Duch_Luver4ever Digest:
So after talking with some of you on PM and seeing that some ppl were missing my contributions to the forum, Role of the Spencer family in preparing Diana for marriage? (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=84591.msg1405147#new) thank you to those who remember. I've decided to try out a method that might be agreeable to me.
Don't get me wrong, moderators and admins, I have lurked from time to time and still see the same issues that caused me to step back, the latest being the debate about Diana and the stairs incident. I'm not going to speak for any other users cause I don't know whats going on in their minds, but I can see similar feelings in other quality posters as well in their posts.
While I cant speculate if they will step back from the forum as well, it likely affects their enjoyment of the forum. So what im doing is sort of a "LouisFerdinand" style of proposing questions/ideas/things to ruminate about.
From there, you all can run with it and I may PM a few of you about it, but that way those of you that still want to see my ideas can see them, and those that don't can ignore them, and I dont have to deal with the issue of the subject matters own words linked and referenced being cast out as utter rubbish. So here's my first "digest"
Diana and old news being "new" and her story interacting with news today: So, not to rag on youngsters again, but this spate of supposed "new, shocking and mistakes" the medias been running in events from the courtship are eye rolling to those boomers and GenX'ers that were there for the first run.
For example the postage stamp and engagement photos showing a height difference between Charles and Diana. It wasn't a "mistake" a'la photoshop or airbrush error that the clickbait news would have one presume. It was known back then about the box/step that Charles stood on to have the desired at that time from a photogenic/advertising/perception perspective. Diana threw them for a loop in that aspect with her height matching his, but as much as they like to think it was a photo that slipped past ppl undetected, it didnt, and the press did have a go at Charles for it.
Same with the "whatever love means" as a shocking, undiscovered clip. One can suppose that for ppl not alive at the time, it is "new" information for them, and the news articles are geared for a more general audience that might not be royal/diana philes, but it can be trying to those of us that follow more closely.
With all the talk about wiretapping/eavesdropping by the UK on the US lately, too bad they don't remember like we do the fact that US intel was listening in on Diana's calls that summer in 97 on behalf of the UK to get around domestic surveillance laws. For more info, google the "five I's or eyes" an agreement between US,UK,Canada, Aus, and NZ to basically spy on their citizens by using one of the other four gov't to do it for them, so its not as far fetched as the news would have one believe.
Now for my question or topic of debate, and it has to do with Diana and her reading/knowledge of private eye magazine, and what she may have known or not known about Camilla before she saw firsthand what a hold Camilla had on Charles.
One article is this one http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/stellar/how-diana-won-her-prince-book-reveals-charles-panicked-proposal/news-story/215b343ad31d8b059f5b5819f2c6d673 which talks about the mention in Private Eye of Camilla joining Charles and APB in April 1980 as Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, now you may say, maybe Diana missed that issue, but she did read them a lot, she would read them in the car with Ken Lennox.
Another interesting article I read recently about their age difference and generally unsuitability of the marriage,based on Charles stuffy range of interests, mentioned a time when Diana and Charles were playing Trivial Pursuit and it asked what Private Eye's "nickname" for the Queen was and Charles didnt know, and Diana was surprised and knew right away it was "Brenda".
I remember a different time before the marriage when Diana was at BP/Clarence House she jumped on a couch saying to the effect of "look im jumping on Brenda's couch". So while Trivial Pursuit was released after the wedding, she did read it enough before the wedding to know the Queens nickname, so its a curious question given how her family and friends knew she idolized Charles, that no one would mention, or she wouldnt have seen the April 1980 Private eye issue.
So do you all think she knew and just figured her love and charms would win out in the end, or did she just try and pretend it wasn't an issue? Either way, its to me almost as curious a question to ponder as the Spencer family question.
Tidbits: it wasnt wine Diana nicked from Highgrove to take to the Hewitts cottage in Devon in one of the threads, it was Orange Vodka.
30 years ago on April 9th, Diana opened the Aids ward and had her groundbreaking handshake, its interesting how important events happened in years ending in 7, In 1967, she was six and her parents marriage was breaking down,She met Charles in 1977 in the infamous "plowed field", the AIDS ward in 1987, and well, we all know about 97.
Finishing with a lighter touch: heres some lovely pics of Diana in a recent people article Princess Diana at Her Most Unguarded in 5 Rarely-Seen Photos (http://people.com/royals/see-an-unguarded-princess-diana-at-her-most-laid-back-in-5-rarely-seen-photos/)
look at the first two, the top is pure whimsy as she shocked by her car stalling, and the second one, ah if that one doesnt fully describe how lovable she was, I dont know what does. Pure Perfection.
