The War of the Wales' discussion Part 3

Started by LouisFerdinand, October 06, 2017, 12:24:47 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

royalanthropologist

#25
Many people assumed that the queen was a reluctant convert to Camilla's cause. I have a very different view. The royal family always liked Camilla and her husband. They just kept her at arms-length for PR purposes. Once the coast was clear, they all just got along. She was after all a country woman and unlikely to challenge their system. Diana had become a thorn in their side which helped to improve their view of her rival. You just have realize the rate at which the queen keeps bestowing honors on Camilla to realize that the whole thing of "that woman does not cross the threshold" was just a PR exercise. I pity the servants that took up such a policy. They look a bit foolish now with "that woman" holding all the levers.

As for Parliamentary pressure, it would be very difficult to deny the POW his claim to the throne on account of adultery. They would look like a laughing stock given the history of the monarchy and some MPs. I know that some people would say that "they are supposed to be better" but the establishment did not like Diana or what she was doing. It was easier when she was out of the way. The opposition to Charles came primarily from female members of the public as well as opportunistic republicans who pretended to care about the long term future of the institution.

Plus like many detached parents, the queen over compensates through indulgence. I doubt she has ever had a single quarrel with Charles. She just lets him do as he pleases. Then some flunky puts it out that she has ordered him about when the reality is that she does no such thing. When Andrew wanted a role, she told him to ask Charles because she did not want to start a new war with Clarence house. I think people underestimate Charles' ability to throw a major tantrum when things do not go his way.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Curryong

#26
The recent fuss over the Queen's Secretary Sir Christopher leaving occurred when the Queen is in her 90s and didn't want rows. She's been no pushover for most of her life and for much of the last seven decades Charles was frightened of his parents' reactions to things he did.

Elizabeth has been firm with Charles on several occasions, and for years they were not exactly close. The end of his marriage distressed her. She is a very pragmatic woman, not given to a lot of reflection and from the bios I've read she has never understood her son's personality, causes etc. Their personalities are very different.

As for Camilla, although Elizabeth was quite fond of APB, I think you are ignoring the several times she was heard to murmur how she wished Camilla would leave Charles alone, or the deeply religious side of the Queen's nature. She certainly doesn't approve of adultery. Nor did the QM. I don't believe Elizabeth was or is a hypocrite and just blandly winked an eye at the Camilla situation after the divorce.

Certainly, if Elizabeth had been Queen Victoria, APB would have been posted abroad for years, told to take his wife with him,  and Charles would have been ordered to make the best of things with his spouse or else. There certainly wouldn't have been any divorce.

However, this Queen believes in her adult children and grandchildren being able to make decisions in life without her interference in most instances. You can argue that this policy has meant that three marriages out of four among her children have drifted into divorce unassisted by this policy, but this is the 21st century and no other way would really work.

sandy

Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 08, 2017, 08:23:56 AM
What could the queen do? By all accounts Charles could be quite stubborn and mistrusted both his parents and Diana as well. The only person he really listened to was his grandma and maybe Camilla. The queens response of "Charles is hopeless. I don't know what you can do". Just about sums it up. She wanted the problem to go away.

Diana used to lament that the first letter she wrote to her was to request a quick divorce from her son. How such a relationship could be used as marriage counselling service is beyond me. Camilla was telling Charles that Diana was mad and that he should get away from her. That was the quality of marital counselling he was getting.

Btw about Jessica Craig, I have never bought into the fantasy of perfect marriages. There are always issues but some people are better than others at dealing with them.

The Queen was warned about Charles' relationship with Camilla before he even dated DIana. She did nothing. But probably hoped the problem with Charles and the married woman would go away when he got married. Or was in denial.

No marriage is perfect. The success depends on how hard the couple works on the marriage.

Double post auto-merged: October 09, 2017, 12:26:47 AM


Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 08, 2017, 06:23:25 AM
I think William may yet surprise many people. No mistress??? hmmm....Let us wait and see.

I think the best thing is to hope he does not ever take on a mistress for his own sake and his wife's.  So a Windsor male of the next generation could hurt his spouse? I hope not.

TLLK

QuoteHowever, this Queen believes in her adult children and grandchildren being able to make decisions in life without her interference in most instances.

