What is it with all the offense taken here at comments on Camilla's

[saracat]

appearance? Charles is dog ugly and she is dog ugly. Are we supposed to pretend otherwise, or not notice? Some have stated that we must be "above" this type of comment. Why? If something strikes you as ugly are you not supposed to say and camouflage it? To what purpose? I could understand not personally telling Camilla ,to her face, that she is ugly , or Charles for that matter. One wouldn't want to be rude or nasty unless there was a personal reason .
Even so, If they asked me, which is admittedly unlikely, I would have to tell them they aren't especially attractive. And lets face it, it isn't as though they have other redeeming qualities. These have not been nice people. They don't seem to possess an "inner beauty " of any kind. They are not Mother Theresa!
Some have said this is a feminist issue and related it to women always being judged by appearance. It isn't . Charles is ugly too. I think that most people who say this honestly find this couple ugly both in terms of appearance and personality. And I think they have the right to say so. This duo has done nothing to earn such respect. JMHO.

[pnorman]

1. Some of us are butt ugly too

Wannmakesomethingofit?

pnorman

[saracat]

5. And I am not a thing of rare beauty either!

And I am proud of it! :toast:

[Demit]

2. ok. your post isn't especially attractive.

well, you did ask.

[saracat]

3. And that is perfectly okay, because that is the way you see it!

:) Thank you.

[readmylips]

4. Watched Camilla's Life on History Channel....

Camilla, Ex-Husband Andrew and Charles are three sick and evil people. Camilla's husband would allow Charles to sleep in the same house knowing that he was having an affair with his wife. They had this threesome thing going. Camilla's ex-husband asked for a divorce because their threesome was exposed and in today's media circus, they could not hide what the royal family has done for centuries.

Camilla made all the arrangements for Charles to seek young Diana. Camilla became Diana's older woman friend and adviser, but Diana could see that she was no friend but a manipulator coached by Charles. Camilla already had children so there was no way that she could become the mother of the next king of England. When she found Diana, she approved and advised Charles to play the role and marry her so that he could have a chance of having a son for the kingdom.

Camilla's grandma when very young, was Charles' great-grandfather's mistress. They were also married to different people, and their husbands also approved of their adulterous behavior.

Camilla's ex-husband was at the wedding. He's still a high officer in the Queens palace. Camilla's children did not attend the wedding.

They are all a bunch of sick puppies.

[saracat]

6. Agreed!

:-)

[Nevernose]

7. And I thought the monarchy I knew and loved was dead

Every time I hear something about how the Royals have to be above it all, or how the Queen won't go to the wedding, or how unsuitable it is that he's getting married a second time, I keep thinking: This from a line of people that includes George III, Henry II, Henry VIII...even Edward the Confessor had some pretty odd stuff happening.

Knowing that there is still a depth of weird shit going on in those palaces just adds constancy to my life and their lineage.

[Left Is Write]

8. Camilla's children didn't attend the wedding?

Not according to this picture. This is her daughter.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7444709/?GT1=6428

[liberalhistorian]

23. My God, what is it with these ridiculous

hats the women at that wedding were wearing? Camilla looked like she took some straw and stuck it to the top of her head with glue, and now here's her daughter's hat looking even worse! Must be a cultural thing, I guess.

[Bouncy Ball]

30. Yeah, it must be a cultural thing.

Or maybe, just maybe, she liked the hat.

:eyes:

[Left Is Write]

34. I do think it's a cultural thing - hats are more important to British

women than American women, especially the British bluebloods.

I wish more American women wore hats. I think they're fun.

[Bouncy Ball]

35. Me, too.

And personally I liked Camilla's hat AND her daughter's hat. They had a sense of fun (especially the daughter's hat).

[LisaL]

15. Evil? Some of Charles' relatives got Charles beat by a mile.

It's just was business as usual for Charles, I don't think he expected anything else. Camilla wasn't yet married and didn't have any children when she and Charles first met, so that wasn't the reason they didn't marry. As for Diana, like you yourself said, she knew about Camilla, but got married to him anyway. Do you really think Diana would marry him if he wasn't the Prince? After all, he is older than her and not all that good looking.

[liberalhistorian]

18. Camilla's children most certainly

did attend the wedding, I saw them there myself in the coverage. Her son was even her witness, as Charles and Diana's oldest son was Charles's witness.

And, btw, it was Camilla's great-grandmother, not her grandmother, and Charles's great-great grandfather, who had the affair.

Andrew Parker Bowles, it was said, got almost a sexual turn-on from Prince Charles getting it on and having a "thing" for his wife. It gratified his ego, I guess.

Those two selfish, self-centered, insensitive clods should have married thirty years ago, they'd have saved a lot of people, namely their first spouses, a lot of heartbreak. And it would have even saved Diana's life. No wonder Charles's sons aren't too happy about Camilla; she did call their mother "that ridiculous creature", after all, and caused her a lot of pain. Diana's name for Camilla, "the Rottweiler", certainly seems appropriate.

[LisaL]

25. You would never even know about Diana if she and

Charles hadn't married. As for saving her life, Charles did not cause her death. Blaming him for it makes no sense. She died in a car crash. If she had never married Charles, does it mean she couldn't have gotten in a car crush?
That's why it's called an accident.

[RevCheesehead]

9. Well, if you want an honest answer ...

I am tired of living in a world which tells women, even young girls, that they are only valuable if they are attractive. Men hear this message, too, but it has an especially devistating effect in the lives of young women.

Physical beauty is not eternal. No matter how much surgery or botox, you eventually are going to age and become "ugly" by someone's standards. Those who don't get it now, will eventually get it later.

It is also one way in which we "dehumanize" other people. If we don't like them for whatever reason, then state the reason. Saying "that is one ugly bitch" only tells me what you think of her appearance.

By current standards of beauty, Mother Teresa was one butt-ugly woman. But when I see pictures of her, I see a beauty which radiates from her soul, which enables me to call her beautiful.

[LSdemocrat]

10. Do you think it is wrong to discuss someone's physical appearance?

[realisticphish]

11. no, it's not

but it IS wrong to ONLY judge by those parameters

[LSdemocrat]

13. I agree with that.

Although I don't see why when some people make judgments on a person's physical appearance they assume that they are somehow making judgments on that person's value as a person.

[realisticphish]

16. true

but, is there some particular reason to pick her out to criticize? why not just pick a random "ugly" person and mock them? clearly many of the people who do this dislike her for some other reason, but rather than form a cogent thought, they just strike out at the easiest target.

[RevCheesehead]

14. For what purpose?

If it's to say "I find that person attractive," or "I don't really think they are attractive," that's OK. That's telling me something about what you like or don't like.

But if someone is just trying to tear someone down because they don't like them, then no. That's just a cheap shot, and I think it sends the wrong message: that a person is valuable ONLY if they are attractive.

(I once read that Julia Roberts thinks she is ugly. She hates her mouth, and has a hard time believing anyone thinks she is beautiful.)

[LSdemocrat]

17. That's quite fair

I tend to think when people here at DU make judgments on people's appearance, they really don't mean anything as to their value as a person

[RevCheesehead]

36. But I disagree.

I think when people here at DU make judgments on someone's appearance, they are often linking it to their perception of the person they are mocking. ("Man" Coulter, Laura "Pickles" Bush, etc.) When you begin to link physical appearance with inner ugliness, you are making a value statement.

And why does this happen to women, more often than men? Quick, tell me how ugly is Sean Hannity? Tucker Carlson? Jimmy-Jeff Gannon-Guckert? Rush (besides "fat")? Joe Scarborough? I rarely, if ever, hear anyone ridicule their physical characteristics.

Now, do the same with Ann Coulter. Andrea Mitchell. Candy Crowley. Lynn Cheney. Barbara Bush. See how much easier it is?

[LSdemocrat]

45. Other than Coulter and Crowley, I really don't see many instances

Although I must admit I have no idea what the hell the "Pickles" nickname actually means. Most of the criticism of her appearance-wise seems more of her fashion sense than her physical appearance.

I've also always viewed the criticism of Coulter as DUers making fun of the way freepers tend to drool over her appearance and her attempts to highlight her phyisical features on her books.

Other than that, I really don't think that most comments on physical appearance on DU are meant to be judgments on the person's value as a human being.

[Left Is Write]

48. I agree with you on Ann Coulter.

She drew first blood there with her constant characterizations of liberal/progressive/Democratic women as ugly beasts. She herself emphasizes her own looks and turns herself into a caricature.

[MrSandman]

12. But these two are in a position which

They are valuable only because of their position. By participating as symbols of a powerless class (British Monarchy) they open themselves to lampooning.

And one could argue that it shows that the physically beatiful does not always get the Prince in the end.

[RevCheesehead]

19. Public figures are always targets of ridicule.

But I disagree that they are valuable only because of their position. I believe that every person is valuable, and is deserving of love (others will add, "until they prove otherwise").

I just don't get my kicks by demeaning other people. It certainly doesn't make me feel any better about myself, and I doubt if people will be impressed by those kind of candid observations.

[MrSandman]

24. I suppose I should hve said "media value"

Demeaning other people or ridiculing the system through its members?

The marriage was the lead story on the local news a few minutes ago. They made sure to mention what was worn by the bride and groom. I hadn't thought about Charles and Carmilla until I saw a couple threads in the lounge.

