Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1

[amabel]

that's soemthing completely different.  They have no power to make Pre nup agreements legal.

[sandy]

Royals can adjust rules. But I doubt they will ever issue pre nups unless something extraordinary happens.   Even without a prenup, Charles should have made it clear to Diana about what he expected in the marriage (not the royal duties but their personal life). She could have had a chance to back out of the relationship and since Charles and previous girlfriends had broken up it would not have been really "shocking." He could have been honest and said that he wanted to keep Camilla in his life one way or another. If Diana did not like the idea (or Camilla) she could have walked. I think Diana took a face value approach that he married her because he loved her. Even without a pre nup, the "rules" of the marriage that Charles expected could have been spelled out by Charles himself. It might have been if Diana had walked: 1) he would find a woman who did not care about love but wanted the perks and the bling and did not mind Charles continuing to see Camilla or 2) find a woman that he loved and he actually would ditch Camilla for her.

IF a royal marries a very very wealthy heiress, then a pre nup might be something for the royals to consider.

[royalanthropologist]

I know this is the wrong thread but I beg for permission to discuss. I wish this had been in the Digest. That digest is so flexible you can put anything you like without falling short of the strict categorization of debate.

I have been sharing with a friend on this very same issue after getting some feedback about my seemingly inflammatory post on the Diana education thread. This is my take:

A marriage rarely fails because one party or a third party. It usually fails because of the two parties involved. Trying to apportion blame from the outside based on the biased accounts of one injured party is a recipe for disaster. You can never get the other person to respond to such intimidation. They dig their heels in and move away. Diana tried many tactics ranging from eagerness to please, to vengeance, to please, to seduction, to using the children, to using the monarchy, to using public opinion etc. They all failed miserably because she did not understand or refused to understand that a relationship is made up of two people. Camilla would have been nothing (as Kanga was nothing) if the relationship had been nurtured and sustained. Many marriages I know do not start off with declarations of undying love but they end up well because the people learn about one another and start appreciating their qualities.

If your husband is being cold, there has to be something within that relationship which makes him cold and you have to be part of the solution. The Charles that Diana tried to paint in Morton and Bashir ( that Charles that her fans have worked so hard to insist as the true version) is completely different from the Charles many people know. He has personal foibles and weaknesses like anyone else, but is nowhere near the kind of monster she wanted to portray so as to avoid being blamed for her affairs and the eventual divorce. Anyone with amateur detective skills can clearly see that Morton was only released because Diana's affairs were about to be exposed. She wanted to preemptively portray herself as the wronged wife to avoid the backlash.

If her plans succeeded, Charles would forever be blamed for every single mistake in life she made. She was the lamb to the slaughter whose entire litany of mistakes stemmed from the heartless man who had used, abused and dumped her. That narrative has stuck in the minds of some people to the extent that they cannot open their minds to any thing else. When you do that, you begin the process of destroying the relationship. The other party feels put upon  and lied about. They then resent, rebel and leave the home. I have experience of family courts and can tell you that scene repeats again and again.

I am going to say something very, very controversial (as per usual) but evidence has proved me absolutely right). Charles was the only man who would be able to put up with Diana's personality. Any other Joe Bloggs would have divorced her within the year if the accounts of the people that lived with them are even 50% true. As it happened, after Charles left; Diana was never able to sustain a single long term relationship. Those who say that she was waiting for the divorce are engaging in selective amnesia. Charles left by 1986. Over the next decade Diana tried a number of relationships and they all failed. If you are having a string of failed relationships and your terrible spouse is stuck with his mistress then you had better start questioning whether there might be something about your personality or behavior that contributed to the marriage break down.

The servants describe a wife that is so suspicious of her husband that she looks for evidence in every corner and from everyone to show that he is cheating on her. They describe a wife whose mood swings are so incredibly diverse that she startles people like the Queen who absolutely had no interest in her marriage failing. They describe a woman who overnight underwent a transformation that shocked those who had known her before. They describe a toxic household in which Charles had no peace or place. Even the family pets were becoming victims of the disagreements. Much later on when Charles had left the family home,  the children were invited to take sides.  People would ask what was the matter and Diana would burst out crying. She would engage in attention-seeking scenes like throwing herself down the stairs. People were puzzled and Charles was disgusted. He thought she was trying to manipulate him and so decided to ignore her more and more.

When Diana's tantrums became excessive, he left the house and went back to Camilla. I believe that although Charles always preferred Camilla,he actually did not cheat on Diana until after the birth of Harry.  She has never ever disputed his version on that score. Some of the Diana fans know this very well but then say "oh but he must have cheated on her in the mind then". Once again the desire to blame the other party for your own mistakes is the beginning of the end.

I also believe that Charles never really had an intention to marry Camilla until Diana's relentless campaign forced him to dig his heels in. He was not about to let her continue having her affairs whilst raising a stink about his. As far as he was concerned, he had tried and failed to sustain the marriage. That is exactly what he said in Dimbleby. Those biased Diana fans know this deep down but they cannot let go of the narrative of the cruel many who married an innocent princess with no intention of ever being faithful.