Welcome back
@Duch_Luver_4ever. As you know very well, you were sorely missed here. I have been having my own moments so I stepped back a bit. I read my posts and could not recognize the person writing them. They were just horrendous so I just need time to get my bearings back. :hehe:
Welcome back Duch_.
My feeling about Diana's knowledge of the Charles and Camilla relationship before she became engaged is that she knew that Camilla had been Charles's mistress, with a hint here from Private Eye, (I do think Diana probably read the snippet) a few whispers from acquaintances in London Society, a bit of talk from older people she knew.
However, I don't believe and will never believe, that she calculated that the relationship was still going on when she accepted Charles's proposal and just cynically accepted it as part of her forthcoming marital arrangements, as some say. I don't think that Diana knew at all the depths of Charles's feelings for Mrs PB, all the things they had in common, the ins and outs of their relationship.
The fact was that Charles and Diana had barely twelve dates before becoming engaged, they had few heart to hearts and I think Diana ignored the past and looked only to the future. It was only after they'd become engaged that Charles spoke to her about his confidential friend Mrs PB and then of course there was the incident of the G and F bracelet, and the farewell. All Diana's insecurities flew to the surface, and who could blame her! I don't think she had any peace of mind about Camilla in spite of Charles's reassurances, from then on.
But if she knew of his affair with Camilla why date him? surely (from the way many people seem to react) if Di was such an innocent this knowing that he was having an affair with a married wowman would have had her postivley horrified.. and unwilling to go out wiht a man who could get involved with a married woman?
If she was willig to get engaged to him, why then refuse to believe that he was finished with the affair when he told her he was
Diana knew that Charles was 32, she knew he had a past with several women and girls, (all the men in the Barbara Cartland novels that she was so fond of were 'experienced') but I don't think she knew the details of the romance with Camilla or how long it had lasted or the depths of it. She probably thought that Camilla, unhappily married, had manipulated Charles and had been the leader in the affair. I don't think that it all hit her that it was as passionate as it was until after her engagement.
There are huge chunks of information about the run up to Charles and Diana's marriage that we don't know, nor are we likely to ever know. Such as -- how much did Charles tell his young fiancée about the 'confidential friends' in his past, how he 'sold' it to her, what he said (with sincerity, I'm sure) that caused her to believe he loved her and only her, that she was the only one he wanted in his life. She didn't quite swallow it, we know, otherwise she wouldn't have been upset about the bracelet and the insistence that he give it to Mrs PB personally.
wel lgiven the way some people react, to the idea of an affair with a married man or woman, I would have thought that if Diana was as innocent and virginal and moral, she too would have been horrified and felt that noting could excuse Charles having an affair..
but she didn't seem bothered and stayed in Camillas house.
and I would question that she didn't know that much about it, it was an open secret among society people.
If she "didn't know," it was because she had a way of ignoring things like that, which continued in later life, as she did the same with Dodi Fayed..and Will Calring.. ignored the fact that they had other women In their lives.
if she was dating Charles, knowing that he had been or still was Camilla's lover, why do it? WHy not say "I can't go out with a man who would date a married woman".. and if you feel that "Charles must have reassured her during their courtship and told her that the affair was over".. so why did she then get so aerated after the engagement had bene announced? and if that was the case that she raelly did get very upseta and angry and threw a big wobbly about the relationship and the bracelet, how come there is fairly well attested story that the night before the wedding she was riding a bike around the palace, singing "I'm going to marry the POW".
We don't know exactly what Diana did know about the relationship with Camilla or what explanation Charles gave for having an affair with her. I do think that Diana was a virgin and quite innocent when she was dating Charles. How worldly and sophisticated could a 19 year old that had never had a boyfriend be?
Yes, Diana did ride around on a bicycle singing the evening before her wedding day. That doesn't mean that she was in a state of rapturous excitement throughout the whole engagement. The incident with the bracelet did upset her considerably and Diana probably went through various emotions in the weeks leading up to the nuptials, nervousness about her new life, apprehension about Mrs PB, joy that she was going to marry the man she loved, excitement about her wedding day, hope about her marriage, all those things and more.
We know that at one stage she wanted to withdraw and her sisters told her it was too late. It may have been a sixth sense driving her at that moment.
She did have boyfriends. She was a pretty girl and had dates and admirers.. and I don't believe she was as naïve and "innocent little girlish" as she made herself out to be. Surely she TOLD us about her relaltionship with Charles and the "Camilla situation.. in Diana HTS? So As far as I recall she spun it that she knew nothing about the affair till she was engaged..
but I think - and you seem to agree, that she knew about it well beforehand. She would have been the only "society girl" who didn't.. I'm sure there was plenty of gossip and giggling about Charles and his ladyfriends.at Sloane range dinner parties... and her own sister dated him.
but my point is, IF she was so naïve, so childlike and virginal how come she was OK with marryyng a man who only recenlty beforehand had been engaged in an affair with a married woman?
This just makes me think what I was like at 19. Horrendous decision making skills, impulsiveness and a self-belief that was wholly without merit. I think Diana did not clearly think about what was happening and what would happen. She naively assumed that Charles would get over Camilla and that the ring would protect her in any case. Apparently Diana got her proposal at Camilla's house and she was first put forward so that Camilla could opine on whether she was a suitable consort.
The people that should have intervened are her family, particularly her mother. It is not as if Charles was the first royal to have mistresses so they must have known his attachments. Even when the marriage went wrong, I think Diana played it very badly. She was not strategic. Going to the press was only going to send Charles further and further away. As she became more strident and uncompromising, Charles saw even more reasons why he should turn to Camilla. You cannot be a feminist Princess of Wales. The role is just not made that way.
but it seems to me that on the one hamds we have a Diana who is so childishly innocent she doesn't even know what everyone knows, about the affair (Sounds like a SUPER Naïve Barbara Carltand innocent).. and she only finds out about Camilla when it is too late to end the engagement.. but when it comes to the pre wedding night, when she was teling us she was a "lamb to the slaugther" she's happily singing about marrying the POW.
I wrote in that first post that I believe that she had heard that Charles and Camilla had had an affair or had read something of it or whatever, but that she hadn't known the details of it, or the depths of it. Nor probably did most other people. No-one knows absolutely everything about a love affair except the two people concerned.
As for her innocence, I do believe she was quite innocent. No one has ever pointed to evidence of Diana having high levels of sophistication at 19. I believe that she discovered or intuitively felt with the bracelet incident that everything he had probably told her about his feelings for Camilla being irrevocably in the past might not be true. She was in love with Charles, believed that he felt the same about her, and the bracelet and wanting a last meeting with Camilla was probably a great shock to her.
She said she felt 'like a lamb to the slaughter' considerably later, years later, but she may well have felt a deep unease at the time as well as joy the night before about her forthcoming nuptials. Sometimes people's feelings are mixed in that way.
[gmod]Opening Post : Whilst it is lovely to see you back here
@Duch_Luver_4ever. And whilst it "may be agreeable to You" I'm a tad concerned that you have turned this into your own * Speakers Corner*.
QuoteWhile I cant speculate if they will step back from the forum as well, it likely affects their enjoyment of the forum.
Quote
From there, you all can run with it and I may PM a few of you about it, but that way those of you that still want to see my ideas can see them, and those that don't can ignore them, and I dont have to deal with the issue of the subject matters own words linked and referenced being cast out as utter rubbish. So here's my first "digest"
This Forum is meant for all Members to give their thoughts - whether they agree with you or not - they should not be requested to "ignore".
I shall be keeping a close eye on your "digest", [/gmod]
Diana knew Charles was seeing other women before he dated her. After all, she was 12 years younger and read the papers. She did not travel in the same circles. I doubt very much she had much experience with men. She had to have a medical exam to see if she was a virgin who could later have children with the Prince of Wales. She had a "history but no past." She did indicate that Charles reassured her the day before the wedding (with a note) that he would be waiting for her and be proud of her as she walked down the aisle to him. She thought to herself (as she told Morton) "well that's over" as she saw Camilla sitting in the Cathedral. She was optimistic enough then to think that Charles married her because he loved her she was "the one" and Camilla was over. She did not travel in Charles' circle pre courtship and his friends would not jeopardize the match by telling her the truth about Camilla. She underestimated the hold Camilla had over Charles.
Double post auto-merged: April 13, 2017, 09:48:41 PM
Quote from: amabel on April 13, 2017, 01:31:12 PM
but it seems to me that on the one hamds we have a Diana who is so childishly innocent she doesn't even know what everyone knows, about the affair (Sounds like a SUPER Naïve Barbara Carltand innocent).. and she only finds out about Camilla when it is too late to end the engagement.. but when it comes to the pre wedding night, when she was teling us she was a "lamb to the slaugther" she's happily singing about marrying the POW.
Diana knew that Charles was experienced. Coverage of his love life was in the press for years. But she underestimated the hold Camilla had over Charles. She did think it was "over" and told this to Morton.
Double post auto-merged: April 13, 2017, 09:53:05 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 13, 2017, 01:17:36 PM
This just makes me think what I was like at 19. Horrendous decision making skills, impulsiveness and a self-belief that was wholly without merit. I think Diana did not clearly think about what was happening and what would happen. She naively assumed that Charles would get over Camilla and that the ring would protect her in any case. Apparently Diana got her proposal at Camilla's house and she was first put forward so that Camilla could opine on whether she was a suitable consort.
The people that should have intervened are her family, particularly her mother. It is not as if Charles was the first royal to have mistresses so they must have known his attachments. Even when the marriage went wrong, I think Diana played it very badly. She was not strategic. Going to the press was only going to send Charles further and further away. As she became more strident and uncompromising, Charles saw even more reasons why he should turn to Camilla. You cannot be a feminist Princess of Wales. The role is just not made that way.
I read that Charles talked about marriage in general at Camilla and Andrew's place. But did not actually propose until after he returned from a trip (he called her telling her he had something important to ask her). They had a quiet dinner and he proposed, she returned and told her flatmates. He called her father. This is all recorded in the MOrton book. Diana's father in interviews at the time confirmed the sequence of Diana's proposal and Charles calling him up.
Charles rather unrealistically did not think logically of the consequences of his proposing to Diana knowing he did not love her. I think he felt Diana would fall into line like Andrew Parker Bowles did.
Charles had mistresses pre marriage while he courted suitable girls. But this did not mean he'd continue the habit after he got married. Mountbatten apparently wanted him to commit to his granddaughter Amanda, after Charles go the sowing of wild oats out of his system.
Diana only went to the press about 10 years after the marriage. In the meantime, Charles friends leaked nasty stories about Diana.
Double post auto-merged: April 13, 2017, 09:58:51 PM
Quote from: amabel on April 13, 2017, 11:56:21 AM
wel lgiven the way some people react, to the idea of an affair with a married man or woman, I would have thought that if Diana was as innocent and virginal and moral, she too would have been horrified and felt that noting could excuse Charles having an affair..
but she didn't seem bothered and stayed in Camillas house.
and I would question that she didn't know that much about it, it was an open secret among society people.
If she "didn't know," it was because she had a way of ignoring things like that, which continued in later life, as she did the same with Dodi Fayed..and Will Calring.. ignored the fact that they had other women In their lives.
if she was dating Charles, knowing that he had been or still was Camilla's lover, why do it? WHy not say "I can't go out with a man who would date a married woman".. and if you feel that "Charles must have reassured her during their courtship and told her that the affair was over".. so why did she then get so aerated after the engagement had bene announced? and if that was the case that she raelly did get very upseta and angry and threw a big wobbly about the relationship and the bracelet, how come there is fairly well attested story that the night before the wedding she was riding a bike around the palace, singing "I'm going to marry the POW".
Diana did not know about the hold Camilla had on Charles when she met Camilla. Camilla at the time was a housewife supposedly happily married with young children, one about two years old. At first she did not seem a threat because after all she was married with young children and not single.
Why keep blaming Diana about Kelly Fisher when Kelly herself never blamed Diana. She was super angry at Mohammed Fayed and Dodi for their casting her aside. Diana came to the yacht after Dodi dumped Kelly. He probably told Diana that he was engaged but he broke off the engagement. Had Diana lived, I think Kelly would have won a suit against Fayed. She gave her side of the story at the Inquest and no, Diana did not break them up.
Will Carling denied an affair.
Diana did not travel in Charles circles, she was 12 years younger and only got to really know Charles circle when Charles starting asking her out on dates. So how would she know he was sleeping with Mrs Parker Bowles--she knew he most likely had experience because he had many girlfriends who made the headlines.
Quote from: Curryong on April 13, 2017, 01:51:17 PM
I wrote in that first post that I believe that she had heard that Charles and Camilla had had an affair or had read something of it or whatever, but that she hadn't known the details of it, or the depths of it. Nor probably did most other people. No-one knows absolutely everything about a love affair except the two people concerned.
