|
Post by cm7007 on Jul 9, 2011 0:25:15 GMT -5
In Durban, Albert spoke to the German press and also denied the rumors - so Sthal, Lacoste, Charlene and now Albert. Has anyone perhaps changed their minds and maybe believe that perhaps all these runaway stories and paternity tests all vicious rumors designed as all of the four above stated is to destroy their wedding. Are they going to tell us that we all are blind and they LOOK happy and in love also? quote] Part of me believes the rumors are made up in the sense that she was living at the palace until what 3 days before the wedding. That thing is a citadel with sheer cliffs with a very few exits-all of which are covered by numerous guards. I seriously doubt in these days of terrorism that she would ever be allowed to just walk out of the palace without a body guard. I mean you are one of the guys on guard and you see her walking out alone- it's your head, you call for someone to go with her... On top of that if she was so upset she was going to run, Albert would probably suspect that and assign a minder. So when you consider all that, it makes sense that the rumors couldn't be true... However The problem with the rumors is as was pointed out, the reactions don't mesh with the stated denials. In fact not just the weird lack of sympatico between them, but Albert's very denials sound false... If he REALLY believes that someone not only spread rumors that his bride tried to escape- a HUGE insult not only to him but his people, AND that the rumors were *deliberately* crafted to bring his marriage down or prevent it, for those reasons alone he should be hopping mad to the point of rage, not to mention the money it probably cost the principality and him personally. In his responses he just sounds kinda confused- not even really hurt.... the way he's stating the denial, is not matching the words of the denial. It's bee quite publicly noted Charlene spent most of her time living at Roc Angel and she herself said she goes out for daily runs in the mountains and heads down to the beaches (in France - that she says are so beautiful). She stated she didn't want to give her exact route because she didn't want to tip off the press and photographers who would want to photograph her. So - she wasn't being held hostage in THE PALACE.
|
|
|
Post by actarus on Jul 9, 2011 1:28:02 GMT -5
Catholics also don't allow outdoor masses Who says that? In France outdoor masses are pretty common in the summer. I have attended many of them. And in Italy many priests celebrate outdoor masses during the summer holidays. It's the sacraments that count not the place. Wasn't the wedding of Donna Matilde of the Counts Borromeo (Beatrice's sister) celebrated in the open air too?
|
|
|
Post by cm7007 on Jul 9, 2011 1:57:39 GMT -5
Perhaps it is an arrangemnt, perhaps not. It would not be the first and she certainly is NOT the first woman to live off a man. Jacqueline Bouvier was paid more than 1million dollars to stay with JFK in the fifties but we never hear anyone calling her a prostitute. Women like Mary Donaldson and others who sold themselves, their families, their nationalities and religions for a "title and a tiara" could also be called prostitutes. IMO Miss Wittstock has behaved with more dignity than all of them put together. More dignity than Jacqueline Kennedy? Jackie Kennedy was wealthy in her own right. She was, to put in 1950's terms, "well-bred". NOT TO MENTION SHE WAS FLUENT IN FRENCH. Well educated. She did what all society girls did back then. She adored her father-in-law and he lavished money on her. You do not understand the society in which Jacqueline Kennedy grew up. Trust me I DO! She did not spend five years living with JFK hoping he would marry her and taking a stipend to do so. Please educate yourself and start by looking up the term mistress or "Kept woman". You are most certainly entitled to your opinion but please check your facts before you go off on someone like Jacqueline Kennedy. Plus Hibou .... Mrs. Kennedy spoke Spanish as well, and had a good knowledge of Italian. Plus, she was extreme well versed in all the arts, and she had universally acknowledged impeccable taste, style and manners. These two women, JBK and CW, can not, and should not be even mentioned in the same sentence. It is, and was, an utterly different situation, time and background. Besides which, Jacqueline Bouvier was deeply in love with Jack Kennedy when she married him. No one disputes that fact. No one. I don't know much about Mary Donaldson - except I believe she is fairly well educated and she learned to speak her new countries language quickly. She and her husband are more or less the same age. And her husband is kind of cute in a scrawny sort of a way. Again, different situation.