I agree @Curryong. I do believe that by the 1990's Elizabeth and Phillip did not want to involve themselves in the private business of other adults even if was going to cause some negative publicity.  By then when Charles, Anne and Andrew were ending their marriages,  QEII had seen the shift in society's view regarding divorce and had weathered the earlier divorces of Princess Margaret and their cousin the Earl of Harewood.

If she had not intervened in the failure of her sister and cousin's marriages, I don't see why she would have done so with the Wales, Phillips and Yorks.  :shrug:

royalanthropologist

QEII has done some hypocritical things in her life. Whereas Wallace had to be shown the door, Camilla is welcomed. Whereas, Edward lost his throne she will hear nothing of the sort for her son. This devout Christian had no problem in relocating to Scotland so that her daughter could have a Church wedding following her divorce. Like most people, it is all very well being strict with the rules until they apply to your own children. PM was denied her romance but anything goes when you are the queen's child.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Curryong

^ I don't know that Camilla was exactly welcomed by the Queen and QM during those years following Charles and Camilla's divorces. In fact, although you won't accept this, Royal, the Queen would not receive her. There was even talk for a short time of a constitutional crisis and Charles being considered unfit to head the Church of England.

In the end the Queen, a pragmatic woman, bowed to the inevitable. Charles wasn't going to give Camilla up, much though she, Elizabeth, may have wanted him to. I certainly don't feel that the Queen was happy with Charles's decisions and actions during and after the breakup of his first marriage, nor with the low point at which it all left the BRF.

Unfortunately, (from my POV)  times have changed since 1936. Society's attitudes towards divorce have changed. The Queen certainly wasn't responsible for Wallis leaving the scene, and if society, the government, the realms and everyone had been for Charles to abdicate from the succession in 1997 then the Queen would have been very sad about it but I have no doubt she would have done her duty as sovereign and bowed to the wishes of the govt etc.

As for Anne marrying in Scotland it just so happens that Presbyterianism has had a different attitude to marriage in church for divorcees to the C of E.  The Queen didn't facilitate this. It's been in place for a long time.

royalanthropologist

It is possible to pretend not to like someone for "PR" purposes, particularly if you are a head of state who wants to keep up appearances. I rather suspect the queen gets on far better with Camilla than she ever did with Diana. Consider: we are now in the 12th year of the C&C marriage. What was the queen's attitude and behavior to Diana in the 12th year of her marriage? How many personal honors (nothing to do with government) has the queen bestowed on Camilla during that time? How long did she take to get them? What did the queen say at the wedding of C&C when she was away from the hostile media and the Diana fans?

It was politically correct to pretend to dislike Camilla but the truth is that she is far better treated and liked in that family than Diana was (setting aside the obvious exception of Diana's own children). Why? Because she is shrewd and knows how to play the game. No trouble and you are looked after. If you bring trouble and try to change things, you are out.

They did not dislike Diana as a person but what she represented and from their point of view the unhappiness she brought in Charles' life. That family closes ranks whenever they see an enemy. Diana became the enemy and they ostracized her as a consequence. Camilla is for them a return to the safe waters of the shires and discretion. Someone commented that with the C&C, the monarchy retreated back to the countryside away from the London media glitz. Diana has no fans in that palace save for her children and maybe Princess Michael.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

LouisFerdinand

Queen Elizabeth II could have said to The Prince of Wales: "Charles, everything you do is noted. Pay attention to Diana! She is your wife. We have an image to uphold!"


TLLK

^^^We don't know all of what was said to Charles and/or Diana during those years and I do believe that the Wales were mindful of the image that they needed to portray, but in the end it was just too difficult to keep up the pretense.  Yes she could have said something very similar to your statement but remember her son and daughter-in-law were both adults, not children. Most adults stay out of other adults' relationships. QEII did listen and advise them when requested and ultimately intervened when it was obvious that a separation was not going to be the long term solution.

Duch_Luver_4ever

I dont have a dog in this fight which is an offshoot of the original thread, so as kind of an outsider, im seeing a subtext to the whole thing which has less to do with the individuals involved, but rather the nature of the "arrangements" between all parties, and does all parties involved understand the game. Once you look at it in that view, the individual parties actions make a lot more sense.

FWIW it seems like all parties, except Diana, knew and understood the game going in. We can argue if that would be right for us, or if we think its "right" or "wrong" but if it works for the involved parties, who are we to judge? (cool the jets, im not referring to Diana, dont jump on me about how it didnt work for  Diana, we all know).

