How The Duchess of Cornwall Won Our Hearts

Started by cinrit, July 02, 2014, 10:41:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cinrit

Quote from: sandy on September 15, 2014, 11:42:19 PM
So how come some keep saying the marriage would have broken up without Camilla around and keep talking about the two not having the same interests. Camilla is absolved. Penny Junor even preached in her Harry book that Camilla had nothing to do with the breakup. She does not want to see the elephant inthe room either.

What people have said is that the marriage would have failed; not that the Waleses would have divorced.  They may have continued to live together unhappily, or maybe separated.  They simply didn't see eye-to-eye on enough things.  That doesn't make either one of them a "bad" person, though they both did things that were "bad".

Quote from: sandyThe marriage was pretty far gone when Charles told his biographer he felt "pressured" to marry Diana.  Diana wanted to give her side of the story. What Charles said to his biographer was a slap in the face to Diana.  Charles went on international television too saying he cheated on his wife. And the next day his secretary said he cheated with Camilla. 

The marriage was pretty much gone when Charles felt pressured to marry Diana, period. 

Quote from: sandyI disagee that the Panorama interview alone caused the divorce. There was Charles blabbing to his biographer and forced the divorce of the PBs. Once Camilla was divorced Charles became pretty much obligated. I don't get why Charles Dimbleby book and interview are just glossed over. Charles did much damage with that interview. 

I didn't say that the Panorama interview alone caused the divorce.  I said it was the straw that broke the camel's back, meaning there were too many problems mounting up, and the Panorama interview was the final insult to the marriage.  The difference between the Dimbleby interview and the Panorama interview is that Diana questioned Charles' ability to do the job he is destined to do.  Charles did nothing similar to Diana.  For the Queen, that was "the final straw".

Quote from: sandy on September 16, 2014, 12:28:05 AM
I read the Dimbleby book (re read it) and yes, I found it shocking. It was full of self pity and he had nothing good to say about his own parents and Diana.

Diana also didn't have many good things to say about her parents.

Cindy

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

sandy

If Charles felt "pressured" he should not have married her. I think he wanted the marriage so he'd get heirs and once again, blames other people for his decision to marry Diana.

Diana did not say Charles was incapable of being King. She said the "top job" would "put limits on him." Some journalists actually agree with her since Charles would not be able (or is not supposed to) speak out on issues when he gets to be King. These would be the "limits" on him.

Charles did something similar to Diana via his authorized biography and he still has people like Junor and his cousin Pamela Hicks who trash Diana. He has no intention of making his late ex non-negotiable.  Charles had no kinds words for Diana via his authorized biography nor said anything like he had even been fond of her which certainly would be humiliating to her.

TLLK

Quote from: sandy on September 16, 2014, 12:31:27 AM
I think the "sad existence " is very much exaggerated.

Charles had his friends leak stories about Diana hence Diana striking back with the Morton book. Then Charles had the DImbleby book.

We'll have to disagree on this one. The books that I've read and the videos show a woman living a very sad existence IMO.

cinrit

Quote from: sandy on September 16, 2014, 02:22:30 AM
Diana did not say Charles was incapable of being King. She said the "top job" would "put limits on him." Some journalists actually agree with her since Charles would not be able (or is not supposed to) speak out on issues when he gets to be King. These would be the "limits" on him.

I didn't say that Diana claimed Charles was incapable of being King.  I said that she questioned his ability to do the job.   [/quote]

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

sandy

She actually did not. Feeling "limited" by the role did not necessarily reflect on his  ability to do the job.

Double post auto-merged: September 16, 2014, 05:24:48 PM


Quote from: TLLK on September 16, 2014, 05:04:39 AM
Quote from: sandy on September 16, 2014, 12:31:27 AM
I think the "sad existence " is very much exaggerated.

Charles had his friends leak stories about Diana hence Diana striking back with the Morton book. Then Charles had the DImbleby book.

We'll have to disagree on this one. The books that I've read and the videos show a woman living a very sad existence IMO.

I've read books and seen videos. She did have happy times in her life. She was not in misery for her whole life. It is a sign of being healthy that she was moving on.

amabel

Quote from: TLLK on September 16, 2014, 05:04:39 AM
Quote from: sandy on September 16, 2014, 12:31:27 AM
I think the "sad existence " is very much exaggerated.

Charles had his friends leak stories about Diana hence Diana striking back with the Morton book. Then Charles had the DImbleby book.