I happen to believe that although Charles remained partial to Camilla, he really had no serious intention of marrying her. That is until after all they went through together that he realized that this was the woman for him. She had unfailingly supported him when the world was against him and had withstood the most appalling treatment from the press for his sake. It was then that Charles truly fell in love with Camilla and became determined to marry her, come what may. 

Diana explained that she had bulimia and all those are signs of someone that is suffering form a certain disturbed mental state. She said that she was crying out for help but the wrong kind of help. Diana then made the mistake of saying that it was indeed her husband that caused her to have bulimia. We know that this is a nonsense because there are other members of her family that suffered from eating disorders.  Charles' coldness may have made matters worse but the genes were there. A good education (getting back to the topic) would have allowed Diana to engage in self inflection. To see her situation as it is rather than as she wanted it to be.

Diana engaged in something that we call "disastering" or "awfulizing". This is where you turn some somewhat undesirable situation into a crisis and then run away with it. Hers was by no means that worst marriage in the world, let alone within the royal family. A single reading of the lives of past royal wives would have told her all she needed to know about the challenges of being married in such a situation. Instead she chose to describe all the details of her marriage in the most negative terms she could find, with the implicit intention of making her husband such a bad person that nobody would blame her for the mistakes that she had already started making.

Then she went too far and the divorce papers landed on the doorstep. The tragedy of Diana is that she never truly got a chance to reflect, correct and rebuild. She was taken in the midst of yet another PR stunt designed to manipulate, revenge and upstage. A very sad end indeed for someone who with a little self reflection might have made the best of the wonderful opportunities that came her way. Diana could have been the anchor to the monarchy in the way that the QM and Mary of Teck were. All the raw materials were there.  Instead she chose the shiny things of celebrity, PR wins and revenge. It ended up consuming her and later destroying her.

NB. Please moderators, you can move this post to the digest if you don't want it here but I think I needed to say my piece.  I know some people are going to be very angry with my post but you cannot live in a bubble. Sometimes reality hits you.

[sandy]

Kanga was the more "traditional" mistress.  I think she was less ambitious than Camilla. For one reason or another she was very besotted with the Prince. He once called her the only woman who understood him.

Charles married Diana knowing he did not love or the more "positive?" spin he hoped to "learn to love her." He had no business marrying her. Marriage is for two people and it should be undertaken with mutual respect and love between the couple. Camilla was not going anywhere. I think Diana was in a no win situation.

Dr. Lipsedge said the stress of the marriage brought about the bulimia in Diana. Stress does bring about bulimia nervosa. Diana did get it under control. Diana's sister Sarah had anorexia nervosa for a time because she was rejected by someone she really did want to marry, the Duke of Westminster.

It was not Diana's interview only that brought about the divorce. It was a series of events. Charles first of all bestirred the Parker Bowles to get the divorce when he named Camilla as his mistress in 1994. There was the Camillagate tape which still did not bring about a PB divorce. Morton did not bring about the PB divorce. Charles blabbing forced the divorce. Diana replied to the Panorama interview. I think if the QUeen had not stepped in, Charles would have had a rebuttal to the Panorama interview.

Queen Mary of Teck did not receive Wallis Simpson even after she married her son Edward. I doubt Camilla would have gotten her foot into a royal residence if The Queen had been like her grandmother. Despite being labeled as "cold" by her son, the Queen let Camilla in.

Why the assumption Diana was "destroyed." I think there is a wish by her detractors that she'd have ended up a failure, shunned by society and losing it all. She did not. Her last year was productive, she auctioned off her iconic gowns for charity, she called attention to the anti Landmine campaign, and was building a new role for herself. She was not 'Kicked out" of the royal family,there are photos of her with her ex husband accompanying their sons to a school event. She never would have been kicked out. No, she was not "destroyed."

Charles lost a lot of credibility and despite the spin by Junor, people do not "buy into" his being a "victim" and Camilla being a "victim." People can make up their own minds. Charles and Camilla will move up eventually but I doubt they will be liked by everybody to say the least.

Of course Camilla would support him, she was in a position of great power and influence and got perks from Charles for her role. I see her as a manipulator. Once Charles named her, that was that, her position was secure but Charles still got heavily criticized for naming her.

Diana got a raw deal. She had years ahead of her or should have. Like her sisters she probably would have made a good marriage had Charles left her alone. One could also say the only woman to put up with Charles is Camilla. Charles WAS rejected by two other "suitable" women and they could see the flaws in Charles. CHarles is no prize and has some issues himself.

Diana was not in Charles life, when Charles decided it was OK to sleep with his friends' wives.  DIana can't be blamed for that.

Charles married Diana for the wrong reasons. I think it wrong to say Diana could fail at any relationship with a man. That just shows total dislike for Diana wishing her bad and treating her like a "devil."