[realisticphish]

21. but

no one is saying "look the physically beautiful doesn't always win". They're saying "ha, ha, look at the ugly hag"

[saracat]

22. My point was that Camilla and Charles have no such

"inner beauty radiating from their souls". They are both ugly internally as well as externally. I wonder what kind of statement it makes to women and young girls that a women who contributes nothing to the world except the servicing of a rich and famous man, and does that the despite the pain and suffering she causes to another woman , is rewarded in the end? I have heard her referred to a brave and even dignified. It was said it was bemeath her to defend herself! Beneath her? Neither she or Charles could defend themselves. They are pond scum and don't deserve any tributes!

[RevCheesehead]

27. well, for me, it's more of an "occupational hazard."

I don't know the specifics of what happened in that situation. From what I have gleaned through the news, etc., I think there is plenty of blame to go around. I also suspect that if their news media is anything like ours, we are only getting the "ugly" side of their relationship (because people like to read the tabloids).

Are they internally vile and disgusting? I don't know, I've never met them. I do not condone their behavior, but I also will refrain from judging them - I leave that to a higher power.

Are they externally unattractive? That's in the eye of the beholder.

[Bouncy Ball]

31. Now how exactly do YOU know they are ugly internally?

It seems as if you'd have to know them personally to make that judgement call. There's simply no way you can know that from having seen them on TeeVee a few times and reading some articles about them.

[saracat]

32. By their own admissions of how they have led their lives.

Their is no question that they placed their own self interest above all else without consequence to the pain they caused others. Just watch the individual interviews of Charles and Diana gave when they discuss their marital problems.. It is very obvious. You might consider it judgmental, but people who deliberately cause harm to others are, IMHO, ugly.
But you are correct, I don't really know , except for their own words, which I am taking at face value.

[Bouncy Ball]

33. Exactly. You've never met them.

And I fail to see what you have so personally heavily invested in them, anyway.

In other words, what do you CARE? People do the kinds of things they have done all the time. Do you go around bashing them? Calling them ugly?

[saracat]

39. They haven't done anything to earn anyone's respect.

And they have admitted their actions themselves. That causes them to be perceived as less attractive. Why are you so invested in protecting them? Why do you CARE?
And yes. If I know people who cause pain and suffering, I am NOT going to say they are wonderful .And I probably will view them as less attractive.

[Bouncy Ball]

40. Great, good for you.

What really galls me are the comments about her appearance. And as a reminder, you called her "dog ugly" in your OP. Why the need for that?

So you hate her. Good for you. To be quite honest, my feelings about her are pretty damn neutral. I haven't walked a mile in her shoes, and she's done nothing to me, so I'm not going to sit in judgement of her. But hey, if it makes you feel good to, knock yourself out.

Maybe you'll get lucky and she'll get thrown from a horse, snap her neck and die. Then you won't have to worry about the horrible role model she is for young women (referring to the OTHER thread you started on her).

[saracat]

43. Wow, this really must rile you. I never wished any such fate

on anyone.And yes, she is a terrible role model. I posted that because I thought about that as people were talking about the possibility of her being Queen.I think it is really too bad that we haven't progressed beyond the point of a woman having to do nothing but screw her way into power. So, I have an opinion on her and you don't ? Big deal. You might not want to sit in judgment of her but you have no problem at all doing it to me.You may be basing your assumptions on your misinterpretations of my posts. I am basing my opinion of these people on what they have all said about themselves. You have the right to disagree but this is definitely becoming pot meet kettle!

[Bouncy Ball]

44. No it's not. Your hatred of her fairly oozes out of the screen.

It makes me wonder if YOU weren't cheated on by a husband or SO at some point and are projecting on to her.

Look, I already said knock yourself out with your hatefulness and judging of her. And I think this "oh no, someone who did nothing but sleep with someone might be Queen!" handwringing is just a smokescreen in an attempt to legitimize your bashing of her.

[saracat]

47. A smokescreen for what? No, my husband hasn't cheated on me, and

for the record, I hated The movie "An Officer and a Gentleman" for exactly the same reasons I don't like this realationship being elevated and these people rewarded. Think about it.

[Rowdyboy]

20. I despise Camilla and Charles, but not because of how they look

Their actions toward their respective former spouses leave me nauseas. I don't like threads smearing ugly people because I'm no real beauty myself but I do have a much higher moral standard than either of those self-absorbed twits.

[samplegirl]

26. I think its Low...

You could expect this from Limbaugh or some of the other wingnuts.
I will never forget how bad they chastized Chelsea Clinton.
Not that I really care for Prince Charles but hes the one waking
up with her.