We'll have to disagree on this one. The books that I've read and the videos show a woman living a very sad existence IMO.
Quote from: cinrit on September 16, 2014, 11:05:59 AM
Quote from: sandy on September 16, 2014, 02:22:30 AM
Diana did not say Charles was incapable of being King. She said the "top job" would "put limits on him." Some journalists actually agree with her since Charles would not be able (or is not supposed to) speak out on issues when he gets to be King. These would be the "limits" on him.

I didn't say that Diana claimed Charles was incapable of being King.  I said that she questioned his ability to do the job.   

Cindy
[/quote]
they wouldn't have divorced if Di hadn't done the Morton book, wouldn't even have separated.  They would have just gone on living separated lives with other lover's.  The queen was extremely reluctant to allow a divorce and only went for it when it was obvious that both parties were sniping at each other and Diana was going for the kill, with her Panroma interview

cinrit

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

TLLK


sandy

Quote from: amabel on September 16, 2014, 05:42:25 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 16, 2014, 05:04:39 AM
Quote from: sandy on September 16, 2014, 12:31:27 AM
I think the "sad existence " is very much exaggerated.

Charles had his friends leak stories about Diana hence Diana striking back with the Morton book. Then Charles had the DImbleby book.

We'll have to disagree on this one. The books that I've read and the videos show a woman living a very sad existence IMO.
Quote from: cinrit on September 16, 2014, 11:05:59 AM
Quote from: sandy on September 16, 2014, 02:22:30 AM
Diana did not say Charles was incapable of being King. She said the "top job" would "put limits on him." Some journalists actually agree with her since Charles would not be able (or is not supposed to) speak out on issues when he gets to be King. These would be the "limits" on him.

I didn't say that Diana claimed Charles was incapable of being King.  I said that she questioned his ability to do the job.   

Cindy
they wouldn't have divorced if Di hadn't done the Morton book, wouldn't even have separated.  They would have just gone on living separated lives with other lover's.  The queen was extremely reluctant to allow a divorce and only went for it when it was obvious that both parties were sniping at each other and Diana was going for the kill, with her Panroma interview
[/quote]

I disagree. Charles' pals were leaking nasty stories about Diana to the press. There was damage before the Morton book came out.

I don't think they could have led separate lives. Diana IMO wanted a real marriage not a sham one.

Camilla was already playing hostess for Charles and if Diana met someone she wanted to marry it would have made things worse for her to be locked in a sham marriage.

Before the Morton book came out Charles was putting down Diana in public.  It would be difficult to put up with this sort of situation indefinitely. Diana as still young and having years of this would have probably been impossible.

In All I Do

Quote from: sandy on September 16, 2014, 05:24:04 PM
She actually did not. Feeling "limited" by the role did not necessarily reflect on his  ability to do the job.

Double post auto-merged: September 16, 2014, 05:24:48 PM




If you only quote 5 words out of 33 in the sentence, then you're right, it looks like she only said that it would limit him. If you look at the whole quote, she quite explicitly questioned his ability to perform the role of King:

QuoteAnd because I know the character I would think that the top job, as I call it, would bring enormous limitations to him, and I don't know whether he could adapt to that.

Source, BBC transript: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/panorama.html

TLLK

 :thanks:I appreciate you sharing the link to the entire transcript of the interview. It's been a long time since it first aired and often times it is easy to forget what was actually said.

cate1949

again I think there is a bit of amnesia going on here - the Panorama interview - impact was so great - it almost resulted in the head of the BBC being forced to resign.  Here is a quote describing the impact of Diana's interview

It was one of the most extraordinary moments in television history - a programme which split the higher echelons of the BBC and threatened to severely damage the monarchy

There was no such shocking reaction to Charles interview - although at the time the interview did gain him sympathy and his perilously low popularity polling improved.  Fact.

So Di's interview was considerably more damaging - no one claims that the Charles interview almost toppled the monarchy yet that claim is routinely made for the Di Panorama interview.  The interview was so momentous that ten years later BBC did a special program on it how it happened etc.

So let's not pretend here.  The weight of evidence is that Diana interview with Bashir was devastating to Charles and to the monarchy.   No such claim has ever been made about the Dimbley interview nor has it ever been claimed that Charles interview did equal damage to Di's rep.

Diana was advised by all her friends not to do the Morton book - she did it anyway and then regretted it.  Despite this she then did the Panorama interview.  She later regretted having done that.  She then went on to make secret tapes with a BBC cameraman she hired because she felt that Bashir had tricked her and the interview did not represent her real feelings.  She is first obsessed with Camilla then leaves messages to be read after her death that Camilla is a smokescreen and that Charles really wants to marry Tiggy.  On the so called secret tapes she dismisses Camilla and Tiggy and talks about Charles and the unhealthy influence Fawcett has on him.   Up down up down constantly buffeted by her obsessive thoughts and impulses.

Diana's close friends universally admit she lied - routinely.  Dr Michael Adler head of the national aids trust who spent many hours working with her said "she was an ill person" who had "no real center".  Clive James who wrote that magnificent obituary for her and admitted he was hopelessly in love with her also said she was at best unstable and "when the squeeze was on she was a fruitcake on the rampage".

But despite all this - it is largely Diana's version of the story that has been believed - although she herself disparaged Morton's book and her interview with Bashir - although she changed her story - although she was known to be dishonest - but she gets believed.  And dull Charles with his unsympathetic aristo friends and horrid looking mistress cum wife is disbelieved.

Nuts.



Limabeany

Quote from: TLLK on September 16, 2014, 05:04:39 AM
Quote from: sandy on September 16, 2014, 12:31:27 AM
I think the "sad existence " is very much exaggerated.

Charles had his friends leak stories about Diana hence Diana striking back with the Morton book. Then Charles had the DImbleby book.

We'll have to disagree on this one. The books that I've read and the videos show a woman living a very sad existence IMO.
Diana did the Morton interview because Charles was leaking that she was being unfaithful while he lived his life with Camilla. The public war was started by Charles, Diana escalated it.
"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.

cate1949

Diana's love letters to Hewitt were about to be released thus making it clear she too had been having affairs - Bshir claimed she did the Panorama interview to control how that info came out

sandy

#264
The love letters were never released. Hewitt needed $$$ and wanted to sell them after Diana died and there were not takers. Though I do believe the Bashir interview was  a pre-emptive strike against Hewitt doing more blabbing.

Affair should be singular because the letters referred to the affair with Hewitt.

Double post auto-merged: September 17, 2014, 02:24:15 PM


Quote from: Adrienne on September 17, 2014, 12:58:47 AM
Quote from: sandy on September 16, 2014, 05:24:04 PM
She actually did not. Feeling "limited" by the role did not necessarily reflect on his  ability to do the job.

Double post auto-merged: September 16, 2014, 05:24:48 PM




If you only quote 5 words out of 33 in the sentence, then you're right, it looks like she only said that it would limit him. If you look at the whole quote, she quite explicitly questioned his ability to perform the role of King:

QuoteAnd because I know the character I would think that the top job, as I call it, would bring enormous limitations to him, and I don't know whether he could adapt to that.

Source, BBC transript: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/panorama.html

She never said he could not do it or was incompetent. She said it would "limit him" which does not mean he was incompetent.

Double post auto-merged: September 17, 2014, 02:27:51 PM


Quote from: cate1949 on September 17, 2014, 03:19:36 AM
again I think there is a bit of amnesia going on here - the Panorama interview - impact was so great - it almost resulted in the head of the BBC being forced to resign.  Here is a quote describing the impact of Diana's interview

It was one of the most extraordinary moments in television history - a programme which split the higher echelons of the BBC and threatened to severely damage the monarchy

There was no such shocking reaction to Charles interview - although at the time the interview did gain him sympathy and his perilously low popularity polling improved.  Fact.

So Di's interview was considerably more damaging - no one claims that the Charles interview almost toppled the monarchy yet that claim is routinely made for the Di Panorama interview.  The interview was so momentous that ten years later BBC did a special program on it how it happened etc.

So let's not pretend here.  The weight of evidence is that Diana interview with Bashir was devastating to Charles and to the monarchy.   No such claim has ever been made about the Dimbley interview nor has it ever been claimed that Charles interview did equal damage to Di's rep.

Diana was advised by all her friends not to do the Morton book - she did it anyway and then regretted it.  Despite this she then did the Panorama interview.  She later regretted having done that.  She then went on to make secret tapes with a BBC cameraman she hired because she felt that Bashir had tricked her and the interview did not represent her real feelings.  She is first obsessed with Camilla then leaves messages to be read after her death that Camilla is a smokescreen and that Charles really wants to marry Tiggy.  On the so called secret tapes she dismisses Camilla and Tiggy and talks about Charles and the unhealthy influence Fawcett has on him.   Up down up down constantly buffeted by her obsessive thoughts and impulses.