APB seems either OK or resigned to his fate, he slept around, so when Camilla did, it wasnt a big issue for him. Also he likes being around the mystique of royalty, either by his upbringing or by his experience with them, things that you or I might balk at, hes ok with.

The biggest "hiccup" was the outing of himself on TV, but with having children with camilla and his lifelong association with the royals, hes not going to throw it away. The divorce was what he "needed" to do to save face, and now that its done, they seem to have things much like they were before.

Im not saying what they do is the "best" "right" or "moral" thing to do, but it works for that set, we tend to forget for middle and ever lower upper class ppl, they NEED their marriage to stay together to survive financially, and they dont have the domestic help to do the chores either a husband or wife would do, that the upper class has, so marriage has a different importance for them (well most of them).

Do I think its great what Charles did, no, I dont, but aside from Diana, most of the others involved didnt object, now it could be they felt they had no choice, that would be great to find out more on, but I think the undercurrent of this debate is what he did to Diana, in that she wasnt old,educated, or experienced enough to know what was being played, and to either freely consent or refuse before it was too late, and that there was no love "payoff" in terms of either getting it from her husband or being in a position to have a stable substitute.

"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

SophieChloe

#35
[gmod]To prevent any further threads being hijacked , this thread is for those who wish to discuss what happened, Why and Who was / not to blame.[/gmod]
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

TLLK

Thank you for starting this thread @SophieChloe. I hope that posters will choose to make use of it. :)

Curryong

Well, as the old Order changes and we're in Transition time now, it seems the verdict of the British people has been clear in polling for years now, and it isn't in Charles's favour. It will be interesting to see if and when approval ratings change in the new reign, as at the moment Charles's figures for a hard working Heir consistently hover way under his mother, daughter in law and sons. About half his mother and sons, in fact.

Some of the disapproval harnesses other factors, (perceived eccentrities, interfering in the political process), but a large dollop consists of the C and D marriage, how it ended and the influence of Camilla, whose approval figures hover between 'disastrous' and 'abysmal' in spite of attempts at rehabilitation and whitewash. Good luck on changing those views in the future  on a couple in their seventies with no aces to play.

Duch_Luver_4ever

I just wish the new thread had been kept on the Diana board, though :flower:
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

TLLK

I respectfully disagree @Duch_Luver_4ever and IMHO a neutral forum like this one is the best place to discuss the marital issues of the couple. I know I'm being overly optimistic but I believe this will keep their respective forums a place to post about each without the WWW (World War Wales) coming up in nearly every thread.

Curryong

#40
I also like this format better, as often on the Diana board a thread would start off with something innocuous like 'Diana's education' and end up being a bash-fest about her supposed lack of brain power, application, shortcomings etc. Plus, if the thread was headed by 'Diana did this, that and the other', attempts to draw attention to any culpability by Camilla or Charles would be headed off by 'We're discussing Diana, not Charles!'

TLLK

^^^And likewise I've seen threads regarding Charles and Camilla's engagements or even the future incoming USA State Visit turn into a similar "bash fest" (Great description @Curryong!) with the War of The Wales being dragged in for no apparent reason.

All in all I believe that this is the best thread to discuss the issues surrounding  the Wales' marriage.

royalanthropologist

Great idea to open the thread :goodpost:. Lol. Maybe I should bookmark :hehe: I am waiting for my partner in crime but nowhere to be seen. My claws are sharpened after a week's absence :teehee: :nod:
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Trudie

 :orchid: That should get this thread locked real fast



royalanthropologist

LOL :hehe: I really am harmless unless provoked...honest
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Duch_Luver_4ever

Given the date from the last post, it does seem to me that moving the C/C/D discussion here has snuffed it out. Just my 2 cents. Im the first to say theres times its been frustrating in the past, but it was a big draw to bring people to the forum. :flower:
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

royalanthropologist

"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

TLLK

I think that now that the anniversary of her death has passed along with the engagement, a new Cambridge baby, and a wedding will be dominating the British forums' discussion topics for the next 6 months so the Diana forum might quiet down for a bit.

Duch_Luver_4ever

I hear what you guys are saying, and that would account for some of it, but it got moved before the announcement for H&M, I just miss the activity it used to have.
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

TLLK

Well I'll help to find Diana related items when I can @Duch_Luver_4ever  :xmas4: :xmas17: