Books on the honeymoon

Started by LouisFerdinand, January 19, 2017, 12:02:46 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LouisFerdinand

On his honeymoon with Princess Diana aboard the yacht Britannia, Prince Charles brought a novel by Sir Laurens van der Post. Seven books came on the honeymoon.     
Should Charles have brought the books?     
 
:booknerd: :booknerd: :booknerd: :booknerd: :booknerd: :booknerd: :booknerd:


TLLK

^^^I don't have an issue with him bringing the books for his own enjoyment if he also spent time with her participating in activities that they both liked.  However he did expect his wife to read them and participate in discussion with him on the subject matter. Had Diana indicated that she had an interest in Sir Van der Post's work then she could have joined him, but AFAIK she didn't share his interest in reading material.

Curryong

^ Again an example of Charles and Diana not knowing each other very well, IMO. Yes of course Charles had a perfect right to bring a selection of favourite books with him on his honeymoon, although joining Diana at some deck activities like deck tennis or quoits would have been more interactive than a solitary activity like reading, I would have thought.

However, most couples when they first get together discuss personal interests and hobbies and what reading material, music, films, TV shows they like. If Diana in the early stages had expressed an interest in the life and philosophies of Laurens Van der Post or Freud then they would have already had some discussions on it had their courtship been a normal one. Instead there were a few dates (and heaven knows what they did talk about when alone during that time) and then an engagement.

Van der Post's philosophies are not something most twenty year olds would be interested in to be honest (I know I'm generalising here) but this seems to me to be a case of Charles, as an older man, fondly imagining that he could mould Diana's mind so she could share his interests and inspirations. If he had known her better Charles would have realised her mind didn't absorb abstract philosophies very well and would have left well alone.

That's not saying that Diana was an ignorant or unintelligent person. I believe she was extremely interested in her fellow humans beings, but she was instinctual not intellectual in her thought processes. This couple were just too too different to ever be a true meeting of minds, IMHO.

TLLK

QuoteThis couple were just too too different to ever be a true meeting of minds, IMHO.
I absolutely agree and for this reason I doubt that their marriage would have survived. In the end I don't believe that they'd ever be happy with each other.

royalanthropologist

Sometimes Charles' behavior makes me shake my head :no:. What kind of man brings hard literature to his honeymoon. I mean, really??? That is just ridiculous. Honeymoons are for knowing each other...especially in the Biblical sense. They are not a reading opportunity. You can take books for holiday but in my case I end up not reading a single one as I am busy exploring the landscapes.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

#5
It used to be a sort of joke when a couple was given books to read on the honeymoon. One movie star wrote that as a joke someone gave her a copy of Gone with the Wind before she went on her honeymoon.

Double post auto-merged: January 19, 2017, 03:28:17 PM


Quote from: TLLK on January 19, 2017, 02:13:23 AM
QuoteThis couple were just too too different to ever be a true meeting of minds, IMHO.
I absolutely agree and for this reason I doubt that their marriage would have survived. In the end I don't believe that they'd ever be happy with each other.

I doubt it would have survived considering the husband wore his mistress's gift of cufflinks on the honeymoon and carried her photograph with him. It had nothing to do with books.

Double post auto-merged: January 19, 2017, 03:29:55 PM


Quote from: Curryong on January 19, 2017, 01:39:44 AM
^ Again an example of Charles and Diana not knowing each other very well, IMO. Yes of course Charles had a perfect right to bring a selection of favourite books with him on his honeymoon, although joining Diana at some deck activities like deck tennis or quoits would have been more interactive than a solitary activity like reading, I would have thought.

However, most couples when they first get together discuss personal interests and hobbies and what reading material, music, films, TV shows they like. If Diana in the early stages had expressed an interest in the life and philosophies of Laurens Van der Post or Freud then they would have already had some discussions on it had their courtship been a normal one. Instead there were a few dates (and heaven knows what they did talk about when alone during that time) and then an engagement.

Van der Post's philosophies are not something most twenty year olds would be interested in to be honest (I know I'm generalising here) but this seems to me to be a case of Charles, as an older man, fondly imagining that he could mould Diana's mind so she could share his interests and inspirations. If he had known her better Charles would have realised her mind didn't absorb abstract philosophies very well and would have left well alone.

That's not saying that Diana was an ignorant or unintelligent person. I believe she was extremely interested in her fellow humans beings, but she was instinctual not intellectual in her thought processes. This couple were just too too different to ever be a true meeting of minds, IMHO.

Van Der Post had a rather dubious private life. I think Charles liked him because VDP had a wife and a mistress and wrote about how great it was to keep a mistress. Right up Charles' alley.

The big thing they did not have in common was Camilla.

royalanthropologist

You know sometimes I want to defend Charles and spar with Sandy but then you hear about books on a honeymoon.  :ugh: Charles must be the most unromantic guy in the world. I mean you have this beautiful bride and all you want to do is read van whatever. Come on
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

michelle0187

Well who knows how many pics of camilla were in those books. I think di liked to read books from jackie collins and will made fun of her for it.she doesn't strike me as the type to sit and read for too long. She was extroverted and wanted to speak to people, no matter if its the staff or a close friend unlike chuck.

TLLK

Quote from: royalanthropologist on January 19, 2017, 04:10:17 PM
You know sometimes I want to defend Charles and spar with Sandy but then you hear about books on a honeymoon.  :ugh: Charles must be the most unromantic guy in the world. I mean you have this beautiful bride and all you want to do is read van whatever. Come on
Well if it was a couple with a passion for Van der Post I'm sure that even they could probably find the time to discover a passion for... something else while on their honeymoon.  :lol:

Trudie

I don't think Vanderpost books or Jung were appropriate books to bring on the honeymoon Charles would have been more successful if he brought books such as they joy of s** to teach his innocent bride.  :girlblush:



royalanthropologist

Ha ha. You people are too naughty.  :lol: Poor Diana was short-changed. Your first marriage should be a wonderful experience. Then she went on to date cads, weaklings and cowards who never stayed the course. It was a tragic life on so many levels.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

LouisFerdinand

What were the titles of the seven books which Prince Charles brought on the honeymoon?    :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:


sandy

#12
Books by Van Der Post and I think some psychology books by Adler, Jung and others. Primarily VDP though

TLLK

QuoteThen she went on to date cads, weaklings and cowards who never stayed the course. It was a tragic life on so many levels.
I'll agree with you on all but one, Dr. Hasnat Khan. IMHO he was honest with her regarding his reluctance to be with someone so famous and has been discreet after their relationship ended. :)

royalanthropologist

#14
TLK. I agree that Hasnat Khan was the nearest thing to a serious romantic relationship and that he was discreet. However, if you really love someone you have to be prepared to make some sacrifices. He was not and yet he continued to pine for Diana. I hear that his marriage has not lasted. Being famous is not the end of the world, otherwise celebrities would never get married. It is so heartbreaking to know that Diana was so loved globally and yet romantically she always pulled the short straw. The contradiction must have driven her to tears.

Double post auto-merged: January 21, 2017, 05:16:24 AM


"some psychology books by Adler, Jung and others"

How romantic...NOT :eyes: I mean, fancy reading some psychoanalysis on your honeymoon. Charles is very eccentric in some ways.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

Quote from: royalanthropologist on January 20, 2017, 05:04:39 AM
Ha ha. You people are too naughty.  :lol: Poor Diana was short-changed. Your first marriage should be a wonderful experience. Then she went on to date cads, weaklings and cowards who never stayed the course. It was a tragic life on so many levels.

Dr. Khan contributed a whole lot more to society than Charles could ever dream. HE is an eminent heart surgeon. Actually IMO Charles behaved like a cad, weakling and coward who did not stay the course (his sloppy private life with married mistresses and his hangups attest to that--a wishy washy man thinks he can have it all, Charles although he tried to be "deep" did not have a clue).  Diana could only begin to look seriously for someone after the divorce. She only was free for a year, so I don't think any judgments can be made. Jackie O. found true love after her second marriage ended when Ari died (though they were not getting along when he died).

LouisFerdinand

Some books written by Laurens van der Post are:   
The Dark Eye in Africa, The Seed and the Sower, A Story Like the Wind.


royalanthropologist

"The Seed and the Sower". Lol. How apt??? :hehe:
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

TLLK

 :lol: :teehee: :hehe: :goodpost:

LouisFerdinand

Was The Seed and the Sower one of the books that accompanied The Prince and Princess of Wales on the honeymoon?


amabel

what does itmatter?  We know he took serveral Van Der Post novels, and hoped that he and Di could discuss them.  I don't think that the tiltes matter, the point was that he and she din't  have the same interests and it only began to come out on the honeymoon that they were so differenet and that Diana couldn't really share in her husband's mental life.
As for her other admirers she had a few bad apples but I tink that overall Khan was a decent man and they might have worked out, Oliver Hoare was perhaps too sophisticated for her, and she over played her hand with him, perhaps expecting him to give up his marriage and leave his kids.

royalanthropologist

There was one part of Earl Spencer's speech I totally agreed with.  Diana's married life was "bizarre" to say the least @amabel. Charles was aware of his wife's concerns. The honeymoon would have been a perfect time to try and allay those concerns. Apparently he was quite capable of putting on a "show" when he wanted. That is why we have William and Harry. Why could he not put on a show during the honeymoon? Diana was just going through a tough time, with "appalling dreams" about Camilla in the night and abandonment during the day. I don't know about you but books and honeymoons don't seem to go well together. It is two or three weeks when you really get to know each other, not read some boring books. Had Diana been assertive at that point, she might have told him to put the books away and perform his duties as a husband; but sadly she was still in her "eager to please" phase.

I wonder what you all think but I have an idea that if Diana had put her foot down very firmly from the word go, things might have changed. e.g. "It is me or Camilla; I am not prepared to be a third wheel in my marriage" or "I want a real marriage, not a business transaction. You have to be there for me in person and emotionally". At least them there would be some ground rules. What do you think? 
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Curryong

^ Diana worked through a lot of grief, anger and resentment to become quite assertive later on as we know, shouting and swearing at Charles in arguments, but at the beginning I don't think she was capable of it. She was as a bride tentative, eager to please, in awe of Charles, his position and his intellect, IMO. Apparently she did try and entice him away from van der Post once or twice but not successfully.

I don't think there are too many girls of just twenty in her position who would have turned into raging tigresses and start issuing demands. You're still pretty unworldly at that age and Diana had never had a career, never entered into negotiations over anything.

She was in love and perhaps didn't quite understand on the honeymoon just how deeply entrenched Camilla was in Charles's heart. He apparently kept reassuring her the 'friendship' with Camilla was all over. Perhaps Diana wanted desperately to believe it in a way a more worldly woman in her later twenties wouldn't have.

I've complained before in posts about the blind spots in Charles regarding others' sensitivities and feelings. He seems to have had been astonished that Diana was upset about the giving of the bracelet to Camilla and the his going to say goodbye to her personally. It was as if 'Well, I've assured her that all that is in the past. Why is she tearful about it?' And this was even before the honeymoon!

I've said before that most women wouldn't have put up with last farewells and gifts to 'special friends'. I certainly wouldn't have been so self-sacrificing but then, I've always been assertive.

So, I would say, rather than Diana having to fight for her man, why didn't this particular man show some sensitivity and some commonsense when dealing with the young girl who loved him? Forget about bracelets, just send a charming letter to your past mistress if you have to, and set yourself determinedly on a course in which there is no other woman in your heart or thoughts BEFORE you become engaged, if you have to marry someone you're not passionately in love with.

amabel

#23
Quote from: royalanthropologist on February 25, 2017, 09:36:53 AM
There was one part of Earl Spencer's speech I totally agreed with.  Diana's married life was "bizarre" to say the least @amabel. Charles was aware of his wife's concerns. The honeymoon would have been a perfect time to try and allay those concerns. Apparently he was quite capable of putting on a "show" when he wanted. That is why we have William and Harry. Why could he not put on a show during the honeymoon? Diana was just going through a tough time, with "appalling dreams" about Camilla in the night and abandonment during the day. I don't know about you but books and honeymoons don't seem to go well together. It is two or three weeks when you really get to know each other, not read some boring books. Had Diana been assertive at that point, she might have told him to put the books away and perform his duties as a husband; but sadly she was still in her "eager to please" phase.