The woman fought back, she was not some Edwardian woman who turned a blind eye. What woman would not have "tantrums" as you call her when she found out the husband preferred the mistress.  Charles never really was out of touch with Camilla.

Diana obviously did not have "mood swings" all the time. She worked and was good at it. Charles got all sulky and moody because she was popular and he could not stand it even during their early years.How do you know what the Queen "felt"?  You just have Junor's point of view and she's in heaven because she can be a crawling sycophant and possibly get to be Dame Penny.

Charles in a snit once pulled out a sink in Highgrove. He pouts and sulks when disagreed with.

Why wish bad on a dead woman who died at age 36 saying such things about her? She had close friends who cared about her, her sons adored her. She was not some "reject" who was "destroyed."

[royalanthropologist]

The fantasies continue unabated. Fought back indeed...and where did that get her I ask? The constant need to avoid being blamed is the fatal flaw that brought Diana down and yes she was most definitely brought down. She may have attended family events but she was most definitely not "HRH The Princess of Wales".

Already the wheels were coming off in the photo shoot in the post-Camilla birthday episode. Meanwhile that terrible, terrible man she so desperately wanted to marry and remain married to is now happily married. Not a squint of bulimia, depression or in-fighting. Who really lost that battle? We will wait and see.

[amabel]

well I think that Diana certainly won battles but she lost the war.  I think that's obvious. Even fi she had been able to stabilise and work out a happy ending, which would have been great, she would never again be a Princess of Wales, or Queen.  She would never really be more than tolerated by the RF. And I think the signs are there that she needed help to get stable enough to find a happy ending of a settled life outside the RF, with or without a husband or partner.

[Curryong]

You talk of bias Royal. Yet there is no one more biased than you when looking at Charles and Diana's marriage and your constant comparisons between Charles's character and Diana's. Any praise of Diana comes through gritted teeth as far as you are concerned. You grind Diana constantly into the dust in order to elevate your idol, Charles.

You say that Diana didn't understand that a relationship is made up of two people. And Charles did? A man petted and pampered all his adult life, taught to believe he was the centre of the universe since his nursery days, a man who was perplexed when his girlfriend, Anna Wallace, objected to him dancing all evening with Camilla. Yes, he showed perfect understanding of how a relationship works with that little exercise!

Charles has a happy marriage now because Camilla fawns on him, flatters him, strokes his ego. He rewards her by telling her as he did in the Camillagate tapes 'Your great achievement is loving me'. And the sad thing is he believes it. And what a lot that says about him!

There were plenty of staff who lived with the Wales who certainly weren't impressed by Charles's behaviour towards his wife. The member of staff who saw him throwing clocks on a regular basis, the housekeeper at Highgrove who saw Diana running after him in the rain, slip and Charles get into his car and drive off without a backward glance. ('The Housekeeper's Diary')

Ken Wharfe who witnessed several put downs, Dickie Arbiter, Press Secretary, who otherwise I can't stand, who said 'She (Diana) deserved better.' You say 'If your husband is being cold there must be something in the relationship which makes him so...' Not necessarily, if he himself is cold and unloving, and didn't want to be married in the first place.

As for Diana staying with Charles in spite of the put downs etc there is someone else who did that for years isn't there? Camilla called Andrew 'the thing' and 'the stuffed stoat' but she was still hanging around. Even after Charles outed her she didn't want a divorce from this husband who had treated her badly and been unfaithful to her for years. And Camilla's motivation...?

You are determined to reiterate what a loser Diana was in every way. Well, she was and is no loser to her sons twenty years after her death and never has been, and they were the ones who always counted for her in the end.

Anyway, I personally have had enough of constantly reading each day on this forum of how terrible every facet of Diana's nature  was and how incomparably better Charles was and is in comparison. It's a bombardment I don't need or want. Life's too short. You've won your Pyrrhic victory, Royal (and it is pyrrhic because you haven't changed my mind one iota). However, I'm leaving.

I'm sure you and amabel will be able to make up the numbers in your own little echo chamber and go on, reassuring each other how utterly marvellous in every way Charles was and is, and how Diana was as the dust under his feet in comparison.

Bye, everyone else!

[sandy]

The fantasies continue unabated. Fought back indeed...and where did that get her I ask? The constant need to avoid being blamed is the fatal flaw that brought Diana down and yes she was most definitely brought down. She may have attended family events but she was most definitely not "HRH The Princess of Wales".

Already the wheels were coming off in the photo shoot in the post-Camilla birthday episode. Meanwhile that terrible, terrible man she so desperately wanted to marry and remain married to is now happily married. Not a squint of bulimia, depression or in-fighting. Who really lost that battle? We will wait and see.

What fantasies?  There are different points of view. You seem to want Diana to have had a horrible time. Why? Just curious.

Diana took part of the blame. Charles and Camilla to this day play victims and take no blame.

She was Princess of Wales when she died without the HRH. A future King of England is her son. She would not have been ousted.

I for one I am glad Diana got the headlines instead of Camilla. And that is no "fantasy." It is my Opinion.

Diana was not "brought down." But you seem to wish it so.
Double post auto-merged: July 10, 2017, 01:04:46 PM

well I think that Diana certainly won battles but she lost the war.  I think that's obvious. Even fi she had been able to stabilise and work out a happy ending, which would have been great, she would never again be a Princess of Wales, or Queen.  She would never really be more than tolerated by the RF. And I think the signs are there that she needed help to get stable enough to find a happy ending of a settled life outside the RF, with or without a husband or partner.

What war? The woman died at age 36. But I think Charles and Camilla are still waging war with her interview and the Junor book and all that.

The woman died at age 36 so you have no idea what would have happened. She may have had a wonderful life for all you know.
Double post auto-merged: July 10, 2017, 01:12:10 PM

You talk of bias Royal. Yet there is no one more biased than you when looking at Charles and Diana's marriage and your constant comparisons between Charles's character and Diana's. Any praise of Diana comes through gritted teeth as far as you are concerned. You grind Diana constantly into the dust in order to elevate your idol, Charles.

You say that Diana didn't understand that a relationship is made up of two people. And Charles did? A man petted and pampered all his adult life, taught to believe he was the centre of the universe since his nursery days, a man who was perplexed when his girlfriend, Anna Wallace, objected to him dancing all evening with Camilla. Yes, he showed perfect understanding of how a relationship works with that little exercise!

Charles has a happy marriage now because Camilla fawns on him, flatters him, strokes his ego. He rewards her by telling her as he did in the Camillagate tapes 'Your great achievement is loving me'. And the sad thing is he believes it. And what a lot that says about him!

There were plenty of staff who lived with the Wales who certainly weren't impressed by Charles's behaviour towards his wife. The member of staff who saw him throwing clocks on a regular basis, the housekeeper at Highgrove who saw Diana running after him in the rain, slip and Charles get into his car and drive off without a backward glance. ('The Housekeeper's Diary')

Ken Wharfe who witnessed several put downs, Dickie Arbiter, Press Secretary, who otherwise I can't stand, who said 'She (Diana) deserved better.' You say 'If your husband is being cold there must be something in the relationship which makes him so...' Not necessarily, if he himself is cold and unloving, and didn't want to be married in the first place.

As for Diana staying with Charles in spite of the put downs etc there is someone else who did that for years isn't there? Camilla called Andrew 'the thing' and 'the stuffed stoat' but she was still hanging around. Even after Charles outed her she didn't want a divorce from this husband who had treated her badly and been unfaithful to her for years. And Camilla's motivation...?

You are determined to reiterate what a loser Diana was in every way. Well, she was and is no loser to her sons twenty years after her death and never has been, and they were the ones who always counted for her in the end.

Anyway, I personally have had enough of constantly reading each day on this forum of how terrible every facet of Diana's nature  was and how incomparably better Charles was and is in comparison. It's a bombardment I don't need or want. Life's too short. You've won your Pyrrhic victory, Royal (and it is pyrrhic because you haven't changed my mind one iota). However, I'm leaving.

I'm sure you and amabel will be able to make up the numbers in your own little echo chamber and go on, reassuring each other how utterly marvellous in every way Charles was and is, and how Diana was as the dust under his feet in comparison.

Bye, everyone else!

I agree with you. I don't understand why some wanted Diana to end up "in the gutter" so to speak with no friends, and cast out away from her "wonderful (cough cough)" Husband.
Double post auto-merged: July 10, 2017, 01:24:32 PM

There is a big fantasy going on this thread. That Diana was "ousted" from the royal family, everybody disliked her and avoided her when crossing streets, she lost her title and clung to the Princess of Wales title when in reality she was Diana Spencer again, she was shunned and a dismal failure. Years later she would come begging to Charles and Camilla and in the goodness of their little old hearts they would give he a few dollars which Diana would spend on drink. Oh Camilla we tried to save her. I know Charles, smiles Camilla. No man could spend 5 minutes with Diana and she never ever could have a serious relationship. But Charles found a saint to marry.  Charles in his interview only wanted to tell the world about his great love for his mistress. It was time for the PBs to divorce anyway. He made Camilla so unhappy so she ran to Charles. Diana attacked "poor" Charles and made his life a living hell. And Saint Camilla to the rescue.

Even at age 19 Diana was out to "upstage" Charles. Junor claims she told a friend of a friend "I'm out to upstage him."

Such a villain that Diana in the Fractured Fairy tale book by Charles supporters

[Trudie]

I know this is the wrong thread but I beg for permission to discuss. I wish this had been in the Digest. That digest is so flexible you can put anything you like without falling short of the strict categorization of debate.