|
|
|
Post by paca on Jul 9, 2011 4:26:37 GMT -5
Exactly, Monaco! Stahl can and DOES control the media in Monaco and she is furious that the rest of the world won't act as her publicity mouthpiece and only write about this couple and this made-for-tv wedding in terms of a fairytale love story with the wedding as perfect happy testament to their love. The problem with all this is that PA EXPECTED bad press/reactions. He has said repeatedly that because his mother was such an icon that when he got married it would "be very very difficult". As in people are going to give his fiancee/bride a hard time. What he doesn't see is that he is the only one who has an awe of his mother left. People didn't give Kate a hard time because she didn't look and act like Diana. So much time has passed that this issue really doesn't exist- it is only in his mind.. I think the REAL issue is that he has a strong defense mechanism- and that is why he constantly chose women who were inappropriate because otherwise if the women were accepted then it would show his mother wasn't "irreplacable" and he would have to face her loss in a way personally that he hasn't had to before, in a sense part of her dying again- probably too traumatic for him! I think dating, and marrying an inappropriate woman was a way for him to keep his mother on a pedestal- keep her alive in a way in his heart and mind, instead of letting her go completely. The problem is it would be very easy for someone with sinister motives to push someone on him scheming his destruction and then when it wasn't working out go - oh well you know how difficult things were going to be, and rather than stop and assess what was going on, he would swallow it because it fits his defense mechanism/need, it would fit his expectations. The problem is if it was just comparison, the new woman could win people over in time, but in this case she's so inappropriate it's only going to get worse and by the time her realizes it... I think you have a point, but if this was to be true then the man needs to be locked away and treated and not in the position of a head of state. I think after Grace's death they made a major mistake by idealizing her. They didn't do justice to her as the person she was, but also didn't mourn her in a healthy way. It did help the economy though and was certainly one reason why Rainier did not remarry. It sold better to have a heartbroken widower, then a man who remarries after a certain period. And of course it added to the Grace myth which has nothing to with her and who she was. But it sells and that's why they keep it going. Sad and pathetic really. You may reproach Charles a lot of things, but the way he handled Dianas death and how he raised the boys after says a lot about who he is as a person. I think Charles has been a much better father to his sons in that difficult time then Rainier has been to his children.
|
|
|
Post by paca on Jul 9, 2011 4:29:45 GMT -5
"I know who they are" sounded like "they have their days counted" he said he doesn't know who they are...but if he did they would be.
|
|
|
Post by paca on Jul 9, 2011 4:50:09 GMT -5
Are there no CONTRACEPTIVES available at all in Monaco ? That's what bother me the most. Also it has been said that misogynist tendencies are inherited. No, I do not think Charlene is being held against her will. I just feel sorry for her having married into this awful family. she went in with her eyes wide open. There is no need to feel sorry for her. Especially when seen in the context that she has planned everything from day one. She knew full well that she did not have a chance with Albert as long as Rainier was around. But with him gone, she played her cards.
|
|
|
Post by paca on Jul 9, 2011 5:04:18 GMT -5
Perhaps it is an arrangemnt, perhaps not. It would not be the first and she certainly is NOT the first woman to live off a man. Jacqueline Bouvier was paid more than 1million dollars to stay with JFK in the fifties but we never hear anyone calling her a prostitute. Women like Mary Donaldson and others who sold themselves, their families, their nationalities and religions for a "title and a tiara" could also be called prostitutes. IMO Miss Wittstock has behaved with more dignity than all of them put together. I think you can't compare a woman from the 50s with a woman today. So in what way has trashy behaved with more dignity then the other princesses? Because she married a man she doesn't love and who certainly doesn't love her? No matter how I personally think about the other princesses, they ALL married and converted for the man they love and who loves them in return. They learned the language, adopted the culture etc. Trashy only adopted the money and what it can buy. How is that dignified? SHe is behaving in the most unsuitable way selling herself to vogue before both her wedding ceremonies? In whose book did you read that this is dignified behaviour? she is the least educated of ALL who married in recent years into royalty. SHe is the only one who had NO future ahead of her without getting married. And I mean to anyone. SHe is lucky she found Albert. No other man wanted her. And her chances of having found a decent guy at her age without ever having worked or showing a willingness to work, would have been very low. Maybe to some she is more attractive now with her fake boos and her new face and teeth. But without Alberts money she would be looking like a middle aged woman with no job and crooked teeth. OH and pray tell me which of the other princesses had to be so dignified to have her entire face and body changed so that she would get the ring slapped on her finger on an afterthought.
