Charles and Diana who cheat first.

Started by Queen Camilla, January 29, 2014, 05:47:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

amabel

I don't think she was all that close with Andrew, they were the same age and she was socialising with the RF, to an extent, but all the same I think she wasn't as a teenager, all that close.  Andrew was not her type though she did joke about marrying him.  and she wasn't his type. As for Sarah she wasn't "dumped" by Charles.  She spoke stupidly about him and that engineered the end of her relationship with him. But according ot herself she wasn't in love with hm, so that's hardly  a tragedy.
As for Diana, yes people did know of her faults and I think that by the end of her life, people while still fond of her, were getting ab it impatient with the whole drama of the marriage and were beginning to be less sympathetic than they had been. But she was still a lovable person and would I think have remained popular, if she had pulled herself together, gto on with her charity wrok and dated a few nice men.
I agree that she didn't meet Charles and the RF half way, but I think she did her best to work hard at the charity and public side of her role and she did enjoy it.  But in the private social life of the RF, she wanted to be with C all the time, but did not relaly like the hearty country lifestyle that he and the res of the RF liked.  I think that she was not able to adjust ot all that, that she'd underestimated how much time she'd have to spend "country living" and she grew to hate it...

Eri

^ I think with time Di would be nothing more , nothing less than what Sarah is now (someone Phil would refuse to be in the same Estate with) ... Di was a mess so no way she would have generated good press for herself (look at what she was up to before dying) let's face it ... her death has a lot to do with how she is looked but had she lived she would have been just another person for Liz to be embarrassed about ...

amabel

And what was she "up to before dying"?  She was dating a  rather foolish light weight  man yes, but it was probably going to be a short lived affair as there aere signs that she was getting fed up wit Dodi...
She was also doing a lto of good with her landmines work.  We don't know what way she would have goene had she not died when she did, but the RF would never have refused to be with her, sicne like it or not she was the mother of the heir to the throne.

Eri

Given that Di had done worse than Sarah it would have been terrible if Di was treated better because she was Will's mother ...

Mike

Quote from: Eri on April 13, 2014, 12:16:19 PMI think with time Di would be nothing more , nothing less than what Sarah is now . . .
It would all depend on how she lived and with whom.  We can speculate on that forever.
Mark Twain:
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."
and
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."

amabel

Quote from: Eri on April 13, 2014, 12:55:06 PM
Given that Di had done worse than Sarah it would have been terrible if Di was treated better because she was Will's mother ...
She would be treated better because of her status as the future Kings mother, because that's how it works.  anyway but I can't see what she did that was "worse than Sarah".  Sarah was lazy, she had very public affairs where she was caught with other men..  Diana usually conducted her relationships with "deniability".  Di was popular with the press and public, Sarah was not. sarah was seen as unreliable, indiscreet, in a way that Di was not.

Queen Camilla

Sarah was not lazy.
While a member of the royal family she performed more royal duties than Diana, especially when you compare her rank to Diana's.

In 1989 Diana did 300; Sarah did 327   

In 1989 Sarah was also pregnant. If you look at Diana's pregnant years she only did 60-70.  In 1983 when she wasn't pregnant she only had 110 engagement.  Sarah 1988: 153; 1990:  108.
Diana 1982: 66; Diana 1984: 77.

Diana was on the way out.  If she lived, the RF would have had nothing to do with her.  William & Harry were already spending most of their time in school.  Then when on holiday, they didn't stay at KP.

IMO, by the time William turned 18 or even before, Diana would have been told to vacate Apts 8 & 9.  These units were only being used by Diana from the time Harry had been sent to boarding school.  In 1992 Harry & William were in boarding school and Charles & Diana were separated with Charles having moved to St. James' Palace.

C&D divorced in 1996 and Diana died in 1997.  IMO, the only reason Diana hadn't been told to vacate was because it had only been a year since the divorce.  If she had lived, even if she remained unmarried, the public would not have tolerated 60* rooms for one person.  They went after the Michaels and there is no reason to think they would not have gone after Diana. 

*Approximate based on 30 rooms per apartment plus the 2 bed apartment she used as office space. 

I think they would have allowed her to stay in KP & probably allowed her to keep the 2 bed apt as her living space.

Actually Diana was caught in 1987 & 1995 and received negative press.

Eri


amabel

Quote from: Queen Camilla on April 14, 2014, 03:55:11 AM
Sarah was not lazy.
While a member of the royal family she performed more royal duties than Diana, especially when you compare her rank to Diana's.

In 1989 Diana did 300; Sarah did 327   

In 1989 Sarah was also pregnant. If you look at Diana's pregnant years she only did 60-70.  In 1983 when she wasn't pregnant she only had 110 engagement.  Sarah 1988: 153; 1990:  108.
Diana 1982: 66; Diana 1984: 77.

Diana was on the way out.  If she lived, the RF would have had nothing to do with her.  William & Harry were already spending most of their time in school.  Then when on holiday, they didn't stay at KP.

IMO, by the time William turned 18 or even before, Diana would have been told to vacate Apts 8 & 9.  *Approximate based on 30 rooms per apartment plus the 2 bed apartment she used as office space. 
I don't believe this at all. Di's living arrangemetns were part of her divorce settlement and as she wouid need protetctoin and a secure base, it was considered easier to let her stay in KP rather than provide funds or protection for her elsewhere. She was still very popular, I don't know HOW you can compare her to Princess Michael who was deeply disliked. As for Sarah she did start off with a lot of engagemetns and had enthusiasm for her role but within a few years, she went downhill and was seen as lazy, freeloading and careless and vulgar.  It was easy for the RF to drop her and to give her a cheap divorce settlement because the public disliked her.

TLLK

Quote from: Queen Camilla on April 14, 2014, 03:55:11 AM
Sarah was not lazy.
While a member of the royal family she performed more royal duties than Diana, especially when you compare her rank to Diana's.

In 1989 Diana did 300; Sarah did 327   

In 1989 Sarah was also pregnant. If you look at Diana's pregnant years she only did 60-70.  In 1983 when she wasn't pregnant she only had 110 engagement.  Sarah 1988: 153; 1990:  108.
Diana 1982: 66; Diana 1984: 77.

Diana was on the way out.  If she lived, the RF would have had nothing to do with her.  William & Harry were already spending most of their time in school.  Then when on holiday, they didn't stay at KP.

IMO, by the time William turned 18 or even before, Diana would have been told to vacate Apts 8 & 9.  These units were only being used by Diana from the time Harry had been sent to boarding school.  In 1992 Harry & William were in boarding school and Charles & Diana were separated with Charles having moved to St. James' Palace.

C&D divorced in 1996 and Diana died in 1997.  IMO, the only reason Diana hadn't been told to vacate was because it had only been a year since the divorce.  If she had lived, even if she remained unmarried, the public would not have tolerated 60* rooms for one person.  They went after the Michaels and there is no reason to think they would not have gone after Diana. 

*Approximate based on 30 rooms per apartment plus the 2 bed apartment she used as office space. 

I think they would have allowed her to stay in KP & probably allowed her to keep the 2 bed apt as her living space.

Actually Diana was caught in 1987 & 1995 and received negative press.
Thank you for supplying us with the number of engagements from the early eighties. By chance do you have access to the list of engagements for all the BRF members going back into that decade?

Eri

It's a myth Sarah was lazy ... anyways the way Di died shows her security wasn't on top of Liz's agenda as time went by the perks would have been totally taken away form her just like her Title ...

cinrit

Diana was offered security by the Royals.  She chose to decline the offer.  The security with her on that fatal car ride was Al-Fayad's security.

Cindy
Always be yourself.  Unless you can be a unicorn.  Then always be a unicorn.

amabel

Quote from: Eri on April 14, 2014, 03:11:09 PM
It's a myth Sarah was lazy ... anyways the way Di died shows her security wasn't on top of Liz's agenda as time went by the perks would have been totally taken away form her just like her Title ...
No its not a myth.  Sarah spent a lot of her time by about 1990 freeloading and that turned the public against her, and she wanted out of the RF because she was getting so much criticism.
As for Diana no her "Perks" would not have been taken away from her.  She lost her HRH because of her divorce but her settlement was a very good one, she got about £17M and the right ot live in KP.  She also had an office paid for by the RF and as Cindy's said, she was allowed and indeed encouraged to have royal security and She HAD to have Royal POs with her when she had the boys with her.  SHE was the one who wanted to dispense with her security.

sandy

#63
Quote from: Eri on April 13, 2014, 12:16:19 PM
^ I think with time Di would be nothing more , nothing less than what Sarah is now (someone Phil would refuse to be in the same Estate with) ... Di was a mess so no way she would have generated good press for herself (look at what she was up to before dying) let's face it ... her death has a lot to do with how she is looked but had she lived she would have been just another person for Liz to be embarrassed about ...

Diana worked hard for the Firm and had two exceptional sons before Charles dumped her for his mistress.

She was not a "mess."

I think Charles  caused his mother much embarrassment and I don't think she's exactly thrilled with Camilla. Charles had that woe is me embarrassing authorized biography.

What was she "up to?" She was divorced and dating somebody. She got in a tragic accident and is dead and buried at Althorp. If Charles could embarrass his family carrying on with Camilla what was wrong with Diana dating somebody?  Why trash a dead woman?

As I recall people liked Diana at the time she died and were hoping she'd have a happy second marriage. She certainly got a lemon with Charles.

Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2014, 11:57:00 PM


Quote from: Eri on April 14, 2014, 03:11:09 PM
It's a myth Sarah was lazy ... anyways the way Di died shows her security wasn't on top of Liz's agenda as time went by the perks would have been totally taken away form her just like her Title ...

Diana's title was not taken away. She lost the HRh but was known as Diana, Princess of Wales. So you are wrong that her title was "taken away." It was not.


Double post auto-merged: April 16, 2014, 12:01:52 AM


Quote from: Queen Camilla on April 14, 2014, 03:55:11 AM
Sarah was not lazy.
While a member of the royal family she performed more royal duties than Diana, especially when you compare her rank to Diana's.

In 1989 Diana did 300; Sarah did 327   

In 1989 Sarah was also pregnant. If you look at Diana's pregnant years she only did 60-70.  In 1983 when she wasn't pregnant she only had 110 engagement.  Sarah 1988: 153; 1990:  108.
Diana 1982: 66; Diana 1984: 77.

Diana was on the way out.  If she lived, the RF would have had nothing to do with her.  William & Harry were already spending most of their time in school.  Then when on holiday, they didn't stay at KP.

IMO, by the time William turned 18 or even before, Diana would have been told to vacate Apts 8 & 9.  These units were only being used by Diana from the time Harry had been sent to boarding school.  In 1992 Harry & William were in boarding school and Charles & Diana were separated with Charles having moved to St. James' Palace.

C&D divorced in 1996 and Diana died in 1997.  IMO, the only reason Diana hadn't been told to vacate was because it had only been a year since the divorce.  If she had lived, even if she remained unmarried, the public would not have tolerated 60* rooms for one person.  They went after the Michaels and there is no reason to think they would not have gone after Diana. 

*Approximate based on 30 rooms per apartment plus the 2 bed apartment she used as office space. 

I think they would have allowed her to stay in KP & probably allowed her to keep the 2 bed apt as her living space.

Actually Diana was caught in 1987 & 1995 and received negative press.

WIlliam and Harry are royals. For crying out loud they would not say they'd have nothing to do with their own mother. Charles was seen with her during events involving their sons.  THere are photos of Diana and Charles together with the boys during Diana's last years.

The mother of a future King would not be on the way out. No way.

Sarah did not have the issues with pregnancy Diana had. She did not have bulimia nor bad morning sickness.

Sarah was not popular because of her extravagant spending.

Double post auto-merged: April 16, 2014, 12:04:31 AM


Quote from: Eri on April 13, 2014, 12:55:06 PM
Given that Di had done worse than Sarah it would have been terrible if Di was treated better because she was Will's mother ...

Worse than Fergie? I suppose you think Diana should have been pilloried--you don't like her very much.

Sarah could not control herself and got caught topless with her lover and embarrassed the Queen who read her the riot act at Balmoral. She had a husband who certainly treated her better than Charles treated Diana, but she treated Andrew like dirt. She spent much money.

Double post auto-merged: April 16, 2014, 12:06:58 AM


Quote from: PaulaB on April 13, 2014, 10:21:18 AM
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on March 13, 2014, 10:45:23 PM
No Mar, I  do not think there will be  some surge of Diana fans going after  PrincessIW  or Eri or  poster QC either.
It  is all like beating a dead horse really.
Nothing new to add to the story.Everything is really hindsight. PD  is dead.  Camilla  won it  all and even be  default.  What  a lucky, big break it  was for  PC and C  that PD got  ,sort of killed herself.

Mike said what I basically said only he said  it shorter, LOL!!

The facts are the facts.  PC  NEVER  gave  the marriage a chance and CAMILL made sure , saw to  it  the she nor she never gave the marriage a chance.
Fred and Galdys went on a honeymoon and PD tagged along.

Like I said, this is really  beating a dead horse.

The whole story  was  really sad.
Diana was not the innocent that she claimed, she grew up being friends with Andrew she saw what happened when her sister was dumped but she wanted to be Princess of Wales.  Prince Charles was wrong in marrying her  but she also had faults.  One being  that she expected others to make her happy and only you can make you happy.  She was offered help to settle to her  role but called that boring.  She made it clear that  she hated Balmoral for example.  she didn't   want to meet her husband half way  a fault with both.  It was doomed because he loved another and she was too childish.  Her death was more damaging than her life,  there is no  way the royal family wanted it.  With life her faults would have become known and the  saint di  rubbish would not have happened.

Diana enjoyed her work and didn't think it "boring." How come Charles expected others to make him happy--Making Charles happy seems to be the be all and end all for some.   So Charlie boy could not give up the mistress and Diana had to meet him "half way". So why is Charles exonerated for marrying Diana knowing he preferred somebody else? Charles was too childish he needed his nanny/mistress which he found in Camilla.

Limabeany

 :goodpost:
Open season on the dead...  :orchid:
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

pagtwashin

Quote from: Eri on March 13, 2014, 04:22:58 PM
Apart from the fact she married when she was 20 if she was old enough to marry him she was old enough to handle him ... her greedy family didn't think she was too young when they threw her at him ...
That's absolutely correct !

Trudie

These arguments by those who love to trash a dead women are the lamest I have ever heard. To compare Diana and Sarah well I think some need to go back to news archives that showed Sarah spent more time on skiing holidays then she did doing her duty to the family she married into. Sarah was always freebie or freeloading Fergie. If Diana and there is no proof she had the affairs some say she had Hewitt is the only known one Diana never embarrassed the Queen unlike Sarah who was flaunting Steve Wyatt and John Byran. It was Sarah who photos showed half naked with her boyfriend and a naked Beatrice in photos and lets not forget the famous having her toes sucked by her lover. Andrew to this day is Sarah's biggest supporter he has more class then Charles as he won't allow anyone to trash Sarah unlike Charles who allows anyone who wants to trash Diana dead or even while she was alive as Nicholas Soames did and recently his cousin the Mountbatten witch.



sandy

Quote from: pagtwashin on April 16, 2014, 07:13:23 AM
Quote from: Eri on March 13, 2014, 04:22:58 PM
Apart from the fact she married when she was 20 if she was old enough to marry him she was old enough to handle him ... her greedy family didn't think she was too young when they threw her at him ...
That's absolutely correct !

Disagree. Nobody "threw" Diana at Charles. Charles of his own will and volition asked Diana out on dates--the first to a concert and he invited her to Balmoral. What was Diana a baseball?!

Charles courted, proposed to, and married Diana. How would Diana have "handled him" if he had a greedy mistress lurking about who was not about to give him up. He had no spine IMO and was in the thrall of Camilla who IMO wanted the perks and privileges that Diana had.

Queen Camilla

#68
Diana cheated 1st.

Charles was lent Broadlands by Mountbatten for trysts with Diana.

Here's article from 1988.
Divorcing Di? How Prince Charles and Princess Diana?s Fairytale Romance Soured | Vanity Fair

A different one also from early 1988, both portray Diana as seeing other men. 

http://www.princess-diana-remembered.com/uploads/5/3/3/5/5335384/mystery_man.jpg
In 1987, she didn't spend the entire summer with her 2 year old & 5 year old son. 

One of the reasons Nicholas Soames ddn't like Diana is because in
1988, while with skiing in Klosters Diana sided with Catherine Soame, the wife of Nicholas.
She left her husband & 3 year old son for a married man staying nearby.
(From the Vanity Fair article.)

The Vanity Fair article also discussed why the media went after Sarah. (Note this was in 1988.)

Double post auto-merged: April 25, 2014, 03:26:48 AM


Quote from: TLLK on April 14, 2014, 02:50:19 PM
Thank you for supplying us with the number of engagements from the early eighties. By chance do you have access to the list of engagements for all the BRF members going back into that decade?

I have copies of O'Donovan's articles from 1981 to 1996, except for 1985 & 1986.

Limabeany

 :hmm: Pope Francis will anoint Saint Charles and Saint Camilla any minute now...  :sign8:
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Trudie

Limabeany you are too funny :haha: :haha: :haha:



cinrit

Can't be sainted while they're still alive. :D

Cindy
Always be yourself.  Unless you can be a unicorn.  Then always be a unicorn.

Limabeany

Oh, Cindy!  :happycry: You bubble-burster you!  :happycry: :happycry: Hearts will be broken, Cindy, hearts will be broken...  :happy15:
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

cinrit

Always be yourself.  Unless you can be a unicorn.  Then always be a unicorn.

sandy

#74
Quote from: Queen Camilla on April 25, 2014, 03:08:11 AM
Diana cheated 1st.

Charles was lent Broadlands by Mountbatten for trysts with Diana.

Here's article from 1988.
Divorcing Di? How Prince Charles and Princess Diana?s Fairytale Romance Soured | Vanity Fair

A different one also from early 1988, both portray Diana as seeing other men. 

http://www.princess-diana-remembered.com/uploads/5/3/3/5/5335384/mystery_man.jpg
In 1987, she didn't spend the entire summer with her 2 year old & 5 year old son. 

One of the reasons Nicholas Soames ddn't like Diana is because in
1988, while with skiing in Klosters Diana sided with Catherine Soame, the wife of Nicholas.
She left her husband & 3 year old son for a married man staying nearby.
(From the Vanity Fair article.)

The Vanity Fair article also discussed why the media went after Sarah. (Note this was in 1988.)

Double post auto-merged: April 25, 2014, 03:26:48 AM


Quote from: TLLK on April 14, 2014, 02:50:19 PM
Thank you for supplying us with the number of engagements from the early eighties. By chance do you have access to the list of engagements for all the BRF members going back into that decade?

I have copies of O'Donovan's articles from 1981 to 1996, except for 1985 & 1986.

Really? And you know this how?

Mountbatten died in 1979 when Diana had just turned 18. She was underage when generous Uncle Mountbatten (she was about 11-12 years old ca 1972) lent Charles Broadlands for trysts with Camilla.  So do you think Charles went after pre teens and had trysts with them?  Mountbatten wanted Charles to marry his granddaughter Amanda not Diana and he put Charles and Amanda together-(but he wanted them to wait until the wedding night).

Nicholas Soames is a total Charles sycophant and he'd say Diana was with Elvis to help Charles. Nicholas Soames liked Diana until Charles was not satisfied with her anymore. He wants to be in good with Charles. And he's such a great authority he said Charles and Camilla did not have an affair and they were "just friends and Charles himself later belied what Nicky said--that he did cheat on his wife and his courtier confirmed the woman in question was Camilla and yes there was that tape where Charles and Camilla giggled about his being her personal hygiene product.

Regardless of how you try to change history, Charles himself admitted to his biographer he slept with a married woman (Camilla) and Kanga Tryon went public and said that she was also a married mistress.So Charles cheated first and he married Diana preferring another woman. I call that cheating too.