I wonder
they had a LONG honeymoon, weeks on a yacht, and time in Balmoral afterwards.  They weren't going to be having sex ALL the time..and No I don't think ti would have made any difference. I think that Diana wasn't interested in Charles's books, she may have gone along with it for a bit, but she very soon (once they were at Balmoral_) started to show temper and show a lackc of interest in things lke shooting that she ahd seemed to enjoy with him before. 
I think that Charles did try to fit in with her, he took her on sunshiney holidays, he problaby cut back on the trying to get her to read his kind of stuff, and he stayed home with her and the kids.  But it didn't work.  She didn't like his preferred kind of life.. She began to "shout and scream" and he began no doubt ot think more and more about Camilla the more he realised that his wife was ill with the bulimia, that she was uninterested in his interests and was scared to an extent of her royal duties.

Double post auto-merged: February 25, 2017, 12:07:05 PM


Quote from: Curryong on February 25, 2017, 10:08:54 AM
^ Diana worked through a lot of grief, anger and resentment to become quite assertive later on as we know, shouting and swearing at Charles in arguments, but at the beginning I don't think she was capable of it. She was as a bride tentative, eager to please, in awe of Charles, his position and his intellect, IMO. Apparently she did try and entice him away from van der Post once or twice but not successfully.

I don't think there are too many girls of just twenty in her position who would have turned into raging tigresses and start issuing demands. You're still pretty unworldly at that age and Diana had never had a career, never entered into negotiations over anything.

She was in love and perhaps didn't quite understand on the honeymoon just how deeply entrenched Camilla was in Charles's heart. He apparently kept reassuring her the 'friendship' with Camilla was all over. Perhaps Diana wanted desperately to believe it in a way a more worldly woman in her later twenties wouldn't have.

I've complained before in posts about the blind spots in Charles regarding others' sensitivities and feelings. He seems to have had been astonished that Diana was upset about the giving of the bracelet to Camilla and the his going to say goodbye to her personally. It was as if 'Well, I've assured her that all that is in the past. Why is she tearful about it?' And this was even before the honeymoon!

I've said before that most women wouldn't have put up with last farewells and gifts to 'special friends'. I certainly wouldn't have been so self-sacrificing but then, I've always been assertive.

Sowho loved him? Forget about bracelets, just send a charming letter to your past mistress if you have to, and set yourself determinedly on a course in which there is no other woman in your heart or thoughts BEFORE you become engaged, if you have to marry someone you're not passionately in love with.
But how was he to do that?  he had been pushed by Philp and circumstances, into courting and proposing to Diana.  Who HAD, lets not forget, shown a fair amount of interest in his outdoors pursuits during the courtship.  So Charles no doubt felt that he would always love Cam best but that he was fond of Di, that she seemed to love him and tat they had a certain amount in common and that he cuodl expect that love would grow.
I don't really know why he gave Cam a good bye present, (though I believe he gave presents to other friends at that time, perhaps because eh was intending to spend less time with them and to be home with his wife more)...
but I think that at the time, he saw Cam as  a good Friend, he intended to  go on being friends iwht her and Andrew PB, they lived nearby for goodness sake.  If Diana really was bothered by the ongoing friendship and the past affair, why go out with Charles in the first place?  Why not say something earlier, such as "I know that you and Cam were more than friends a while ago, do we have to see her all the time?  is she still very close to you?£

royalanthropologist

Maybe it is just me but if I know that there is something that really bothers my spouse, particularly if she is a rather naive 20 year old; I would do everything I could to allay those fears. Yes Diana could have said no and called the whole thing off but I somehow think the resultant drama would have been intolerable. The whole thing was like a Greek tragedy with a life of its own. Once it took hold, nobody could stop it. Diana was just a naive girl walking through a dream with very little power to control it. I have been in those situations before: you know you are going to get ruined but somehow can't turn back.

I suspect that Diana was childish in the beginning but remember this is someone who is just out of their teens. They are entitled to be childish. The thing that disappointed was that Charles was not bothered to understand the situation and handle it better.

Although I defend Camilla on occasions here (to the fury of some of my fellow chat room members); I will never believe hers was a purely innocent relationship. Come on people? That crafty question about hunting gave it all away. The return cuff links were an outrageous provocation to the bride just like the cooing love letters.  Camilla was determined to be the principal lady in Charles life. Diana would be the fertile broodmare for official occasions while she was the real wife. As Diana faltered, Camilla got even more ambitious. You can't ask an interested party for marriage guidance. They will tell you to dump their rival and go for them...simples!!!! :hehe:
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace