I've always liked Charles, as it happens. Diana was certainly beautiful; as Will Carling said, "well, you would, wouldn't you?" but Charles seemed to find her a high maintenance pain in the arse. Camilla can't compare when it comes to looks, but she sounds a bit of a giggle, and a terrific support for him.
Diana's brother, I think most of us would agree, is an utter cunt.
A very fair analysis.
I can never understand why some people have it in for the King. He is quite demonstrably a decent, conscientious, hard-working man, without (unlike Harry Rotter and Earl Shit-Spencer) a malicious bone in his body.
Yes, he has his eccentricities, but who wouldn’t if they lived the weird life he lives? Which I wouldn’t take for a billion dollars.
And I think we do best not to pass judgement on his first marriage. Some people think they know everything. They don't. We all tend to take one side or the other. But it’s none of our business.
As for Spencer's stream of bile ... doubtless there’s a grain of truth in it, but it’s all filtered through his bitter and poisonous mind.
To take one small example. My guess – and my guess is as good or as bad as the next man's – is that, if Princess Diana said that Charles was in love with his valet, it was a light-hearted remark, perhaps reflecting Charles's dependence on the man. I don't for an instant think there was any shirt-lifting going on. Just shirt-ironing.
In fact, whatever else you may say about the royal family, they've never been big on the love that dare not speak its name. The last monarch who arouses suspicions in that direction was William III (1689–1702), and before that James I (1603–1625).
Among “non-monarchs”, Prince George, Duke of Kent – younger brother of Edward VIII and George VI – was almost certainly bi-sexual.