|
|
|
Post by colleen on Jul 9, 2011 6:42:02 GMT -5
I was not criticizing Mrs. Onasis as such. I was merely pointing out that she was also PAID to stay with a man and was NOT called a prostitute. How do you know all these other princesses LOVE their husbands ? IMO any woman who marries a powerful, wealthy man can be called a gold-digger. Whether she planned it all or not, she is now Princess de Monaco. Personally, it really doesnt matter to me - I dont getting that excited about anyone else's life which doesnt affect me in any way. Whatever.
And yes, Denmark's "princess" Mary has featured on and in Vogue many times.
|
|
|
Post by colleen on Jul 9, 2011 6:46:02 GMT -5
More dignity than Jacqueline Kennedy? Jackie Kennedy was wealthy in her own right. She was, to put in 1950's terms, "well-bred". NOT TO MENTION SHE WAS FLUENT IN FRENCH. Well educated. She did what all society girls did back then. She adored her father-in-law and he lavished money on her. You do not understand the society in which Jacqueline Kennedy grew up. Trust me I DO! She did not spend five years living with JFK hoping he would marry her and taking a stipend to do so. Please educate yourself and start by looking up the term mistress or "Kept woman". You are most certainly entitled to your opinion but please check your facts before you go off on someone like Jacqueline Kennedy. Plus Hibou .... Mrs. Kennedy spoke Spanish as well, and had a good knowledge of Italian. Plus, she was extreme well versed in all the arts, and she had universally acknowledged impeccable taste, style and manners. These two women, JBK and CW, can not, and should not be even mentioned in the same sentence. It is, and was, an utterly different situation, time and background. Besides which, Jacqueline Bouvier was deeply in love with Jack Kennedy when she married him. No one disputes that fact. No one. I don't know much about Mary Donaldson - except I believe she is fairly well educated and she learned to speak her new countries language quickly. She and her husband are more or less the same age. And her husband is kind of cute in a scrawny sort of a way. Again, different situation. Doesnt make her any less of a prostitute. Bought and paid for by Joe Kennedy and Ari Onasis. Period.
|
|
|
Post by MyAdia on Jul 9, 2011 8:00:43 GMT -5
Whether she planned it all or not, she is now Princess de Monaco. Personally, it really doesnt matter to me - I dont getting that excited about anyone else's life which doesnt affect me in any way. Whatever. Colleen, then why are you here on Royal Opinions posting your comments how "Miss Wittstock has behaved with more dignity than all of them put together" - meaning people like Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. We welcome all opinions here, but as I have said before , I am many things but stupid is not one of them. Anyone posting or even reading Royal Opinions is expressing in some manner that "it" ACTUALLY DOES MATTER or at least "it" interests them. Of course there are different degrees of mattering or involvement. So please, let's not go down that path that many of us have heard before - " Anyone who doesn't agree with my glorifying opinion of a certain royal needs to get a life." Albert and Charlene are public people and Albert is a head of state, a reigning monarch of a country. They both have INVITED people in their lives and PUBLICLY invited them to view their wedding which they deemed "the wedding of he century." I find nothing wrong with any individuals who see fit to comment - albeit negative or positive - about this couple who presented themselves for the world to see. i will be the first to admit that Charlene Wittstock's long list of lies and the con job that she has perpetrated over the people of Monaco (with the media and Albert's support) does BOTHER me. Albert complete failure to protect and provide for his country does BOTHER me. IF it didn't or if I didn't care - I wouldn't be here reading and posting on Royal Opinions.
|
|
|
Post by scout on Jul 9, 2011 8:05:30 GMT -5
Plus Hibou .... Mrs. Kennedy spoke Spanish as well, and had a good knowledge of Italian. Plus, she was extreme well versed in all the arts, and she had universally acknowledged impeccable taste, style and manners. These two women, JBK and CW, can not, and should not be even mentioned in the same sentence. It is, and was, an utterly different situation, time and background. Besides which, Jacqueline Bouvier was deeply in love with Jack Kennedy when she married him. No one disputes that fact. No one. I don't know much about Mary Donaldson - except I believe she is fairly well educated and she learned to speak her new countries language quickly. She and her husband are more or less the same age. And her husband is kind of cute in a scrawny sort of a way. Again, different situation. Doesnt make her any less of a prostitute. Bought and paid for by Joe Kennedy and Ari Onasis. Period. Once again we have a Charlene supporter who in their efforts to lift Charlene out of her swamp chooses to denigrate another person. I have read many books on Jackie Kennedy and your perspective is a new one. Rather than smearing others, why don't you cite for us specific things that Charlene has done that we are unaware of and that would change our perspective of her to a more positive one. I asked on the RD for posters to cite positive things that Charlene has done and I am still waiting. I truly want to believe that Albert made the right choice and has married a woman who can help him do a better job in ruling/running Monaco and who can be a point of pride for the Monegasques. I do not relish this train wreck, but I am not going to delude myself. Charlene has shown total contempt for the Monegasques by not learning their language. She has acted as if she does not understand that by being Princess of MONACO, she is princess of a country that is comprised of people, people that she has shown little interest in getting to known and helping them to improve their lives. I look forward to a discussion of the positive traits that Charlene possesses.
|
|
|
Post by MyAdia on Jul 9, 2011 8:05:50 GMT -5
Here is an South African (English) press version of what Albert said in Durban: Prince Albert II of Monaco says rumours that new wife Princess Charlene had tried to run away before their wedding last weekend were "completely fabricated."
Speaking from Durban, he said, "It's just to try to destabilise our marriage, it's very unfair."
"The rumours are completely unfounded, that's why it's easy for me to talk about them," Albert said.
|
|
|
Post by colleen on Jul 9, 2011 8:54:23 GMT -5
I am not as you call a Charlene supporter. I am, however, dissappointed that women would speak about another woman in such a way. She is not the only woman who -
1. has lived off a man. 2. has "conspired" to "get her man". 3. has thrown a hissy fit because she didnt get her own way. 4. has used tears to get attention. 5. has shown an interest in fashion and jewellry. 6. has made efforts to improve her appearance. 7. is not college educated.
Yes, I agree that she is not princess material no no more so than any of the other "commoners" who have become princesses in Europe in recent years. Names like "prostitute" and "trashlene" are unfair, IMO.
She does not have a brood of illegitimate kids or several failed marriages. Now, thats trash. IMVHO of course.
Albert's choice of wife affects only Monaco. After all, all that is required is to dress well, smile and wave and hand out prizes.
|
|
|
Post by scout on Jul 9, 2011 9:11:47 GMT -5
Albert's choice of wife affects only Monaco. A fter all, all that is required is to dress well, smile and wave and hand out prizes.I can't dispute most in your post; however, please remember that Albert has total authority in Monaco unlike the royals in Britain, Denmark, Sweden, etc. that have constitutional monarchs. Albert makes rulings/decisions that directly affect the lives of his subjects. (He can put you in jail if you say negative things about him in Monaco. He can seize your property and there is little you can do, but leave Monaco.) By marrying Albert, Charlene gained a lot of the same authority so the citizens will expect more from her than dressing well and smiling. (It would be helpful if she showed strong ethics and passed these on to Albert.) Princess Grace was said to take an interest and give input on the facade of all new buildings in Monaco, input that was taken very seriously because of her being the Princess. I don't think Queen Elizabeth II would think she has any authority to do such. So the character, education, and talents of Charlene are very important to the citizens of Monaco. She is more than a way to pass the time as you drink a few beers at the local pub discussing her latest ball gown.
|
|
|
Post by refia on Jul 9, 2011 9:14:58 GMT -5
Maybe it affects just Monaco, but I think of the ordinary Monégasque who doesn´t deserves a couple who is so selfish.
