Camilla Parker-Bowles Is NOT A Home Wrecker
Because as DL posters have said
Homewrecker is an ancient term that was once applied to women who had affairs with married men, (as if the man deserved no responsibility for cheating on his wife). And if the affair resulted in a separation and /or divorce, SHE was to blame., not him. Extremely dumb, extremely dated.
A person who causes their divorce by cheating is a person who causes their divorce by cheating. There is no modern use of the word "homewrecker."
Wreaking a home is based on the concept of pursuing a married man and drawing him away from his "perfect" nucellar family, the sacred "home."
None of these things, none of these statuses are true anymore if they ever were. Women are no longer virgin brides marrying for support, men are no longer individuals swayed by an "evil" tempest.
So Camilla Parker-Bowles is NOT a Home Wrecker - correct?
Vote below and discuss
|by Anonymous||reply 85||November 16, 2021 6:49 PM
Of course not Charles and Diana had a shitty marriage. They were a bad match and he obviously didn’t want to be with her from the beginning. They never should have been married.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||November 15, 2021 1:31 AM
You cut & pasted a bunch of others' comments and turned them into your own thread! Hahaha
|by Anonymous||reply 2||November 15, 2021 1:36 AM
Ok hun, OP, but you a 'tard fir shir!
|by Anonymous||reply 3||November 15, 2021 1:39 AM
Camilla is a homewrecker. She wouldn't leave. Charles is no better, but Camilla wouldn't get the hell out of someone else's marriage. It was mean, cruel, heartless and just plain wrong. She and Charles intentionally went about destroying Diana's life and the lives of Will and Harry. Camilla ought to be ashamed for what she did, and Charles ought to be ashamed for help perpetuating such cruelty.
No, Diana and Charles were not suited to each other, but that was not for Camilla to decide. She wouldn't get out of Diana's marriage. Yes, Camilla is a homewrecker.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||November 15, 2021 1:41 AM
R5 understands the dynamics.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||November 15, 2021 1:49 AM
Diana could have left if she didn’t like it or ignore it. Why should everyone be miserable.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||November 15, 2021 1:53 AM
I hate when the other woman or man in an affair absolves him or herself of any blame “well, I’m not the one who was married.” What about common decency and treating people the way you want to be treated? I hate cheaters.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||November 15, 2021 1:53 AM
Sometimes you just meet someone and you’re drawn to each other.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||November 15, 2021 1:56 AM
R8 What year do you think you're living in? Common decency left the planet many many decades ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||November 15, 2021 1:58 AM
R9 Well a grown up doesn't pursue it UNTIL the spouse and any children are taken care of for the next step - LEAVING THEM. If you aren't going to leave your spouse, then don't get deeply involved. Don't string along 2 people. Spouse and lover. If you are very chic and a bit rich, you might be able to manage a long term side affair but your own partner should have a say in it.
Charles could have been a gentleman and a true aristocrat and managed a mistress but Charles and Camilla were GREEDY and Messy. As was Diana, lord knows.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||November 15, 2021 2:16 AM
Camilla is a vile monstrous creature. Every day that she is on this earth is a day too much. It's unfortunate that the cancer rumors from a few years ago don't appear to have been true.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||November 15, 2021 2:18 AM
Oh please. As if Diana wasn't cheating too. She knew about Camillia before they got married. She never should have married him.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||November 15, 2021 2:23 AM
I wreck royal courts not homes!
|by Anonymous||reply 14||November 15, 2021 2:32 AM
One day Diana took Camilla aside and privately her to leave her husband alone. Camilla told Diana that she already had so much and not to worry about it. A greedy adulteress with few morals and scruples and who happens to look like a cow. Charles got what he deserved!
|by Anonymous||reply 15||November 15, 2021 2:33 AM
[quote]Diana could have left if she didn’t like it or ignore it. Why should everyone be miserable.
R7. You're so naive. Leaving the future ling of England is not easy. Look at how difficult it was when things were broken down beyond repair and it was still extraordinarily hard. Diana wanted to save her marriage. She had two young kids. For all the turmoil, she wanted things to work. She loved Charles...although she shouldn't have; they were both too different. But they couldn't make it work when one person is flaunting his affair in your face. What Charles and the royal family wanted was for Diane to accept another woman in her marriage. Diana said no. The old way of putting up with infidelity no longer worked. Diana was not an angel, but she was a product of her generation. Women didn't put up with a blatantly cheating husband and his homewrecking mistress.
The royal family was living by rules and morals of another decade or another century. Diana said no...as did many women of her generation. It was no longer the '40s and '50s. It was the '80s and '90s. Charles was stuck in a generation that no longer existed. The days of women putting up with some man or entitled asshole getting his way was over. So no, Diana couldn't leave at the beginning, but eventually she had to...she had enough. To suddenly be on your own even with money and fame is a lot of pressure. When the royal family slams the door in your face, it's quite unsettling. It may not seem like Diana had a hard go of things, but it wasn't easy on the outside looking in. It takes time to rebuild yourself. And that's what she was doing the last two years of her life. It's very sad we didn't see her grow older and see what could have been. It may have been great.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||November 15, 2021 2:33 AM
I grant that the aristocracy and certainly royalty have different rules.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||November 15, 2021 2:34 AM
But Charles wasn't playing by 20th century aristocracy rules. He was being a pig about it. William just had a mistress for a few years. Did we hear about it? Did it destroy his marriage? No, because both parties kept it cool.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||November 15, 2021 2:36 AM
Diana had a massive personality disorder. I liked her too but she was borderline and probably impossible to live with. She was extremely needy. Borderlines like most cluster B personality disorders have the emotional makeup of toddlers.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||November 15, 2021 2:37 AM
[quote] Yes, Camilla is a homewrecker.
But Datalounge says there is no such thing as a "homewrecker"
|by Anonymous||reply 20||November 15, 2021 2:40 AM
Diana also had an affair with Oliver Hoare, who was married and she almost wreaked that marriage when his wife threatened divorce. If Camilla was a homewrecker, so was Diana.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||November 15, 2021 2:49 AM
Charles and Camilla may be somewhat accepted now--many years later when they are senior citizens, happy with each other and no longer looking to shag the next person around the corner. But what they did to Diana and her kids was heartless. Diana cheated too, but Diana was looking for love and affection. Charles and Camilla were just acting cold and recklessly and didn't care about anyone. Big difference in the motivation and actions of Charles versus Diana. Camilla was simply ruthless. It's too bad Camilla wasn't acceptable to the royal family in the 1970s. All this could have been avoided.
As others have said, Diana shouldn't have married a cold, callous jerk. But Diana was 20. She had a lot to learn and was foolishly naïve. Charles was 32. It was Charles who should have put a stop to the marriage because he knew he had no intention of loving and being married to Diana, a person both he and Camilla intentionally set out to hurt and harm. And Charles and Camilla succeeded. They harmed others badly. We forget know because the years have past. But people don't change all that much. Charles and Camilla are just old now. Age has caused them to be decent people. Charles never should have married Diana. He knew he was a pompous piece of shit, likewise Camilla.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||November 15, 2021 2:50 AM
R19 Marrying into the Royal Family so young and having an unfaithful husband who simply expected her to be a baby/heir machine would be enough to drive anyone crazy. Team Diana!!
|by Anonymous||reply 23||November 15, 2021 2:52 AM
I agree that Camilla is not a homewrecker, because by all accounts it was Charles pursuing her during his marriage.
But I disagree with OP's assertion that there is no such thing as a homewrecker anymore. There are a subset of women, and men, who go after married men with the intention of breaking up their family. Most men are totally responsible for their affairs but some of them are victims of seduction. To me it is all about who is doing the pursuing.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||November 15, 2021 2:56 AM
If not a "homewrecker", then a "hussy".
|by Anonymous||reply 26||November 15, 2021 3:02 AM
Call Diana needy? Whatever. She was far too young to be married to someone who openly cheated and kept leaving. She was being a wife. She wanted her husband home. She had two kids. She was lonely. Charles was being a bastard. Charles didn't put up with loneliness. he walked out and expected Diana to accept it. The day they brough Harry home from the hospital after being born. Charles left. The day William ended up in the hospital after being seriously hit the head with a bat or golf club...Diana drove over 100 miles to get to the hospital. Charles eventually went to the hospital, but when he realized Will was going to be okay, he left to be with Camilla. Charles left and for his affair with Camilla.
Charles invited Camilla to his wedding with Diana. Charles was accepting gifts from Camilla before the wedding. He should have put a stop to those kind of behavior. H didn't. Charles was taking calls from Camilla while he was on his honeymoon with Diana on the royal yacht Britannia. Say what you want about Diana. Charles drove Diana to cry out for help all the time. He married someone he knew he didn't love. Diana was foolish to trust a heartless bastard who thought the rules of marriage didn't apply to him, but she was young. Charles and Camilla set out to be evil and carry on some sort of shadow affair from the beginning and expected Diana to deal with it. Diana had her faults; she had affairs. But her husband was never around and didn't want her. Charles was just cruel, heartless and confused, doing what his parents wanted him to do. Camilla was mean and evil at the time. Diana was many things, but she wasn't evil.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||November 15, 2021 3:09 AM
Camilla is no more a homewrecker than the various aristocratic types Prince Philip is strongly rumored to have carried on with, sometimes for years. Because his wife was not a hysteric, no homes were broken.
Aristocrats who aren't crazycakes narcissists all understand that the passing on of land (and in the case of the Royals, the Crown) is the business they are in. Where those lands and titles are still intact, marriages are generally dynastic arrangements made between two houses with like interests in these fields. Sometimes they are built on love, and sometimes they are even happy. But that is not what the participants primarily expect. They expect that their marriage will be a stable arrangement between two people with similar outlooks, whereby lands and titles will be passed on to the children of both partners, to the satisfaction of both. The children, in turn, will be educated by them to understand that they are in the business of passing on land and titles to THEIR children. Divorce is a disaster because it chews up the proceeds that are meant to be inherited.
Because it is not a Mills and Boon novel, the partners in this business arrangement anticipate that they might have extramarital affairs. So long as the business is over of ensuring the heir and spare are in place and have the correct lineage, this has traditionally represented the way things are and is not a big deal. That is how it has been for hundreds of years.
Camilla was not the only married woman in Charles's intimate circle when he married Diana. There were at least two others. All of them were invited to the wedding, and doubtless all of them gave each other presents. Diana expunged the others from the narrative because it didn't suit her story.
In short, Diana and Charles both evidently behaved badly, but Camilla could do nothing without Charles's consent and encouragement.
The Crown is 21st century chav piffle which claims to know far more than it possibly could, and people should be very careful about believing anything it says.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||November 15, 2021 3:42 AM
[quote] Aristocrats who aren't crazycakes narcissists all understand that the passing on of land (and in the case of the Royals, the Crown) is the business they are in. Where those lands and titles are still intact, marriages are generally dynastic arrangements made between two houses with like interests in these fields.
Except there is no reason for that to apply to Royals. Their marriages do not involve the passing on of land, in the sense of marrying another large landowner to grow the size of land. The purpose of a royal marriage, at least since Victoria and Albert, has been to promote the idealized family that their subjects could emulate which included having children. There is a reason we associate the middle class and Victorianism, they perpetuated the image not of debauched aristocrats but of middle class domesticity.
The Queen's father married her mother, not because he was told to but because he loved her. The Queen, regardless of whatever machinations Uncle Dickie was doing behind the scenes, has admitted that for her it was love at first sight. Sure, Camilla wasn't an ideal candidate but she would have been fine for him to marry when they were both single. But, he missed his chance and for whatever reason couldn't or wouldn't move on and therefore brought misery to a naïve unsuspecting girl.
Charles is the only villain of this story, everyone else has been his victims, especially Diana and Camilla.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||November 15, 2021 3:58 AM
Charles and Camilla are both home wreckers. They were both married to other people.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||November 15, 2021 4:03 AM
The wreaking of marriages sounds biblical.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||November 15, 2021 4:10 AM
Whatever Camilla was all those years ago she's Charles' wife and Princess of Wales (although she doesn't use the title). They seem to be well matched and the marriage is a success. Over the past how ever long it's been, 15 years or so, Charles seems happier than he's ever been and Camilla has fit into the royal family over time.
Let Diana rest in peace. Let's not have any more homewrecker nonsense.
Although I'll miss the "wreaking" marriages, which was fucking hilarious, r31, you killjoy.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||November 15, 2021 4:15 AM
[quote]Their marriages do not involve the passing on of land, in the sense of marrying another large landowner to grow the size of land.
The purpose is not to grow the land, it is merely to ensure the size of the land passes intact from one generation to the next, which is also why the heir gets everything and the other children no land and relatively little wealth. If you can marry the aristo next door you'll end up with more land and most likely two titles as well, so that's a good ploy if you can use it, but the usual thing is just to keep your own estate intact. If the heir gets divorced every five minutes that won't happen, so aristos traditionally have a different attitude to marriage and affairs from that of the middle classes, whose definition of financial success is more dynamic.
As for land ownership, there may possibly be one or two aristocratic families who own ONE estate larger than one of the Royals', but nobody can rival the quantity of estates or the value of the land they own. Some of these belong to the Crown Estates, which means the monarch owns them for the length of his or her reign but cannot sell them, but others, like Sandringham and Balmoral, are private property, and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are known cash-cows for the family.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||November 15, 2021 1:18 PM
[quote] But I disagree with OP's assertion that there is no such thing as a homewrecker anymore.
According to Datalounge posters, there is no such thing as a homewrecker
|by Anonymous||reply 34||November 15, 2021 2:03 PM
Charles is so concerned with climate change he travels with his own furniture to feel at home wherever he is on private planes as does Harry another tree hugger though at least not with his furniture. Their hypocrisy in spouting shit makes a joke of a staggeringly serious subject.
It is hard to believe Charles might be concerned on a deep level with anyone when he is such a spoiled, selfish mediocre man. He treated Diana horribly when she did love him. What married man constantly receives gifts and telephone calls from an 'ex-lover.' It must have torn the emotionally unstable young woman apart. Then this shy preschool teacher turns out to be a world famous superstar with doing nothing really. She just had 'it.' Of course then she used it for causes that concerned her but then more maliciously to get back at Charles and his family. She was bigger than the Queen. But she didn't have the emotional maturity to handle that and in desperation became manipulative and cold towards people who may have been trying to help her but who she saw as traitors. In her pain she became a rather selfish sometimes mean person doing to others what had been done to her. Still becoming an advocate for the removal of mines take activism to a whole other level. Great courage as she had done with the unfashionable activism of helping AIDs patients or self publicity taken up a notch?
|by Anonymous||reply 35||November 15, 2021 2:36 PM
No, she’s just a whore, darlin’.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||November 15, 2021 2:38 PM
"Datalounge" (i.e. one or two posters here or there) claims a lot of things don't actually exist. Doesn't make it true or correct.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||November 15, 2021 2:40 PM
R22. Diana did the same thing, but her motives were more noble. What a double standard. What Charles and Camilla have is obviously more than a fling. It’s far more serious than Diana’s numerous adulterous relationships.
It was a bad marriage driven by the social conventions of the times. Both parties sought happiness elsewhere. Charles simply did it more successfully and sensibly than Diana.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||November 15, 2021 5:07 PM
Some of you seem to have a personal issue with Camilla.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||November 15, 2021 8:33 PM
R39 "Charles simply did it more successfully and sensibly than Diana." What a joke!!! Charles was still fooling around with his mistress (Camilla) when he married Diana. When the news finally leaked out months later he placed himself, his reputation, his marriage, and Camilla, AND Diana in jeopardy. With the eyes of the world on he couldn't keep his sordid secret to himself. Both he and Camilla were shameless in their adulterous carrying on and to this day a lot of people still don't like them.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||November 15, 2021 8:48 PM
As one of Camilla's old friends said when Charles fled back into her arms from his miserable marriage with Diana, "Trust Camilla to be able to reheat a souffle!"
|by Anonymous||reply 42||November 15, 2021 8:48 PM
R42 You're not paying attention! Diana's marriage was miserable because hubby Charles wouldn't stop fooling around with Camilla. Diana was simply set up to be a baby machine and Charles and Camilla's behavior was AWFUL!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 43||November 15, 2021 8:52 PM
I see this is emerging just as thoughts are turning to the succession: one last push to make sure she is crowned Queen as some fervently believe she deserves?
|by Anonymous||reply 44||November 15, 2021 8:58 PM
There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||November 15, 2021 9:00 PM
Apparently Charles was caught fooling around with the male butler, and possibly other males, at the Palace so even Camilla can't trust him.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||November 15, 2021 9:07 PM
R41 That was strictly rumour. Charles tried. That marriage was on the rocks by the time they got to Balmoral from the Mediterranean a few weeks after the wedding, as her fantasies collapsed. Diana had dropped her sweet, malleable facade and her demons, hidden so carefully while she pursued her dream, emerged in spades.
Camilla had been genuinely infatuated with Andrew Parker Bowles. He was considered one of the great fucks of their social circle. He got to everyone, including Pss. Anne, with whom he had a short but torrid affair (horse people, you know).
But by the time Charles was at the end of his rope (soon after Harry was born), Camilla's marriage was also on the rocks due to Parker-Bowles' total inability to keep it in his trousers.
Even Camilla's sang froid in such matters ran out of rope. And there was Charles, giving up on any possibility of coping with Diana's rages and extravagant emotional demands.
So there it was. A perfect storm.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||November 15, 2021 9:08 PM
Charles mentor Mountbatten was bi and probably so is Charles. Or even gay. Perhaps Camilla is the only person in the world he can share this with and know he won't be betrayed. He feels he can tell her everything which is why he is determined too make her queen. He owes her so much.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||November 15, 2021 9:23 PM
R48 given the racy content of their leaked phonecalls, I'd say they had rather a passionate sex life
|by Anonymous||reply 50||November 15, 2021 9:29 PM
R47 Charles and Cam never stopped seeing each other.
Diana and Charles both said the time after Harry was born was the most contented of their marriage, but didn't last.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||November 15, 2021 9:31 PM
Camilla is a home wrecking cunt, an adulteress, a scarlet woman, a trollope and a woman of easy virtue.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||November 15, 2021 9:37 PM
[quote] Camilla is a home wrecking cunt, an adulteress, a scarlet woman, a trollope and a woman of easy virtue.
AGAIN - Datalounge says there is no such thing as a "Homewrecker"
|by Anonymous||reply 53||November 15, 2021 9:46 PM
Of ill repute, but no Trollope.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||November 15, 2021 9:49 PM
Yeah they knew those calls were being taped. Like Megs knew her letter to her father would be leaked. A set up. For some reason I don't think a straight man would say he wanted to be a woman's tampon. It's something a gay man would think a straight man might say.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||November 15, 2021 9:50 PM
Charles was a weak douchebag and liar. Camilla was a schemer and cheater. At the time of Charles' marriage to Diana, she was a lamb to the slaughter by these diabolical motherfuckers. In years to come, Diana had affairs because Charles and Camilla were ruthless in destroying Diana's marriage. Diana was young and looking for love. Charles and Camilla were out to destroy. Because Charles and Camilla may not be diabolical now in their mid-70s, does not mean that they are not rotten or have the capability to be rotten to the core. It's the kind of people they are. Diana had her faults. But she was not rotten out to destroy her husband. Diana just wanted the Rottweiler out of her life.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||November 15, 2021 10:10 PM
Diana was stalking some man with hundreds of calls and Scotland yard had to intervene. Diana was a mess and had extreme mood swings. She hardly spent any time with Charles before they were married so I don't really believe she was madly in love. She had an affair with her bodyguard and told someone that he was the love of her life not long after she was married to Charles. He died in a motorcycle accident. I think Diana was seduced by the idea of being a princess and didn't really understand what she was getting into before she married into that family. Her grandmother said that she would not be a good fit for Charles and told the Queen mother that. That marriage should never have happened. They both needed a mother. Camilla mothered Charles.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||November 15, 2021 10:13 PM
R58 - She said that they'd actually been together only 13 times before he proposed. But the fact is, Diana was massively in love with the idea of Charles and of how becoming Princess of Wales would heal all her hurts. That collapsed very shortly after they were marries, when reality and fantasy clashed, and fantasy lost.
Charles and Camilla never stopped socialising, they ran in the same circles and both were still hunting at the time. Camilla was a fearless horsewoman. She was the kind of woman Charles should have married - a countrywoman at heart.
Certainly, when the Wales marriage collapsed, Diana really did quite a bit of damage to other women's marriage, the art dealer and the footballer. She really was deeply disturbed.
The difference between them was, that Charles was capable of happiness with the right kind of woman. Diana went on screwing up relationships till the end - really, compared to that sleazy childlike playboy dancing on the end of his rich Daddy's marionette strings, Camilla comes off as a jewel.