[marions ghost]

28. freedom of expression...yea or nay is OK

Overly-hyped royals and their much trumpeted wedding are fair game. (and everyone was KIND! about the bizarre hat statement, considering what they could have said). If a hat looks like a porcupine, and others agree it looks like a porcupine, then there is definitely something porcupinesque about the hat. Best laugh I've had all day, thanks Camilla. Commentary has not been particularly sexist or brutal IMO. And the royal couple is not the slightest bit interested in DU opinion. However they would judge us more polite than the British tabloids.

Good point, saracat, about personality being a critical ingredient which plays into the whole impression of a person. We all know people who aren't physically beautiful, but who have a character that overcomes any physical "flaws." And we also know physically beautiful people (as defined by our culture) who are real losers. And the 3rd option is that a person may be lacking in character AND
physical appeal. We smart monkeys have judged people this way since childhood. You would have a hard time rewiring us differently. I don't think it's logical to have Ugly Rights, because then you only reinforce the physical stereotypes as priority.

We should be able to discuss opinions about public figures in the Lounge without anyone taking it so personally or over-identifying. Fine for people to dis the Royals--fine for people to take up for them. Not particularly liking these people is not something we should have to stifle. Anyone who feels strongly that we judge people too much by physical appearance, that's a fine topic for discussion. But don't urge people to censor themselves.

[Bouncy Ball]

29. Hey if you want to be nasty and ugly by calling them ugly,

I have every right to think YOU are nasty and ugly.

I don't get the vitriol about her, I really don't. What did she do, come over to your house and piss in your oatmeal?

I don't think there's a woman alive who doesn't know first-hand how cruel other women can be about appearances and on DU I see liberal women engaging in the same nasty behavior that has caused them to smart and sting more than once in their lives.

This is what I don't get: what do you CARE what a person looks like? Seriously. I have met some people in my lifetime who could be considered highly unattractive, physically, but I didn't turn around and post on the internet how "ugly" they were. Why? Because I'm not ugly on the inside.

And speaking of that, do you know them personally? Do you KNOW if they are truly ugly on the inside, as you say, or is it just something you want to believe to excuse your nasty comments about their appearance?

It's childish. It's cruel. It's nasty and it's uncalled for. Sure, you can do it all you want. And I can decided you are a rather nasty, immature person because of it. Hell, Charles and Camilla haven't even done anything POLITICALLY to us.

[saracat]

37. Actually, I don't care about how they look at all. It just irks me that

people who cause such pain to others are rewarded. Surely , even if one believes Diana had problems, one couldn't say they weren't vicious to her?
And as one who believes women ought to respect one another, I have no respect for any woman who "poaches" another woman's husband, regardless of the excuse.
I only think it is interesting that people view this as an unmentionable topic. My point was that many people view them as probably physically ugly because of their behavior. It is possible, and I have already mentioned this, to find great beauty, in persons of great character.
And your post has a great deal more vitriol than my own. One might wonder why you are so defensive about a Prince's mistress that you probably don't know either.

[Bouncy Ball]

38. Uh, maybe because I'm sickened by the comments I'm

seeing from supposedly progressive, liberal women about a woman they don't know, have never met and doesn't affect their life one iota?

It's disgusting, to be quite honest. I've never said "don't talk about them, don't talk about the wedding." I don't give a shit if you do.

But the nastiness is pretty much baffling. Where the hell does it come from? That's why I asked what she did to you.

You have no respect for her? Great, so what? I doubt she's losing sleep at night over it.

And btw, you HAVE made comments about her appearance, and now you are backing up and using this "internally ugly" thing. You don't know her, you can't presume to know everything about her life, her feelings, Charles' life, his feelings, etc. So you must just enjoy sitting in judgement on her. Well, have at it, but I have every right to say I disagree with the nastiness aimed at her.

Hell, they aren't American neocons. Now THOSE people hurt us.

[saracat]

41. This is the lounge. We don't have to restrict ourselves to neocons.

And I sufficiently explained why I don't care for either. I don't understand defense of people who don't deserve it and don't need it. But whatever.

[Bouncy Ball]

42. Maybe because I think you are better than this?

[LisaL]

46. Diana herself was hardly an angel. She had affairs with couple

of married men as well. One guy went back to his wife, but she kept calling him. I guess all is fair in love and war.
Anyhow, it's being a long time since Diana and Charles divorced. If Diana was alive, she probably would have beat him to the alter anyway.

[JI7]

49. i don't think Princess Diana was all that beautiful

she seemed average at best to me.

the way i see it i don't think Camilla is as "ugly" or unattractive as many try to make it out to be. and i don't think Diana was all that beautiful as people tried to make it out to be either.

i disagree about the inner beauty part. i think both Charles and Camilla are probably good people who most people would like if they met or knew them. and i think the fact that the families get along says a lot also.

[mtnsnake]

50. Me either. She could've passed for Wayne Gretzky's identical twin n/t