|
|
|
Post by countess on Jul 9, 2011 9:37:12 GMT -5
i think a con woman that's been a PAID "companion" is the very definition of trashlene= prostitute (ahem) do you like concubine better? i think it's important for women to call other women on stuff when they're making us all look bad. i've been watching royals for a long time and ALL of the crown princely couples (and i've watched their weddings live) were in love and affectionate towards their brides, still are in most cases. NONE of them deserve scorn or the label of prostitute (unlike trashlene) from the very beginning this was a mistake, the minute FatAl decided to put magic in a bottle and have a wedding to save moronaco, his fate was doomed. IF he had picked an educated, cultured, kind woman (not addicted to plastic surgery) we wouldn't be having this conversation. he married a trashy, con woman that has got the tiara but not the attributes for the job. flagship trashlene sunk at the dock. the PR for this farce is picking up steam in the states, all the stories are about the miserable bride and the grimaldi curse, if i didn't know what a nasty piece of work she was i'd feel sorry for her too. FatAl is an emotionally retarded dawg that won't stay on the porch, she's known that and his kinky sex pervertions since their first date, so if she's reaping what she's sown,( i admit to hilarious amusement in laughing at them) I WANT photos ROFL. knowing how cold and mean he was to her at the wedding, i can only imagine the cruelty behind closed doors, after all > he won't take responsibilty for this fiasco WHO DO you think is getting the blame and the brunt of his frustration and anger ;D hopefully TRASHLENE FYI this is our board Myadia started to get away from flying monkey flunkies and if you read the rules "being FAIR" isn't one of them. there's only one "not to attack other posters" so....... welcome colleen
|
|
|
Post by suite583 on Jul 9, 2011 10:02:33 GMT -5
Albert and Charlene are public people and Albert is a head of state, a reigning monarch of a country. They both have INVITED people in their lives and PUBLICLY invited them to view their wedding which they deemed "the wedding of he century." I find nothing wrong with any individuals who see fit to comment - albeit negative or positive - about this couple who presented themselves for the world to see. i will be the first to admit that Charlene Wittstock's long list of lies and the con job that she has perpetrated over the people of Monaco (with the media and Albert's support) does BOTHER me. Albert complete failure to protect and provide for his country does BOTHER me. IF it didn't or if I didn't care - I wouldn't be here reading and posting on Royal Opinions. MyaDia, I totally agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by paca on Jul 9, 2011 12:21:59 GMT -5
I was not criticizing Mrs. Onasis as such. I was merely pointing out that she was also PAID to stay with a man and was NOT called a prostitute. How do you know all these other princesses LOVE their husbands ? IMO any woman who marries a powerful, wealthy man can be called a gold-digger. Whether she planned it all or not, she is now Princess de Monaco. Personally, it really doesnt matter to me - I dont getting that excited about anyone else's life which doesnt affect me in any way. Whatever. And yes, Denmark's "princess" Mary has featured on and in Vogue many times. Mary has been featured on vogue and been heavily criticized for it. I don't think that she would be princess today, if she had done so during the preparations right before the ceremony. And no you can not call every woman who marries a man richer and more powerful then her a whore, as that would mean that almost every married woman would be one as in our society men still earn, mostly undeserved, more then women in the same position. It depends clearly on what you are bringing to the table yourself and in trashys case she did not bring anything nor is she willing to do anything for it apart from selfserving photo ops. In any case none of the current princesses are as low as trashy. Even Mette marit has an education and her husband clearly loves her for who she is as a person and not for what she looks like. But to reassure you, Albert does not deserve any better. So let them be miserable together until they get their butts kicked out of the country. You will see then how deeply in love they really are, when Albert get's stripped of his wealth and station.
|
|
|
Post by paca on Jul 9, 2011 12:31:38 GMT -5
Albert's choice of wife affects only Monaco. After all, all that is required is to dress well, smile and wave and hand out prizes. this shows that you know nothing about Monaco and the Monegasques. I don't know where you are getting this idea from, but it is utterly false. Monegasques do expect more of their princess especially when the prince is such a failure. NO one here is envious of the job she needs to do, but everyone sees that she is not qualified to it nor willing to give it the minimum effort. And that is why she is not liked around here.
|
|
|
Post by MyAdia on Jul 9, 2011 13:32:45 GMT -5
I love it when a typical Charlene supporter/lover (or in Coleen's case - a non-supporter) decides to teach all the bad posters a lessons by exclaiming: "I am not as you call a Charlene supporter I am, however, dissappointed that women would speak about another woman in such a way." Yet, they have no problems insulting everyone other woman available - including other posters. In a few short hours, Colleen has made the following statements: 1. After inquiring about an de Massy outcast, Colleen's 2nd post on Royal opinions is to insult the entire Grimaldi family (which includes women - the people you are disappointed to hear others insult): Are there no CONTRACEPTIVES available at all in Monaco ? That's what bother me the most. Also it has been said that misogynist tendencies are inherited. No, I do not think Charlene is being held against her will. I just feel sorry for her having married into this awful family. 2. Colleen then lets us know that Charlene has more dignity than the below women. Perhaps it is an arrangemnt, perhaps not. It would not be the first and she certainly is NOT the first woman to live off a man. Jacqueline Bouvier was paid more than 1million dollars to stay with JFK in the fifties but we never hear anyone calling her a prostitute. Women like Mary Donaldson and others who sold themselves, their families, their nationalities and religions for a "title and a tiara" could also be called prostitutes. IMO Miss Wittstock has behaved with more dignity than all of them put together. 3. Colleen then let us know that she doesn't get excited about other's life which doesn't affect her - so it makes you wonder then does Charlene’s life really affects her since her following statements seems that she is getting excited in insulting all the Grimaldis. Whether she planned it all or not, she is now Princess de Monaco. Personally, it really doesnt matter to me - I dont getting that excited about anyone else's life which doesnt affect me in any way. Whatever. 4. Colleen (a woman) then reiterates that she believes that Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis (a woman) is a prostitute. Doesnt make her any less of a prostitute. Bought and paid for by Joe Kennedy and Ari Onasis. Period. 5. Now, it's Caroline (a woman) turn to be insulted. That way Caro can keep her fake HRH style, you mean. As far as I know, according to German law kids get one part of the inheritance of the parents. It doesn't matter if the kids are illegitimate or legitimate they get their share no matter what. But I also think that the two won't divorce. It would be a kind of a "scandal" and they already lead separate lives anyway... Pity someone didnt tell Caro that in 1999 and maybe she wouldnt have been in such a rush down the aisle. Again. 6. Oh, and Colleen doesn’t leave out Caroline's children… I believe Al is bi but has had more men than Steff (if thats possible). I hope he will not step down, though. What is the alternative ?....one of the little "Italians" ? 7. After making her above insults, Colleen then chastises Royal Opinion posters: I am not as you call a Charlene supporter. I am, however, dissappointed that women would speak about another woman in such a way. 8. Funny, in the same post of the above chastisement, Colleen ends with the following comment: She does not have a brood of illegitimate kids or several failed marriages. Now, thats trash. IMVHO of course. 9. After making the above statement, Colleen (still a woman) then goes into Stephanie's (a woman also) News thread (which hadn't any current info posted in over a month) and she writes: Now, there's one who has been rode hard and put up wet. Nice to see her involved in the fight for AIDS. After all, she did enough to spread it in her day. 10. Not wanting to leave out children, Colleen (still a woman) then goes to Camille's (a very young woman) News thread (which only had one item written 3 months ago) and she writes: Kelly genes ?. dont remember any of the Kellys being that fat. 11. I guess Colleen was not satisfied with herself in spewing insults, because she then starts a thread titled Father's Day to make this very first comment: most be very confusing in this family. All in a few hours work for a typical Charlene supporter/defender. Well, Colleen asked me to delete her account and I obliged her. It seems that she has problems with Royal Opinions posters, how they responded to her comments and most importantly “dissappointed that women would speak about another woman in such a way”! The sad thing is that Colleen’s type of behavior is a typical sugar boarder response to anything negative sad about Charlene. Also, this is how Charlene herself responded on message boards any attacks about her. I am not saying that Colleen is Charlene, but I very much believe that this is how Charlene’s friends and families feel about the Grimaldis and how they defend Charlene – by putting down everyone else.
|
|