrassing number of times.
That would be at least 520 calls over "at ***least*** 10 years."
> Usually it was me doing the talking and her doing the wriggling. She has
> occasionally guided me, perhaps
> misled me and sometimes even pumped me into telling her what was the lastest
> rumor or gossip." -Q
> -------------------------
>
Yes, this story appeared in The Times, too. And it follows along
with what he
told SBS. Higgins further is quoted in "Camilla: Her True Story" by
Caroline
Graham, 2001:
"Through this telephone relationship ... she guided me as to what may
be right
or wrong, with a clear bias in favour of the man she loved, Prince
Charles."
> Ellie
> ---------------------------
BIAS is the understatement of the milinnium.
"I [Higgins] didn't sense that she and Charles were out of touch. I
felt she was involved, but not necessarily in a romance or affair with
Charles.
HE is guessing as to the extent of the involvement.
I never sensed that she was out of contact,
WE have always found that to be the case in extensive research.
though I definitely believe there was a cessation in the realtionship
WHAT relationship? They were never out of contact....mmmm
and that Charles put an effort into the
marriage. Camilla spoke reliably about CHARLES AND DIANA [emphasis
added], and
she became a trusted SOURCE [emphasis added] for Higgins, who
protected her
by keeping their relationship confidential. "Our relationship was
two ways,
"said Higgins. "We had some long conversations. She was really
trying to
gauge whether the press was on to her [and Charles], so it was a
question of
her keeping in touch, too."
---------------------
Another proof that she kept the talks going...
>
Conjecture snipped------------
> One of the main parties says, "Yes, this happened.";
> there is corroborative evidence given by other journalists, and there is no
> denial from the other side; but you don't think the point is proved.
> This is a much higher standard of proof than the proof offered by your chum in
> the thread about Carling and Diana, and I am confident most posters can see the
> difference.
> Ellie
Accidently snipped something about the POW's involvement...of course
he knew what Camilla was up to with Higgins, theirs was a joint effort
to destroy Diana's reputation in order to further his, EXACTLY like
the plan they carried out after her death and are still committed
to...the more cred she loses, the more he gains...or so they imagine.
Charles didn't realize when he was feeding Camz tidbits for
Higgins....as one journalist worded it, that he was also letting cats
out of the bag that only HE could have been acquainted with...so that
in the end....Diana knew Higgins sources and so did the man in the
street....there was only one plausible explanation for the
thoroughness and intricate details of his reports, Camz and Charlie
were collaborating on 'scoops' for the tabloids.
PK
NewNom
The reasoning seems to be that Higgins and Camilla talked, and The Sun
supposedly had more and better royal stories than other papers, therefore
Camilla was the source of stories that were damaging to Diana. To prove this,
we'd need to see the main royal stories from *all* the major papers during the
period. Then we could see whether The Sun actually did break more stories, and
whether their stories were injurious to Diana or to the Wales marriage. Since
Higgins also told Bedell Smith that The Sun paid royal staff and others for
stories, this still wouldn't be conclusive, but it would be better than what
we're getting now.
Peggy
PK
I have never heard of a Proper woman speaking with a tabloid twice
much less every single week for over a decade. Members of the RF have
to speak to all of the papers...but not one of their concubines for
pity's sake! It's an outrage.
She spent more time and was more faithful with Charlie and Stuie than
with , whatz his name, her Husband.
PK
quondam
The notion that Camilla was speed dialing Higgins the moment the honeymoon car pulled out
of the driveway is ridiculous on its face. If Camilla had leaked to the papers without the
knowledge and connivance of Charles, there's no way in the world that she and Charles
would still be a couple today. She -- and her family -- had far too much at stake to risk
alienating the RF.
It's equally silly to assume that it was Camilla who made the phone calls. Typically, a
reporter will gain entree by saying that he or she is fact-checking a story, and only wishes
to verify certain points of information. This is essentially the way Higgins describes his
conversations with CPB.
>To prove this,
> we'd need to see the main royal stories from *all* the major papers during the
> period.
You'd also need to know the precise timing of each leak. Clearly, if the couple were already
leading separate lives when the conversations began, it changes the picture considerably.
