Dishing it: Catty about a Dog
Having blogged sexy underwear, I think it’s at least as important to blog the subject of British royalty. So, for real women everywhere, the question of the day: Is Camilla Parker-Jones really a dog?
I, like everyone I know, with the exception of real men, adored Princess Di. When I woke up on that dreadful day, my partner told me she’d broken her arm in an accident in Paris. (The first reports out of Paris suggested a less horrific accident.) Ignoring any other responsibility, I promptly hit the couch and wound up watching TV for an entire week.
I remember those darling boys; the miserable way the queen behaved; and, of course, Christopher Hitchens who wondered why people cared so much because she was “after all, just Euro trash.”
I didn’t disagree, but I watched.
The fascination with Diana continues more than a decade after her death. Tina Brown, the brilliant former editor of Vanity Fair, released a book last June called “The Diana Chronicles,” a major step up from the various degrees of merde released by the sleazy hangers on and former lovers who apparently surrounded Diana. And, didn’t the British High Court recently release yet another finding that really, really, really Prince Phillip had nothing to do with her death?
So, poor Camilla. She is rather long-faced and leathery and certainly those of us who remember the leaked love tape with Charles still cringe at his assertion he wanted to be “her tampon.” (I won’t dwell on what that might imply about the royal member.)
The problem with Camilla is that she’s just not relevant. She’s not gorgeous, mistreated or anorexic. However, she does put up with a guy who talks to plants, powers his car with wine and who is given to the kind of wacky assertions we might expect from a man waiting for his mother to die. So maybe she is a victim.
Nah.
I have to admit, I have a sneaking sort of sympathy for her. Remember Diana used to call her “The Rottweiler?” The tag, so apposite, gives lie, BTW, to Hitchens’s implication that Diana was brainless, unlike, say, Dodi Al Fayed.
So, maybe the question is “where do real women stand on the issue of Camilla Parker-Jones?”
That one I can answer.
We don’t care.
Tags: Add new tag, Camilla Parker-Jones, Princess Di, real women
July 28th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Sorry to point this out–her name is Camilla Parker-Bowles not Jones. At least it was until she married Charles which I think makes her Windsor. Those pesky royals and their names! Frankly, I rather like her. As perhaps one of the few people in the world who thought Diana was a neurotic twit, I think she and Charles quite suit. Too bad it took so many years and so much public humiliation for them to end up together. Given my dismal history, I’m certainly the last person to trash people for making bad spouse choices then trying to correct them.
So Camilla’s a bit dowdy and horse-faced–hello, she’s British! All British women of a certain age look like John Cleese in drag. At least she isn’t jet-setting around the world, sunning naked on Arab sheiks’ yachts. (Okay, Diana did produce two nice looking princes.) All in all, Camilla seems to behave and keep Charles out of severe trouble while he’s waiting for Mum to go. What more can we expect of a royal spouse these days?
July 30th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I stand corrected…on more than one count. But come on, didn’t Di look marvelous in some of those gowns? I definitely succumbed.