Diana's close friends universally admit she lied - routinely.  Dr Michael Adler head of the national aids trust who spent many hours working with her said "she was an ill person" who had "no real center".  Clive James who wrote that magnificent obituary for her and admitted he was hopelessly in love with her also said she was at best unstable and "when the squeeze was on she was a fruitcake on the rampage".

But despite all this - it is largely Diana's version of the story that has been believed - although she herself disparaged Morton's book and her interview with Bashir - although she changed her story - although she was known to be dishonest - but she gets believed.  And dull Charles with his unsympathetic aristo friends and horrid looking mistress cum wife is disbelieved.

Nuts.




There was indeed a shocking reaction. Charles was so critical of his parents that his siblings had to speak out against what he said. He and his siblings were not speaking to each other for a time over it.

APB did not want to stay in the marriage once Charles outed Camilla. There was no alternative for him but to divorce. Camilla was no longer the "safe" married friend and Charles became obligated (her father confronted him over his confessions).

If that is not "shocking" I don't know what is.

I think there is amnesia going on or whitewashing of the ramifications of Charles confessions.

He also as good as admitted he did not love Diana and felt "forced" to marry her.

It did not garner Charles sympathy. And by his confessing that he cheated on his wife he made people just focus on that and not on his work as POW.

Diana left no messages. The letters she had were confidential and she never wanted them released. The butler Burrell got hold of them and HE published them. SO it is not true what you are claiming.

Diana was "obsessed" by Camilla for good reason. She loathed Diana and by manipulation and scheming she got where she is today. Lets not start giving Camilla halos please.

I see Charles gets free passes once again.



Double post auto-merged: September 17, 2014, 02:58:00 PM


cate, So Diana was "known to be dishonest." What about the deceit of Charles? He had his friends provide safe houses so he could be with Camilla. And his deceit that Camilla was the "harmless" married "friend."  Camilla also went to the Sun editor for ten years with her side of the story. Charles also lied to his servants about where he was so Diana would not suspect anything about Camilla.

What secret tapes? The Settelen tapes were broadcast and Diana did not make accusations against Fawcett et al to Settelen.

The letters did come out because the royals took Burrell to court and there was much damage during that trial and Burrell revealed the letters not Diana. Diana was dead at the time.

The Dimbleby book made Diana look bad. Have you read it cate? He never even said he was fond of her or "liked" her she came out looking bad, even in the index entries for Diana.

I never read anywhere about a "cameraman" that Diana made tapes with. I think the said "cameraman" would have put them on TV had they even existed.

The damaging testimony was in those letters that Burrell kept.

Diana's doctor and therapist who treated her and was qualified never said any such things.

Clive James and others want to get favors from Charles so a dead Diana was fair game and you cannot libel the dead. Convenient was it not that Diana can't defend herself.

Adler did not treat Diana and sounds like a vicious gossip.

I think Charles was the one with issues but of course to some he is a saint.

Diana never ever disparaged Morton's book or Bashir publicly. What she said privately is subject to speculation.

Charles buddies were leaking stories about her and some apparently choose to believe that she was "mentally ill" with no proof. I guess a mentally ill person is defined as someone who won't put up and shut up when her husband wants to keep another person in the marriage.

For all your quotes about Diana, you forget that Diana was admired by Nelson Mandela and Mother Theresa and others. That is  nothing to sneeze at.

This is all Charles' propaganda and to make accusations of "madness" against a dead woman is truly offensive. IMO.


amabel

Quote from: cate1949 on September 17, 2014, 07:15:13 AM
Diana's love letters to Hewitt were about to be released thus making it clear she too had been having affairs - Bshir claimed she did the Panorama interview to control how that info came out
of course he will claim that. I think she didn't really have a  clear plan what she was doing, except to "get her story out". I think that she could  have denied or refused to talk about the rumours of affairs, she didn't HAVE to admit to Hewitt, but she may have reasoned that admitting to one, took the heat off questions  about the others and that the public would forgive her having one lover...

sandy

As far as Diana saying Charles was unfit to be King, I would like to point out when Charles got criticized for speaking out on issues, media people (including even Penny Junor) did say what Diana did that the "top job" would limit his ability to speak out on issues. And Junor certainly would not say Charles was incompetent or unfit.

In All I Do

sandy, out of curiosity, what do you think Diana meant when she said "and I don't know whether he could adapt to that."?


amabel

Quote from: Limabeany on September 17, 2014, 04:06:09 AM
Quote from: TLLK on September 16, 2014, 05:04:39 AM
Quote from: sandy on September 16, 2014, 12:31:27 AM
I think the "sad existence " is very much exaggerated.

Charles had his friends leak stories about Diana hence Diana striking back with the Morton book. Then Charles had the DImbleby book.

We'll have to disagree on this one. The books that I've read and the videos show a woman living a very sad existence IMO.
Diana did the Morton interview because Charles was leaking that she was being unfaithful while he lived his life with Camilla. The public war was started by Charles, Diana escalated it.
I don't remember any particular rumours that she was being unfaithful other than that it was increasingly obvious by 1991 or so that the marriage was not working out and there were stories in the papers of Dis' being very flirty with men rather publicly.  I doubt if Charles's "side" was saying anything about her then.. since I am sure he wanted the least attention drawn ot their marital problems. People thinking that the marriage was a failure, and noticing if Di was having an affair would bring back notice to HIM and to the possibility that He was having an affair. She did Morton in a  mixed up mood, partly wanting I think to get out of te marriage, partly wanting just to hit out at Charles and to indicate that he was indeed having an affair.  however if she was determined to tell the trurht abut her marriage, she was NOT doing so In Morton since she insinuated that Charles was having an affair with Cam but not that she herself had had an affair with Hewitt .  I think that as the stories of Charles possibly resuming his affair with Cam began to surface and the Gilbey tape and the Camillagate tape made it increasingly obvious that the marriage was on the rocks, Charles's friends DID start to put out stories that Diana was difficult, mad and unreliable...But DI was using the press herself to brief journalists to put out HER side of the story....

FanDianaFancy

#269
YES
many  of  us  here  have selective memory  then. Now. Will always. :teehee:

It  is so hard  to  stick to to FACTS  here  for  some of us.
Pardon me  for  repeating the  FACTS again.

AS far  PC  being pressured to marry, not quite. You look at  in the eyes  of  normal people, us, our norm,  and  the times of  PW, PH .

IT WAS time for  PC  to get married. If  not then, when?
He  knew this.
His world  then  was  one in which there was not  going  to be some long  W-K almost  10 years  of dating, breaking up  etc.
PC was at 30 or  a bit over.
He  had  his  women from Camilla,  to  starlets, to Lady's (titled) of the Kingdom, etc.

There  was nothing wrong with that.
Sowing his wild oats, he did and  he did it  very well!!

He  had to marry before there was too much age difference  between him and suitable  aristo  women.
If not then, when?
When he  was  35 and the  bride would have been  20? How about him being 40 and  the girl  20?

Some of say  he should have wanted. Waited for  what? Who?
Would some aristo  girl of 20  have things in common with  40 year him , LOL!! If you think LDFS  did not, oh boy, what aristo girl  would have wanted that job.  Some   aristo girl born in in 1975 , 20 in  1995, oh boy  , she would have wanited to marry him. LOL!!  YES,  you would have been getting into aristo girls born  into  the  1970's. Add, mummmm,  those girls, even aristo ones  born then, good chance  they  would have  had  "intimate "  moments  at 16, 17, OK!!!!!!

PC  would have had  his  brother , #2, end married with kids  before him. PC WNATED to get married and have  his HEIRS  . IT was time.

Our version of  lovelove  and  his role and version of love  and his world  was  different. 
PD , and I believed, he  loved  her, despite even his  words, no doubt PC  REGRETS  TODAY, did at the begininng.

What  was at issue  was NOT all the many  things PC and PD had in common and they  had a tons  of things in common, not the age difference, and other things, BUT  PD  DID NOT WANT TO SHARE  PC  with  Camilla.

Do you  all really think if it had not been LDFS, but  Lady somebody in 1985 lets say,  Camilla would have been out  of the picture? NO! NO ! NO!!!!!!  The famous story  fo the palace  dance in which  Camilla,  the married Mrs. APB, sort  of stated her claim  there  to boost  PC's ego...to let  little Miss Annable  know who was going to there  and "just to let her know..."
Camilla and PC  carried on  when she was married to PC .

I have said before, PD  , hindsight now and it  was not  my life, but  she  could have handled  it  all differently  if  she would have had  sisters  to advise her, a mother, an aunt, a grandmother,  a  titled  woman  of The Kingdom, someone like that.