It's no longer a case of one woman's determination to destroy the happiness of another
woman, but instead a sordid squabble between already-estranged spouses, who've decided to
make their misery public.
Then we could see whether The Sun actually did break more stories, and
> whether their stories were injurious to Diana or to the Wales marriage. Since
> Higgins also told Bedell Smith that The Sun paid royal staff and others for
> stories, this still wouldn't be conclusive, but it would be better than what
> we're getting now.
It still wouldn't prove very much -- or at least, it wouldn't prove that anything Camilla may
have shared with Higgins led to the deterioration of Charles and Diana's marriage.
I don't think that the general public has any idea of the things that some news
organizations will resort to in order to fill their pages (including bribery of people at every
level) or they wouldn't be so naive as to think that Camilla would be either the only source or
even a source at all for intimate details about Charles's marriage.
BTW, Stuart Higgins (as in : "Then Stuart Higgins is a liar?" -- Ellie) lost his job when he
printed details from a fabricated Di sex tape on the front page of the Sun. This was too much
for even the Murdoch organization, which soon showed Higgins the door. - - Q
>
> Peggy
>
(snipped for brevity)
Nynthlyfe9
Peggy
=================
heres a pointer
Finally,. I'm fascinated by the Sun--the fact their political editor has won
an award for his political reporting but the Editor of the Sun tells me it was
mainly for his royal scoops. What do you make of the Sun being used as the
vehicle for the rehabilitation of Mrs Parker Bowles and the Prince? There are a
number of stories about her charitable activities and so on. What's going on
there?
a: Well there have been rumours which I have no idea whether they are true or
not that Mrs Parker Bowles and the Sun have had some traffic with each other
but on what terms I simply don't know. What is true is a number of the mistakes
I would have to own up to eleven or twelve years down the line, is that one
used to believe that when the Sun published royal stories, as with a good many
other Sun stories, that they were to put it politely, not very reliable.' But
we've all grudgingly had to face the fact that the Sun's royal stories are far
more often accurate than anybody else's.
There have been lots of jokes about trying to find a member of the royal staff
not in some way on Rupert Murdoch's payroll but this may be said, I'm sure the
Editor of the Sun would say 'This is the jealousy of Fleet Street rivals.' I
don't know. All we have to face is however they get the stories, their royal
stories tend to be pretty on the mark.
---------
Didnt we have this conversation some years ago?
Alas we are still waiting for the book. :(
----------
Date: 2000/04/13
quondam quo...@quondam.com wrote:
>NewNom wrote:
>>
>
>With the exception of the Weekly World News and its ilk, all papers who
>quote anonymous sources really do have a source who is known to them.
Well, it's hard to pin down those bat children and aliens.
>Occasionally, though, writers do get caught making things up, and those
>writers get fired. I's as much a matter of money as it is of ethics.
>If the material is not reliable enough to run as news, a paper sometimes
>will run it as a blind item.
(snipped)
>Even if Higgins never gets around to explaining fully the circs
>surrounding his lunches with Camilla, I'm inclined to think that the RF
>has probably asked her about the extent of her discussions with him.
Why so?
>>I don't suppose you'd care to
>> speculate about why he might have made these remarks to SBS? He's not only
>> quoted in her book, but also acknowledged, so this was no off-the-record or
>> for-background-only conversation. Maybe he and Camilla fell out, or maybe
he
>> feels safe in saying this, on the assumption that the last thing Camilla
will
>> do is draw more attention to it by complaining?
>My guess is that Camilla had long since stopped being a source, so
>Higgins had nothing to lose by blabbing to SBS.
Except a reputation for protecting his sources, which I would think would be
important for his future writing.
> I also think that
>Higgins is planning to write a book and is laying the groundwork to
>establish his credibility as a person to whom important things were
>leaked. -- Q
Could well be, and an interesting book it'll make. I for one plan to read it.
Peggy
----------------------------
t
Nynthlyfe9
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
Well actually, I have an excellent idea of how newspapers work, at least the
Los Angeles Times, while not as prestigious as others, is still[or at least
was] a very good newspaper.
I dont agree with ,nor understand your arguements about the Parkerbowles,but
we will have to agree to disagree.
KirkVin
The reasoning seems to be that Higgins and Camilla talked, and The Sun
supposedly had more and better royal stories than other papers, therefore
Camilla was the source of stories that were damaging to Diana. To prove this,
we'd need to see the main royal stories from *all* the major papers during the
period. Then we could see whether The Sun actually did break more stories, and
whether their stories were injurious to Diana or to the Wales marriage. Since
Higgins also told Bedell Smith that The Sun paid royal staff and others for
stories, this still wouldn't be conclusive, but it would be better than what
we're getting now.
Peggy
Actually, the reasoning is that Stuart HIggins has stated multiple times in
documented places that Camilla *guided* him in his stories. No one has claimed
that Camilla was HIggins' only source, but that she provided verification as to
what was accurate . . . and that would be *accurate* as seen through the eyes
of the Prince of Wales's Camp.
You don't have to search through archives to compare headlines, since other
journalists from that era have gone on record as saying The Sun's royal stories
were more accurate. These are the competition, not Sun employees, who have
stated this. I believe The Sun even received some type of award for their
royal stories; but I can't recall the details right now.
I remember a while back you and Q had a discussion about Camilla as Stuart's
source, and Q was of the opinion that Camilla and/or Charles had to have been
the source for Caroline Graham's book as the information was so intimate.
And, really, I doubt that Stuart would have held on to the information he
gleaned from Camilla's *guidance* during his ten years of conversations without
that information making its way into his articles. He was a tabloid
journalist, after all.
Ellie
quondam
The Los Angeles Times is prestigious enough for most normal purposes. It would have been
clearer had I said that I meant British papers, which are a breed apaprt.
>
> I dont agree with ,nor understand your arguements about the Parkerbowles,but
> we will have to agree to disagree.
OK. -- Q
quondam
>
> <snip>
> The reasoning seems to be that Higgins and Camilla talked, and The Sun
> supposedly had more and better royal stories than other papers, therefore
> Camilla was the source of stories that were damaging to Diana. To prove this,
> we'd need to see the main royal stories from *all* the major papers during the
> period. Then we could see whether The Sun actually did break more stories, and
> whether their stories were injurious to Diana or to the Wales marriage. Since
> Higgins also told Bedell Smith that The Sun paid royal staff and others for
> stories, this still wouldn't be conclusive, but it would be better than what
> we're getting now.
>
> Peggy
>
> Actually, the reasoning is that Stuart HIggins has stated multiple times in
> documented places that Camilla *guided* him in his stories.
The sort of "guidance" Higgins is implying is of the fact-checking sort, and not of the
getting-on-the-phone-to-deliver-the-latest-dirt sort.
> No one has claimed
> that Camilla was HIggins' only source, but that she provided verification as to
> what was accurate . . . and that would be *accurate* as seen through the eyes
> of the Prince of Wales's Camp.
>
> You don't have to search through archives to compare headlines, since other
> journalists from that era have gone on record as saying The Sun's royal stories
> were more accurate. These are the competition, not Sun employees, who have
> stated this. I believe The Sun even received some type of award for their
> royal stories; but I can't recall the details right now.
If you should remember in the future, I'd like to know what award it was.
>
> I remember a while back you and Q had a discussion about Camilla as Stuart's
> source, and Q was of the opinion that Camilla and/or Charles had to have been
> the source for Caroline Graham's book as the information was so intimate.
The keyword in that statement is "opinion." I still think Camilla may have been the main
source for Caroline Graham's book, but I try not to confuse my own suppositions with fact --
which is how the Camilla-as-source has been presented in this ng lately.
> And, really, I doubt that Stuart would have held on to the information he
> gleaned from Camilla's *guidance* during his ten years of conversations without
> that information making its way into his articles. He was a tabloid
> journalist, after all.
I doubt that too. But I wonder how much material he actually got from Camilla, and how
much of her implied participation has been exaggerated for the greater employment
security and general yobbishness of Stuart Higgins. I'd wager that their telephone
conversations were taped by him -- no reporter would miss an opportunity like that -- and
that if they contain the sort of goodies that people imagine, they will eventually form the
nucleus of a book with his byline. -- Q
>
> Ellie
quondam
I'm not sure what quoting my old posts is supposed to prove. Speculation is a very different
thing from confirmed fact, and it would be very irresponsible to confuse the two.
In order to claim that CPB harpooned the Wales's marriage with her leaks about stuff that
was supposedly taking place, we need to know a lot more about what she supplied and when
than we actually do. Also, I'd be less inclined to accept Higgins's claims at face value; they
may be accurate, they may be exaggerated, they may even be completely false.
Unfortunately, where Fleet Street is concerned, the truth is often up for grabs. -- Q
Nynthlyfe9
--------------OK[*really*] last word :)............
No one in *this* house is crediting the parkerbowles for harpooning a marriage
without help from the two involved.
The marriage between Diana and Charles would have been high maintenance if they
had been left to themselves.Which, they clearly were not.
Stephen Barry states "Sir thought he could get married and continue in his
bachelor ways", and Diana was very sensitive about the parkerbowles...and her
husband putting on the entwined C&C cufflinks in Egypt could not have
helped....
However there are people on this board who laud the parkerbowles for keeping
her mouth shut, when in fact she blabbed about another marriage,which was none
of her business. You may feel there is enough evidence to claim "if" it
happened the PoW must have beeen behind this. I dont see this myself.
Max Hastings, in his PBS interview seemed to believe the Sun had a *real*
inside source. And in fact the only things we now for an absolute is the day
they maried, that the married couple had sex at least three times, and whatever
data that can be gleaned form the tapes[an outstanding one is that Charles had
been lieing about his relationship with his mistress for some time].
t
quondam
>
> --------------OK[*really*] last word :)............
>
> No one in *this* house is crediting the parkerbowles for harpooning a marriage
> without help from the two involved.
Ok. Fair enough.
> The marriage between Diana and Charles would have been high maintenance if they
> had been left to themselves.Which, they clearly were not.
> Stephen Barry states "Sir thought he could get married and continue in his
> bachelor ways", and Diana was very sensitive about the parkerbowles...and her
> husband putting on the entwined C&C cufflinks in Egypt could not have
> helped....
> However there are people on this board who laud the parkerbowles for keeping
> her mouth shut, when in fact she blabbed about another marriage,which was none
> of her business.
I think both sides make assumptions that can't necessarily be backed up. But I'd be more
circumspect than you when you write "when in fact she blabbed about another marriage"
because we don't really know for a fact that her blabbing went beyond "yes" and "no."
>You may feel there is enough evidence to claim "if" it
> happened the PoW must have beeen behind this.
I think it's extremely likely that he was behind it, but I don't "know" that to be the case. As I
see it, among the aces CPB holds as far as Charles is concerned are predictability, loyalty,
and possibly even obedience (in the sense that she allows him to have the upper hand). A
person who takes it upon herself to discuss a boyfriend and his family with the press is a
loose cannon, by anybody's standards. The RF have a history of dropping people -- and their
families -- for sharing the most innocuous observations with reporters. So I don't think
she'd have dared to pass on information that originated with Charles, without Charles's
approval.
I think what Higgins says has as its object to make Higgins look good. That's just my
opinion, based on my familiarity with that milieu and the people who inhabit it.
>I dont see this myself.
> Max Hastings, in his PBS interview seemed to believe the Sun had a *real*
> inside source. And in fact the only things we now for an absolute is the day
> they maried, that the married couple had sex at least three times, and whatever
> data that can be gleaned form the tapes[an outstanding one is that Charles had
> been lieing about his relationship with his mistress for some time].
The inside source could have been anybody -- or several people. And "seemed to believe" is
a considerable dilution from "knows as a fact;" It seems more like opinion to me, and
tenuously-held opinion at that. -- Q
KirkVin
>supposedly had more and better royal stories than other papers, therefore
>Camilla was the source of stories that were damaging to Diana.
The notion that Camilla was speed dialing Higgins the moment the honeymoon car
pulled out of the driveway is ridiculous on its face. -Q
I'm unaware of anyone claiming that Camilla called Higgins on July 29, 1981.
Higgins said he and Camilla began their weekly chats in 1982 which means [doing
the math!] that if Higgins began calling Camilla on New Year's of '82, that
would have been a 5-month gap between the honeymoon carriage [not a car, Q!]
pulling out of the Palace gates and said calls; or if it was December 31, l982,
then a 17-month gap! But still a far cry from the "No Contact Between Charles
and Camilla Until 1986 Until the Marriage Was Irretrievably Broken Us Both
Having Tried" put out by Charles's apologists.
This is the crux of the matter to which I believe Teri has already referred:
there are many who believe and post that Camilla is the Model of Discretion.
They post it as fact. There is enough evidence to the contrary in the form of
Stuart Higgins and other journalists who knew about Higgins' relationship with
Camilla.
Ellie
If Camilla had leaked to the papers without the knowledge and connivance of
Charles, there's no way in the world that she and Charles would still be a
couple today. She -- and her family -- had far too much at stake to risk
alienating the RF. -Q
I agree wholeheartedly! I believe that she and Charles WERE in touch with each
other all along as Stuart Higgins claims and she obviously was getting *her*
guidance from Charles that she in turn passed along to Higgins! I remember
your wondering if the story about the Queen refusing to meet Camilla was due to
her finding out about her relationship with Higgins. But if that were true,
and the Queen found out that Charles was in on it, she'd want to hush that up.
To expose Camilla would be to expose The Heir.
Ellie
It's equally silly to assume that it was Camilla who made the phone calls. -Q
I agree! That was too much work for a woman with no work ethic! ;-)
However, she allowed herself to be available to Higgins on a regular basis for
a looooong period of time, so I don't know that it matters which one let their
fingers do the walking. Camilla was a willing party.
Ellie
Typically, a reporter will gain entree by saying that he or she is
fact-checking a story, and only wishes to verify certain points of information.
This is essentially the way Higgins describes his conversations with CPB. -Q
Yep. According to Higgins, he gained entree for 10 years to verify his royal
stories. And when Camilla verified stories for him, she was giving him
information. She was a tabloid informant whether she spoke in paragraphs, gave
a *yes* or *no* answer, grunted in Morse Code, or sent up signals with her
cigarette smoke.
Ellie
I don't think that the general public has any idea of the things that some
news
organizations will resort to in order to fill their pages (including bribery of
people at every level) or they wouldn't be so naive as to think that Camilla
would be either the only source or even a source at all for intimate details
about Charles's marriage. -Q
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that tabloids have more than one source. But
the fact remains that Stuart Higgins has stated many times that Camilla did
help him with Charles and Diana, and there has been no denial as there have
been about the Penny Junor book and the William Comes to Tea leak. And, again,
you speculated that it sounded as if Camilla had dictated to Higgins much as
Diana had to Morton in the Camilla bio because the information was so intimate.
Where would that intimate information have come from had it NOT been from
Camilla/Charles? That's what was said about Morton's book: it had Diana's
fingerprints all over it. Same with the Graham book, her main source being
Higgins [who was in fact originally slated to be a co-author], who had a
relationship for years with Camilla.
Ellie
BTW, Stuart Higgins (as in : "Then Stuart Higgins is a liar?" -- Ellie) lost
his job when he printed details from a fabricated Di sex tape on the front page
of the Sun. This was too much for even the Murdoch organization, which soon
showed Higgins the door. - - Q
Well, gee, he checked it out and had experts look at it! He didn't stick it in
without telling anyone! ;-)
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9610/08/diana.hoax/index.html
"We made our best endeavors to corroborate the contents of the film with
independent witnesses confirming the apparent identity of the princess and Mr.
Hewitt. We also hired the services of surveillance experts to assess and give
their verdicts on the original source of the film."
I'm just wondering if Camilla sent to the tape to Higgins but it backfired, and
he's paying her back by revealing her as a source!
But remember! Camilla had Mark Bolland in place at SJP who was good friends
with Rebekah Wade. She had connections to The Sun even after Higgins' exit.
Ellie