I have been sharing with a friend on this very same issue after getting some feedback about my seemingly inflammatory post on the Diana education thread. This is my take:

A marriage rarely fails because one party or a third party. It usually fails because of the two parties involved. Trying to apportion blame from the outside based on the biased accounts of one injured party is a recipe for disaster. You can never get the other person to respond to such intimidation. They dig their heels in and move away. Diana tried many tactics ranging from eagerness to please, to vengeance, to please, to seduction, to using the children, to using the monarchy, to using public opinion etc. They all failed miserably because she did not understand or refused to understand that a relationship is made up of two people. Camilla would have been nothing (as Kanga was nothing) if the relationship had been nurtured and sustained. Many marriages I know do not start off with declarations of undying love but they end up well because the people learn about one another and start appreciating their qualities.

If your husband is being cold, there has to be something within that relationship which makes him cold and you have to be part of the solution. The Charles that Diana tried to paint in Morton and Bashir ( that Charles that her fans have worked so hard to insist as the true version) is completely different from the Charles many people know. He has personal foibles and weaknesses like anyone else, but is nowhere near the kind of monster she wanted to portray so as to avoid being blamed for her affairs and the eventual divorce. Anyone with amateur detective skills can clearly see that Morton was only released because Diana's affairs were about to be exposed. She wanted to preemptively portray herself as the wronged wife to avoid the backlash.

If her plans succeeded, Charles would forever be blamed for every single mistake in life she made. She was the lamb to the slaughter whose entire litany of mistakes stemmed from the heartless man who had used, abused and dumped her. That narrative has stuck in the minds of some people to the extent that they cannot open their minds to any thing else. When you do that, you begin the process of destroying the relationship. The other party feels put upon  and lied about. They then resent, rebel and leave the home. I have experience of family courts and can tell you that scene repeats again and again.

I am going to say something very, very controversial (as per usual) but evidence has proved me absolutely right). Charles was the only man who would be able to put up with Diana's personality. Any other Joe Bloggs would have divorced her within the year if the accounts of the people that lived with them are even 50% true. As it happened, after Charles left; Diana was never able to sustain a single long term relationship. Those who say that she was waiting for the divorce are engaging in selective amnesia. Charles left by 1986. Over the next decade Diana tried a number of relationships and they all failed. If you are having a string of failed relationships and your terrible spouse is stuck with his mistress then you had better start questioning whether there might be something about your personality or behavior that contributed to the marriage break down.

The servants describe a wife that is so suspicious of her husband that she looks for evidence in every corner and from everyone to show that he is cheating on her. They describe a wife whose mood swings are so incredibly diverse that she startles people like the Queen who absolutely had no interest in her marriage failing. They describe a woman who overnight underwent a transformation that shocked those who had known her before. They describe a toxic household in which Charles had no peace or place. Even the family pets were becoming victims of the disagreements. Much later on when Charles had left the family home,  the children were invited to take sides.  People would ask what was the matter and Diana would burst out crying. She would engage in attention-seeking scenes like throwing herself down the stairs. People were puzzled and Charles was disgusted. He thought she was trying to manipulate him and so decided to ignore her more and more.

When Diana's tantrums became excessive, he left the house and went back to Camilla. I believe that although Charles always preferred Camilla,he actually did not cheat on Diana until after the birth of Harry.  She has never ever disputed his version on that score. Some of the Diana fans know this very well but then say "oh but he must have cheated on her in the mind then". Once again the desire to blame the other party for your own mistakes is the beginning of the end.

I also believe that Charles never really had an intention to marry Camilla until Diana's relentless campaign forced him to dig his heels in. He was not about to let her continue having her affairs whilst raising a stink about his. As far as he was concerned, he had tried and failed to sustain the marriage. That is exactly what he said in Dimbleby. Those biased Diana fans know this deep down but they cannot let go of the narrative of the cruel many who married an innocent princess with no intention of ever being faithful.

I happen to believe that although Charles remained partial to Camilla, he really had no serious intention of marrying her. That is until after all they went through together that he realized that this was the woman for him. She had unfailingly supported him when the world was against him and had withstood the most appalling treatment from the press for his sake. It was then that Charles truly fell in love with Camilla and became determined to marry her, come what may. 

Diana explained that she had bulimia and all those are signs of someone that is suffering form a certain disturbed mental state. She said that she was crying out for help but the wrong kind of help. Diana then made the mistake of saying that it was indeed her husband that caused her to have bulimia. We know that this is a nonsense because there are other members of her family that suffered from eating disorders.  Charles' coldness may have made matters worse but the genes were there. A good education (getting back to the topic) would have allowed Diana to engage in self inflection. To see her situation as it is rather than as she wanted it to be.

Diana engaged in something that we call "disastering" or "awfulizing". This is where you turn some somewhat undesirable situation into a crisis and then run away with it. Hers was by no means that worst marriage in the world, let alone within the royal family. A single reading of the lives of past royal wives would have told her all she needed to know about the challenges of being married in such a situation. Instead she chose to describe all the details of her marriage in the most negative terms she could find, with the implicit intention of making her husband such a bad person that nobody would blame her for the mistakes that she had already started making.

Then she went too far and the divorce papers landed on the doorstep. The tragedy of Diana is that she never truly got a chance to reflect, correct and rebuild. She was taken in the midst of yet another PR stunt designed to manipulate, revenge and upstage. A very sad end indeed for someone who with a little self reflection might have made the best of the wonderful opportunities that came her way. Diana could have been the anchor to the monarchy in the way that the QM and Mary of Teck were. All the raw materials were there.  Instead she chose the shiny things of celebrity, PR wins and revenge. It ended up consuming her and later destroying her.

NB. Please moderators, you can move this post to the digest if you don't want it here but I think I needed to say my piece.  I know some people are going to be very angry with my post but you cannot live in a bubble. Sometimes reality hits you.

This is quite the spin and fantasy you have woven here. First of all just how many hoops as you describe above did Diana have to jump through to nurture and sustain her child husband?. Second when Morton came out that was in 92 and Hewitt didn't blab till 94 and any other so called affairs are just speculation. Third what are your qualifications to diagnose Diana with mental illness? Bulimia and anorexia are eating disorders brought on by stress and anxiety as a way to control chaos around them a desire to be perfect. Put yourself on the world stage and lets see how you react. Fourth I highly doubt Charles really wanted to sustain the marriage and if he did it had to be on his terms to include the mistress I don't believe he really tried at all you need to look back to the honeymoon for evidence of that.

You accuse those who love Diana as having blinders on well take a good look at yourself as a Charles lover and your blinders are on Diana publicly took 50% of the blame tell where Charles has admitted his.

[sandy]

Also, I find it odd that Diana is accused of not having sustaining relationships. The fact is she was married to Charles until 1996 and could not sustain long term relationships ending in marriage while married to someone. She could not have bolted to marry Hewitt and face the possibility of losing custody of her sons. So they really had no long term future unless she wanted to risk losing her sons. Diana had only one year to live after the divorce. She was involved with Khan and later, Dodi. It was only one year so how could she be judged as "not being able to sustain long term relationships."  I am not getting such intense dislike of Diana that such charges can be leveled against her based on ONE year of being a divorced woman. That makes no sense.

Camilla was and is an ambitious woman. Somehow it worked out (by Charles blabbing) that she and APB divorced and she was a "free woman." Her father asked Charles what he was going to do about her now. So all of a sudden he had the intention of marrying her. Charles was quoted as saying that he would never marry again. And look how that turned out!

If Camilla cared about opinion about her, she would have backed off after Charles married Diana. She was and is nervy and she hung in there. I don't see that she made any sacrifices. Charles had his buddies and sympathizers trash Diana and still do to this day.

Dr. Lipsedge blamed the stress of the marriage to Charles for the bulimia. Diana did not say this. Lipsedge did. 

Diana was not allowed to be an anchor to the monarchy, thanks to Charles and Camilla. Camilla IMO was always calling the shots.

I think Charles had relationship issues. He felt it his "right" to bed the wives of his friends, Tryon and Parker Bowles. That is really dysfunctional.  He also was turned down by several women. And he felt it OK to marry someone to have his children and expected the wife to be Ok with Camilla being around. That sounds like real dysfunction to me.

[royalanthropologist]

I predicted and fully expected the meltdown so it is not really that surprising. The fantasy and fiction has been going on for quite sometime. Someone had to break it.  The reaction tells me that my message was understood and received. You can wish and justify and deflect but reality remains reality. If someone wants to leave a forum because people do not agree with her then...good luck and good bye.  It is a free world.

[sandy]

There is no "meltdown." It is the other side of the story. And no it is not fantasy and fiction. You are actually saying that Diana would have been a flop and a failure. It is fiction that she was "ousted" from the royal family. She was not. She retained a Royal Residence at KP, still was referred to as Princess of Wales, she still had a son who was going to be King (and most certainly not have kicked his mother to the curb), and she could attend royal events involving the children she had with Prince Charles. That is truth not fiction. She was not ousted. Ever. And she died at age 36 do how on earth do you know she would not have had a "sustaining relationship." IT is just hope on your part that she would have no reality.

[royalanthropologist]

The message hit home...hence the reaction. Fantasies are comforting but they do not reflect reality and someone somewhere unmasks them for the fantasies that they are. That is what has happened here.  I hope those who are too invested in this recover from the psychological blow of realizing that at least one or two people do not buy into the elaborate fantasy.

[Trudie]

Actually royalanthropologist Just what message and truth are we talking about? The truth is Charles and Diana should never have married in the first place. Diana was too young and Charles was too old and set into his entitlement ways. For the whole 7 months you have been a member on this forum I must say much of the posts do not hold to the spirit of the forum and how you get away with it along with a certain pal of yours I don't know. I also wouldn't be patting myself on the back too much for making Curryong leave. As much as you seem to deride the fans of Diana as cultist etc the same could be said regarding you about Charles however, No one here is as mean and callous IMO as you are to the point of making a member leave.

P.S. I am still waiting for Charles to publicly say he takes 50% of the blame himself not " the marriage irretrievably broke down us both having tried".

[sandy]

The message hit home...hence the reaction. Fantasies are comforting but they do not reflect reality and someone somewhere unmasks them for the fantasies that they are. That is what has happened here.  I hope those who are too invested in this recover from the psychological blow of realizing that at least one or two people do not buy into the elaborate fantasy.

The divorce terms were not fantasies. Period. Diana was not kicked to the sidewalk with her things in a plastic bag. She got to stay in her royal residence, her son is still is a future King, she lived in a Royal dwelling after the divorce, and she and Charles shared custody and she would always be invited to royal events when their sons were involved . Perhaps the Truth is comforting. No matter how you twist it, it is still a fact. If you insist that Diana was ousted, then maybe that is something comforting to you and your fantasy.

[FanDianaFancy]

 :gaah:

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

I think the full moon has all sides a little worked up perhaps...im gonna need to wait till im off work to digest and respond, but basically, more grey ppl, more grey.

Diana had some issues and was as much an architect of her own misery as Charles was. But she was, even without press spin, exquisitely lovable, and Charles lack of understanding how to transition to married life brought out the worst in the situation, as much as Diana not being aware of how this marriage might be different from ones she fantasized about.

one can safely store petrol and matches together but it requires a lot of forethought......from 1980 to 1986 im not seeing a lot of it by all parties and with the same results.

[royalanthropologist]

@Trudie. I have not asked anyone to leave. They have left of their own volition, apparently because I was not sufficiently complementary of Diana or sufficiently critical of Charles. If the spirit of the forum is to cheer Diana as the perfect person then so be it.

This is not my forum. You can kick me out if I have not sufficiently bought into your view of things. I have said my piece like all of you have said yours. Insisting that everyone must align with your view is the beginning of Groupthink and echo chambers. Unfortunately I do find echo chambers a little bit boring. The emotional investment in this saga is frankly speaking a bit disturbing. Anything negative said about Diana sends people into a tizzy as if you have insulted them personally. It is the same intense dislike for Charles as if he cheated on them personally.

The meanie poster complaint does not work with me. Charles and Camilla have been criticized with relentlessness on these forums for years. Stories and nasty motives are assigned to them with not a shred of evidence. Things that Diana herself said are disputed and shamelessly denied in order drive certain narratives. Those who question such narratives are then reported to moderators for being mean.

This is exactly what Trudie is trying to do by saying "Oh you've been here for just 7 months and are not to our liking. We might get rid of you if you don't change your views"...whatever. I will not change my views or resist expressing them because someone's precious feelings are going to be hurt when I fail to praise their heroine or criticize their nemesis.

If you can dish it out, you should be prepared to take it. If Charles and Camilla fans were as fragile as some people here seem to be; they would have left this forum long ago. I am not into guilt trips. If someone wants to leave, it is their choice and I wish them luck.

[sandy]

I think the full moon has all sides a little worked up perhaps...im gonna need to wait till im off work to digest and respond, but basically, more grey ppl, more grey.

Diana had some issues and was as much an architect of her own misery as Charles was. But she was, even without press spin, exquisitely lovable, and Charles lack of understanding how to transition to married life brought out the worst in the situation, as much as Diana not being aware of how this marriage might be different from ones she fantasized about.

one can safely store petrol and matches together but it requires a lot of forethought......from 1980 to 1986 im not seeing a lot of it by all parties and with the same results.

Well most brides to be think it reasonable to want a husband who has nobody "on the side." 

[royalanthropologist]

That may well be true. However, your reaction to a major failing in your spouse will have an impact on the eventual outcome of the marriage. If you stump your fit, throw a tantrum and generally make it impossible to live together; do not anticipate that the marriage will survive. The other partner will just leave you to your own devices. However, if you discuss the issue together and come up with a workable plan; you might just be able to keep the marriage together.

And of course, inviting the public (or that part of the public that supports you) to pile onto your spouse is hardly going to persuade them that they should remain married to you. If you find that it is completely unworkable, an amicable divorce is preferable to a long drawn out battle that ends up harming you both and your children. Continuously complaining about how bad your husband is does absolutely nothing to restore the marriage. You are  better off calling it a day.

[Trudie]

I predicted and fully expected the meltdown so it is not really that surprising. The fantasy and fiction has been going on for quite sometime. Someone had to break it.  The reaction tells me that my message was understood and received. You can wish and justify and deflect but reality remains reality. If someone wants to leave a forum because people do not agree with her then...good luck and good bye.  It is a free world.

This is an example of a post not being in the spirit of the forum. The forum is for friendly debate not gleefully stirring up a pot expecting a melt down and it really it appears that it brought you great happiness that a poster has decided to leave. It is the very tone of your posts that are off putting and not up for debate in a friendly way. IMO this is what I mean by mean spirited.

[sandy]

That may well be true. However, your reaction to a major failing in your spouse will have an impact on the eventual outcome of the marriage. If you stump your fit, throw a tantrum and generally make it impossible to live together; do not anticipate that the marriage will survive. The other partner will just leave you to your own devices. However, if you discuss the issue together and come up with a workable plan; you might just be able to keep the marriage together.