Let him have Camilla and  she too embrace Camilla and do so in public  and  set it  up to have them all three be together.  Be  for a while and it  may  have taken  all 4 years  after their wedding  to restrain herself , but be    Rose Kennedy like , ABOVE REPROACH and SAINTED  .  and  through  the  scandal on him and Camilla.  Expose  them , but through  her  .
PD had the upper hand there all along but  did not know how to play her hand.

YES, she  did many  wrong things. No doubt  she regretted  her big  interviews and autobiography.

I give her a pass in that the girl was DESPARATE!!!! Lonely!  Cheated!  Felt used  and like a stupid, silly, fool!!!! She was  used and  was  a  fool!!  Camilla and PC  played her for a fool from day 1.

Anyway,  the  main point   YOU CAMILLA fans  will not, EVER  will  say  is that  PC  never  gave her up and she  never wanted to  lose HER place  in PC's life. 

All this  , they, PC and PD had nothing in common, PD's age, her issues  adpating, without Camilla, they would have divorced anyway....it  wa s abd marraige  from the start  because  f this and that  but  YOU NEVER SAY CAMILLA  was why  and  all the other  dozen reasons you all  say  is  total nonsense!!!!

If  not  LDFS, as I said, another woman  would have had to deal with  Camila and PC. Take it another  girl  would have dealt it  better , got  what she wanted  in being  PofW, etc. perhaps another  titled  girl, one  who  did not have  PD's  popularity, would have handled  it better in one other way  and could have done so easily.  She  would have had her affair  with  Lord/Duke  or  Lord X 's son  or  Duke X's son  and PC and Camilla could have  stayed  forever  as  the P and his sidepiece.

I think sidepiece  is  so much a better  term than mistress.  Mistress  is  too good of a term   for Camilla.  Royal mistresses  in all of  PC's ancestors and  all Royal houses  KNEWtheir palce and got  all they  wanted  in the place  of  privilege  but NEVER upsurped the wife. NEVER!!!

I have said before, OMG, but  U.S Mafiaoso's  of  the  1980's and back  may  have had  the goomba/girflriends, but  she was NEVER upsurped the wife, the Madonna.  You know ,  that Madonna -Wh o re complex that  some men have. Common, trashy, no good  men  do not have sidepiece  upsurp the wife.   WIFE  is not  upsurped  by  the sidepeice.  No matter  if these guys had lost all love, affection, even  like the wife, lost  feelings of like for her,  etc. for the wife, still, the  sidepiece did not upsurp the wife.


PD's happiness. Her sons brought her happiness.  he work  brought her happiness. That is  all she had  really.
All the money, fame,  really,  not much  and I  have said this before over and over. She never had a  man to love her and call her his own.   Some poor  Council  Housing , factory  working  woman in England has that!!!
PD  had  things like vacations with her kids to make her happy.  She had some affairs, really  only  2-3 that made her somewhat happy  for a while until the heartbreak.  Khan....ummm. Make that really  only  one affair  with a man worthwhile  and  that was fine until reality  set in , ended  it and heartbreak. He  NEVER wanted  her  as  in being front and center  and out  in  daylight with  her.

LOL!!!

Really,  tragic, PD  did not have  happy  life  overall in childhood and in her adult years.  She  was happy and got herself together and totally stopped fighting and gave up on PC  and everything   about  a year  , little over a year before she died.

Question.

Would  any of  you  would have wanted to be  PD? No.
For a  day? No.
Is  your life  without  being a multimillionaire  and her fame, looks, etc. happier than hers? Yes.

PC and Camilla,  it is is what it is.  PD is long gone dead. PC is  going to be K and Camilla will be Q. YES, they  will be very much alive  and will have a lot  of time to  do this in their lives.   King Charles and Queen Camilla will live until their  mid  80's  at least.  BF , Royals do not  die  like regular  people. Lack of stress in life.  Doctors   round the clock , 24/7 at theoir disposal and   all kinds of yearly tests . Insurance  is  not an issue, LOL, is  not an issue for  everything possible before anything occurs. Tests are given  evne if not needed. 
What I do not understand is that some of you NEVER say the truth based on the FACTS.
That is where  I  get  lost  in  your  posts and I think some others too.
PC and C,  that is done. Old news.  That is not my point.