Diana learned nothing from her tragic mistakes. Charles did.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||November 15, 2021 10:58 PM
Diana did not have the time to learn. She died in her 30s. Charles is now in his 70s. And he is still the same spoiled clueless boy he has always been.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||November 15, 2021 11:04 PM
Diana was an emotional vampire. And Charles was weak and whiny. But I can tell you from experience that trying to be around someone like Diana is so emotionally draining that most people run like hell when they encounter it.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||November 15, 2021 11:16 PM
R61 - And the sins of the mothers are visited upon the children.
Her younger son married the same sort of emotional vampire.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||November 15, 2021 11:23 PM
If Diana had been sane and smarter she should have stayed in the marriage. They were not even living together and she was the most popular royal by far. She had the world at her feet. She was rich with a fabulous apt and could have just had affairs and been a tremendous influence on the world. She always had the sympathy of the public.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||November 15, 2021 11:34 PM
Camila is a Rottweiler faced home wrecking cunt.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||November 15, 2021 11:46 PM
Sweet little "innocent Diana" was whoring first. Shit happens,who cares !!
|by Anonymous||reply 66||November 15, 2021 11:47 PM
Diana was a nut job ,manipulating little girl.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||November 15, 2021 11:49 PM
r41. Again, are you denying Diana was also being unfaithful, sometimes with married men? But she’s saintly when she does it, unlike Charles. The wives of the men she slept with might not agree.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||November 16, 2021 12:32 AM
I can't believe Diana has been gone for 24 years. Such a great loss not to know what could have been. It often seems like she's still alive. She is still so much a part of the the world and people's lives. That shows you the impact she had and how much she was loved all over the world.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||November 16, 2021 12:46 AM
[quote] I don't think a straight man would say he wanted to be a woman's tampon.
He didn't. He implied it would be awful:
CAMILLA (laughing): What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? (Both laugh). Oh, you’re going to come back as a pair of knickers.
CHARLES: Or, God forbid, a Tampax. Just my luck! (Laughs)
CAMILLA: You are a complete idiot! (Laughs) Oh, what a wonderful idea.
CHARLES: My luck to be chucked down a lavatory and go on and on forever swirling round on the top, never going down.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||November 16, 2021 12:49 AM
Instead, he wanted to live inside her trousers. That was the scenario they started with before going to what I quoted in R70.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||November 16, 2021 12:51 AM
R69. What could have been probably wouldn’t have been very edifying.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||November 16, 2021 12:56 AM
r52 And she doesn't have an iota of the class her great great-grandmother did.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||November 16, 2021 1:58 AM
People have a right to have affairs.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||November 16, 2021 2:02 AM
No, you don't have a right to have an affair, you moron. There's just stopping you except your own values. Psycho.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||November 16, 2021 2:05 AM
And how many of us on Dl have not had an affair with a married man? And if you haven't you have nothing to tell your grandchildren.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||November 16, 2021 2:15 AM
She's so disgusting
And she's a cunt for shooting off her big fat mouth about Joe Biden
|by Anonymous||reply 80||November 16, 2021 3:11 AM
A gay man who no strings fucks a married man is not a home-wrecker. But there ARE stupid cunt gays who DO steal men away from partners.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||November 16, 2021 3:31 AM
R47 You sound as though you are reading from a script. Charles had enough dedication to duty, and being mindful of the fate of the last Prince of Wales, he took into account the loss of the mentorship of Louis Mountbatten coupled with his loss of Camilla, he decided to capitulate to parental, family and public pressure to marry. He was still a friend pf Camilla’s; he was Tom’s godfather and Andrew was part of thr ceremonial parade on the day. People at that level don't have the fairly petty concerns that the majority do. They move in their own circles, and like it or not - they don’t have the same pearl clutching reaction to extra marital affairs. Interestingly, there are only three Kings known not to have had mistresses - George III, George V and George VI.
And Charles won’t be George VII.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||November 16, 2021 12:20 PM
[quote]It's a home wreaker!
No, Joanna Gaines is a home wreaker.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||November 16, 2021 12:52 PM
Camilla talks as if Joe were popping in and out of palace staterooms.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||November 16, 2021 6:49 PM