And of course, inviting the public (or that part of the public that supports you) to pile onto your spouse is hardly going to persuade them that they should remain married to you. If you find that it is completely unworkable, an amicable divorce is preferable to a long drawn out battle that ends up harming you both and your children. Continuously complaining about how bad your husband is does absolutely nothing to restore the marriage. You are  better off calling it a day.

Does that apply to Prince Charles also? Who was known to throw fits and lose his temper. And how can anybody work on a marriage when a third party is involved in "counseling" the husband. Of course the issue would have been better had the two talked about their expectations for the marriage. If Charles did not want to be exclusive with his wife he should have brought that up. Diana could have backed out before he proposed.

The option for Divorce did not exist back then. Plus if Diana had walked away she may well have lost much access to William and Harry.

[royalanthropologist]

I predicted and fully expected the meltdown so it is not really that surprising. The fantasy and fiction has been going on for quite sometime. Someone had to break it.  The reaction tells me that my message was understood and received. You can wish and justify and deflect but reality remains reality. If someone wants to leave a forum because people do not agree with her then...good luck and good bye.  It is a free world.

This is an example of a post not being in the spirit of the forum. The forum is for friendly debate not gleefully stirring up a pot expecting a melt down and it really it appears that it brought you great happiness that a poster has decided to leave. It is the very tone of your posts that are off putting and not up for debate in a friendly way. IMO this is what I mean by mean spirited.

Context is everything. A section of Diana fans are so intent on confidently diagnosing others as cruel, callous, wicked etc. based on the fact that they do not give uncritical praise to Diana. We do not complain because frankly speaking it is not that important. When someone really responds in kind then they turn into snow flakes and complain about how their poor nerves are being tormented by the C&C fans who refuse to see the light (i.e.) that Diana was perfect and blameless whilst C&C were evil and to blame for everything. I am done with such indulgence. If someone posts a fairy tale (something that is not true), I will comment; their tantrums notwithstanding.
Double post auto-merged: July 12, 2017, 11:39:12 AM

Before deciding whether a post is cruel unfriendly, it might be a good idea to first consider what came before it. There are some posters here who are completely beyond all moderation in terms of their emotional attachment to this sage. It seems as if any disagreement about Charles and Diana is a personal insult to them. They prefer to wallow in a belated Diana pity party. I am sorry but that does not convince me. No amount of concession will ever convince these people so the best thing is to say what needs to be said.

[sandy]

Nobody is a snow flake on this board. Nobody throws tantrums. Why must this always get personal?!

I think this is getting to the level about projecting emotions and motives of other posters which is not the purpose of the discussion thread.

Certain facts were brought into the discussion when the contention was that Diana was ousted from the royal family. Not "emotion" Facts--like Diana got to stay in her royal residence (not a civilian residence), she was not "destroyed" she was very much looking forward to a new role and this is well documented. She was still called Princess Diana. Her son is destined to be a future King. If that is not being "royal" I don't know what is. Even if she remarried she would have still been a future King's mother. She could not be divorced by her royal sons and grandchildren.

[Trudie]

I predicted and fully expected the meltdown so it is not really that surprising. The fantasy and fiction has been going on for quite sometime. Someone had to break it.  The reaction tells me that my message was understood and received. You can wish and justify and deflect but reality remains reality. If someone wants to leave a forum because people do not agree with her then...good luck and good bye.  It is a free world.

This is an example of a post not being in the spirit of the forum. The forum is for friendly debate not gleefully stirring up a pot expecting a melt down and it really it appears that it brought you great happiness that a poster has decided to leave. It is the very tone of your posts that are off putting and not up for debate in a friendly way. IMO this is what I mean by mean spirited.

Context is everything. A section of Diana fans are so intent on confidently diagnosing others as cruel, callous, wicked etc. based on the fact that they do not give uncritical praise to Diana. We do not complain because frankly speaking it is not that important. When someone really responds in kind then they turn into snow flakes and complain about how their poor nerves are being tormented by the C&C fans who refuse to see the light (i.e.) that Diana was perfect and blameless whilst C&C were evil and to blame for everything. I am done with such indulgence. If someone posts a fairy tale (something that is not true), I will comment; their tantrums notwithstanding.
Double post auto-merged: July 12, 2017, 11:39:12 AM

Before deciding whether a post is cruel unfriendly, it might be a good idea to first consider what came before it. There are some posters here who are completely beyond all moderation in terms of their emotional attachment to this sage. It seems as if any disagreement about Charles and Diana is a personal insult to them. They prefer to wallow in a belated Diana pity party. I am sorry but that does not convince me. No amount of concession will ever convince these people so the best thing is to say what needs to be said.

The difference between the Diana fans and long time posters are we do not call other posters snowflakes nor do we make personal attacks this is not in the spirit of the forum and how you are getting away with this is totally beyond me. As I have said it is the tone of your posts and these insulting remarks are making it quite clear it has to all be seen your way. Sorry but we can get our point of view across without such high school antics.