I  do not care.   I  do not that  big of an interest  innthem  .Some of you act  like do.  My  arguing stops at that  point. The subjects are   not  personal to me.  I  do not live in these people's world. They  are  not  known to me nor am I to them. Makes no difference in my  life.  I am not  THAT interested  in them.  I do not even live in The UK.   I think in my posts  I have taken  many criticisms at PD based on FACTS.You guys have no problems  with that.  Where  is  your  criticism   of PC and Camilla?  None. Never!!  It was alll PD's fault. Her affairs...Morton book, panorma...morning sickness... the marriage ended  at the  that  day  in July 1981,...etc. 
The excuses  some of you have  are  just silly.

Like sandy said, Camilla is halo worthy now by some of you?  She is winning  hearts  the  press and pr  there is pushing. Like I have said many times,  really it  does not matter if the people  favor  her or not. Monarchy  is not open for vote.  The  people  of  The UK   and Commonwelath nations really  do not matter  in the grand scheme of things.  TPTB, heads  of states,  European crowns, England's  aristos/nobility/gentry  are  those who matter.
PC and C  real lives of  close family and friends and their legacy  for her children, grandchildren matter.

That is what I do not understand about some of you guys.


Canuck

QuoteI think in my posts  I have taken  many criticisms at PD based on FACTS.You guys have no problems  with that.  Where  is  your  criticism   of PC and Camilla?  None. Never!!  It was alll PD's fault. Her affairs...Morton book, panorma...morning sickness... the marriage ended  at the  that  day  in July 1981,...etc.

The FACTS are that EVERY SINGLE PERSON posting about Charles and Camilla have criticized them.  We have all said that Charles did things wrong -- that he shouldn't have married Diana if he didn't love her, that he shouldn't have cheated on her, that he too used the press to his advantage, etc.  We have all said that Camilla did thing wrong -- that she shouldn't have cheated on her husband, that she shouldn't have gotten involved with a married man.

No one thinks Charles and Camilla are saints.  No one thinks they did nothing wrong.  I sincerely do. not. understand. why we continue to be accused of this.

Lady Adams

[mod] Gentle reminder for everyone to be kind to each other. If this thread gets too contentious, we can lock it. :flower: [/mod]
"To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing." --Elbert Hubbard, American writer

FanDianaFancy

Well Canuck, maybe that is you and I KNOW it is me.

No, many, many  of us continue to  dig up PD this and so PC and Poor Cammy  that....


I  am long winded in my post sometimes  but the FACT  is  PC and Camilla  destroyed a  young  girls' hopes, dreams,  total  love  for  PC , home life  she wanted and made  a  total fool and  complete jackazz  of her  from the  very  beginning.  THAT IS FACT.

All the  in between things,  anicent history.  Pointless really.  Pointless if  we  cannot discuss the FACTS.  Really no reason to  because  it  was done as it  was , happened as it did all resulting into what  is now and will be. Done deal!

I am trying to  look at it from a different way.

She died and NO, she  is  not a candidate  for  catonization, LOL!! 

PC and Camilla , K and Q  to be  have won it  all. Really, CAMILLA WON IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   PW and his life, PH and his life, crown jewels even wearing ones PD wore, she wears which I think is  totally crass because there are no end  to jewels. Why wear the same ones She  wore.   Camilla  won  the  title,  subjects who  ahve  no choice because Monarchy is not open to vote, great PR  campaign  to ease  her into  as  time goes,  her  title of Queen  Camilla   and  QEII and  PP  and the BRF  attention and more. Everything else in between  is  really  pointless.

Beginning was  what  it  was. End  is  what  it is. King C and Queen C..

Why  knock a dead woman?  Kind of pointless.

We  have had  rounds and rounds  about this trio of ancient history. Some of us do like to  erase  one of the characters  and  make  up new things. 

When  PW and K got married, we had long  discussions about if  PD were alive , where  would she have sat?  Some of  us are so personal , weird  I find  by the way, with  these people. They  said PD  would have sat  away  from BRF  as  she was not PC's wife.

Common sense   is she and PC would  have sat together and  PD  boyfriend,husband and Camilla would have sat  at some other  place close by.


Lady Adams , as far  as shutting down, well,. I have not taken swipes at  people.
I  read the back and forth, same ole thing, and just have  to questions, WHY? What is the point  some here are trying to make?  What  is  in it for you?  Why the need  to rewrite  waht  was FACT and what IS?


My  personal  thing about it all  looking at  my  life  wnad others, and I know  you  all know  people  too  and have gone through  things and that  is  some LIFE IS NOT FAIR.
CHOICES  . We all  have  choices and then the results of the choices, good, bad, neutral, take  over and lead.
Some people get it  all no matter what good , bad, neutral they have done.
Some people,  fate  needs to shake them a break  you wish at some point  and I mean those who  make good choices.
But then, LIFE IS NOT fair nor  is it a  fairytale. Grow up!!
The Camilla's ,  people like her, maybe they  have it  right. LOOK AT  FOR #1.  Be da nmed  anything, anybody else. Keep  your eyes on what  you wnt, and LOOK OUT FOR #1. Self. it works from what I have seen of people  I know.

What  is  in it for some of us here? Nothing!




Canuck

QuoteI  am long winded in my post sometimes  but the FACT  is  PC and Camilla  destroyed a  young  girls' hopes, dreams,  total  love  for  PC , home life  she wanted and made  a  total fool and  complete jackazz  of her  from the  very  beginning.  THAT IS FACT.

FanDianaFancy, perhaps the disconnect is that we seem to have very different definitions of the word "fact". 

That sentence I quoted, for example, is what I would call an opinion.  Diana was very young when they married = fact.  Charles cheated on Diana with Camilla = fact.  But Diana had "total love" for Charles, Charles and Camilla made a fool of her from the very beginning of the marriage, it was Charles and Camilla who have sole responsibility for "destroying" everything = all opinions.

Everyone is welcome to their opinions, of course.  But I think we all benefit (me too!) from remembering that they are just opinions -- we don't know these people, we weren't there for what happened, and we are all drawing our own conclusions based on various public sources of information.

sandy

#274
Quote from: Adrienne on September 18, 2014, 04:09:15 AM
sandy, out of curiosity, what do you think Diana meant when she said "and I don't know whether he could adapt to that."?



Well Charles has gotten criticized (and praised as well) for speaking out on various issues, something he would be discouraged from doing as King.  So this does put limits on him and this comment on the top job putting limits on him did come from people other than Diana. It does not say he would not be a good king but it does say it could cause frustration because Charles does like to speak out.

Double post auto-merged: September 18, 2014, 07:46:11 PM


Quote from: amabel on September 18, 2014, 04:53:07 AM
Quote from: Limabeany on September 17, 2014, 04:06:09 AM
Quote from: TLLK on September 16, 2014, 05:04:39 AM
Quote from: sandy on September 16, 2014, 12:31:27 AM
I think the "sad existence " is very much exaggerated.

Charles had his friends leak stories about Diana hence Diana striking back with the Morton book. Then Charles had the DImbleby book.

We'll have to disagree on this one. The books that I've read and the videos show a woman living a very sad existence IMO.
Diana did the Morton interview because Charles was leaking that she was being unfaithful while he lived his life with Camilla. The public war was started by Charles, Diana escalated it.
I don't remember any particular rumours that she was being unfaithful other than that it was increasingly obvious by 1991 or so that the marriage was not working out and there were stories in the papers of Dis' being very flirty with men rather publicly.  I doubt if Charles's "side" was saying anything about her then.. since I am sure he wanted the least attention drawn ot their marital problems. People thinking that the marriage was a failure, and noticing if Di was having an affair would bring back notice to HIM and to the possibility that He was having an affair. She did Morton in a  mixed up mood, partly wanting I think to get out of te marriage, partly wanting just to hit out at Charles and to indicate that he was indeed having an affair.  however if she was determined to tell the trurht abut her marriage, she was NOT doing so In Morton since she insinuated that Charles was having an affair with Cam but not that she herself had had an affair with Hewitt .  I think that as the stories of Charles possibly resuming his affair with Cam began to surface and the Gilbey tape and the Camillagate tape made it increasingly obvious that the marriage was on the rocks, Charles's friends DID start to put out stories that Diana was difficult, mad and unreliable...But DI was using the press herself to brief journalists to put out HER side of the story....

I never saw stories about Diana being "flirty" with other men in 1991.

What did come out in 1991 (and ca. 1990) was that they did spend more time apart than together.

Charles side was putting out stories as early as 1985 (ca. the time of Tina Brown's article the Mouse that Roared). A woman called the newspapers and leaked the story that Diana refused a 30th birthday party that Charles wanted to throw for her--one of Charles people no doubt.

The Sun Editor said that Mrs Parker Bowles rang him up for ten years beginning as early as ca. 1982.