As for her innocence, I do believe she was quite innocent. No one has ever pointed to evidence of Diana having high levels of sophistication at 19. I believe that she discovered or intuitively felt with the bracelet incident that everything he had probably told her about his feelings for Camilla being irrevocably in the past might not be true. She was in love with Charles, believed that he felt the same about her, and the bracelet and wanting a last meeting with Camilla was probably a great shock to her.
She said she felt 'like a lamb to the slaughter' considerably later, years later, but she may well have felt a deep unease at the time as well as joy the night before about her forthcoming nuptials. Sometimes people's feelings are mixed in that way.
but if she was so innocent surely she would have thougth (as so many people on this forum seem to think)that the fact that he had had an affair with a married woman meant he was compleltey in the wrong and that nothing could justify it? Why did she go out iwht him at all? Why did she stay at the home of the woman he had had the affair with? Surely that was an indication that there was a close relationship with that woman still?
Why did she wait tll they were formally engaged (according to her account) before she got so uneasy that she raised the issue with Charles..an d then wasn't really satifised with his assurance that he was now In love with her?
Diana probably did feel that it was wrong, especially considering the history of both her parents. However, Charles can be extremely charming and she was attracted. Goodness knows there have been many many girls and young women who have fallen for the lines put out by men who are married (work colleagues and so on,) which is infinitely worse.
It wasn't Charles who was married and, as I've said before, she may have felt that Camilla was the prime mover and enabler in that affair. What she would be keeping a wary eye on, and she did, was any sign that this romance was flaring up again.
It wasn't just the Parker Bowles house that Diana stayed at when dating and engaged to Charles. It was a number of his friends who hosted weekends, the Soames for instance, all of whom seemed elderly to her and most of whom she didn't like very much. She both disliked and mistrusted Camilla PB with some reason, but during the courtship Diana tried to adjust to Charles's friends. She'd hardly say to him, unless she wanted the romance to finish, 'I don't like Camilla, she has a past with you and I feel she is looking me over, sizing me up and seeing what sort of a challenge I will be.'
I mean, this discussion is all with the benefit of hindsight and with large pieces of the jigsaw puzzle missing. We can only guess at some of the motivations of the parties involved and we don't know what Charles said to Diana with reference to Mrs PB.
Diana later stated that during one of their conversations about Camilla (after they were engaged) she asked him out and out about his feelings for Mrs PB and he returned an ambiguous answer. You can say that should have finished things in Diana's eyes but it obviously did not (I would have walked, quite frankly) but if that statement is true then that shows Charles (an engaged man) in a less than honourable light, to say the least.
There are some who believe that Diana was primarily after that title and that Charles's main attraction for her was that he was POW. I acknowledge that his being heir and a prince probably was part of the attraction but I believe that she fell for the man first and was in love.
well I would be scpetial aobut "what Diana said" as she often said contradictory things..
I understood that when she spent time with Charles at weekends, he was staying at Highgrove which he was having decorated at the time and she would stya with Camilla who lived nearby.
And I would say that if she was relaly so moral about the whole idea of people having affiars or so innocent (In Morton she seems to portray herself like a Barbara Cartland blushing innocent heroine who barely knows what kissing is).. she would surely have "walked" if a man whom she knew had had a relationship wit a married woman whom he was still In touch iwht, had started to court her.
It seems to me that there's no point in "being wary in case the whole Camilla thing started up again".. if she knew quite well that Cam lived near Charles, was part of his circle and was still a very close friend whom he asked to give a bed to his girlfriend...
I can't help feeling that Diana was well aware that there had been an affair, that it didn't really bother her and I can see that the RF came to believe "she knew about Camilla, she didn't give two hoots about it, and it was olny when she had snared Charles that she started to throw tantrums about it and other thigns that annoyed her."
And yes if she was gog to be bothered by the friendship between C and Camilla she SHOUDL have brought the issue up to Charles when they were dating.. and said "I worry about your past relationship with Camilla, you mut have loved her a lot, are you still goig to see her a lot in the future" and got it all thrashed out before they got engaged.
And what of Charles's attitude towards the affair with Camilla? It's been emphasised again and again on this forum and others that he had to find a pliable young virgin to marry who would fit in with his way of life.
How did Charles intend to approach with this young fiancée (whoever she was) the rather thorny issue of his sleeping with another man's wife? Did he intend to explain that he had been so in love and lust with her that he couldn't keep away, that he couldn't keep his hands off her even in front of her husband and his friends and others at a polo ball.
What if she had demanded some details of their affair, the subterfuge so they could sleep together at other's homes or when Andrew was away, the fact that his mother had been informed that he'd been sleeping with a fellow officer's wife?
Did he hope any young woman would accept it all with a sophisticated wave of the hand, even when he insisted on a last meeting with Camilla to give her a present, even though he was engaged to another? Did he expect a gentle acceptance of his explanations that it was all over and it was fine and OK for the said ex mistress to be hosting his new fiancée, because 'of course that behaviour is just accepted in our crowd isn't it'? Gentle nod of head from fiancée to it all?
Quite frankly Charles IMO was jolly lucky to get anyone to marry him at all with his lamentable behavior towards his girlfriends and liking for married mistresses.
But Diana DID accept that he'd been iwht another man's wife...and that she herself was actulay staying at the womans house and that charles was still in touch with Camilla. She must have realised that in royal cirlces its usual for old loves to stay friends and socialise iwht each other. Anne is still friends with ANdrew PB who was one of her early boyfriends.
If she was as horrified by it as people here seem to be, I think that she would not have dated Charles at all...and I mean come on Charles was going to find that there were women who were eager to marry him, even if he'sd been cross eyed with 2 heads...
I think Campbell hit the nail on the head in terms of actually describing what happened, even though she did not like Diana. Charles married Diana with lukewarm feelings at the very best. At the time he assumed that may be he would learn to love her or alternatively that she might be like Queen Alexandra (not fighting with the mistress but focusing on her own royal duties). That way he could get the press and his parents off his back by marrying a seemingly suitable girl and having a quiet life.
Diana got hints that Charles was not that into her right from the beginning but ignored them (long absences, no physical contact and noncommittal answers about being in love), sticking to her Barbara Cartland view of the handsome prince rescuing her from abandonment in her own family. In the beginning Diana was on her best behavior and tried to fit in with the royal family. Once the ring was on her finger, she really did not have to be so accommodating. She started to assert her rights including trying to separate Charles from the Highgrove set.
At first Charles was bewildered at the change in his new wife but he did let her have free reign. Indeed Diana was quite surprised when he bolted because she thought she had finally bulldozed him into being the kind of man she wanted. There are stories of Diana insisting on having her way in everything from naming children, schedules, house decor etc. The dog banishing incidents (some have said they were incontinent) really cemented Charles' view that his wife was trying to control him and had essentially tricked him into seeing one side of her personality.
During that time Diana had bulimia and depression. I repeat: unless you have actually lived with someone that suffers from those conditions, it is nearly impossible to understand how difficult it is to live with them. There are reports of Diana spending hours crying, throwing tantrums, refusing to engage with other members of the royal family, taunting Charles about matters she knew were very sensitive to him like the crown, saying she hated everything he liked etc.
Even if you are madly in love with someone, if they start behaving like that; the love begins to fade away. For Charles it was worse because he did not even really love his wife. Any mistake or difficulty she created was exaggerated in his mind because already he was not in love with her. Now he discovered he did not even like her at all.
Charles' friend were worried about how depressed he was getting about the failing marriage (some report of how he was turning grey). Charles then confided in his mistress Camilla whom he had always been in love with but was not courageous enough to marry at the time. Camilla was everything Diana was not: accommodating, permissive, sensible, patient, discreet and very pragmatic about issues of fidelity. To Charles, it seemed that he had made a terrible mistake in marrying Diana. She was not making him happy and he was certainly not making her happy. At the time, he was afraid of divorce but when Diana started discussing the succession he became determined to get her out of his life for good through divorce.
Campbell wrote that Charles had many mistresses but Diana became obsessed with Camilla specifically because she correctly guessed that this one was going to last. That is when she started the efforts to recapture Charles but he was gone for good. Even the Hewitt affair would not move him. In her desperation she thought that if she reported him to the press, there would be such a backlash that he would have to give up his mistress. At one time Diana even enlisted the help of Kanga (a disgruntled ex-mistress) but nothing moved Charles.
Yes, there was a backlash (which exists in a certain section of the population even up to today) but Diana underestimated the stubbornness of Charles. She tried and tried but the damage to the marriage was irreparable. The press reports and the resultant attempts to bully Camilla turned mild dislike into occasional hate for Diana. Charles became more and more determined that he would never return to Diana. That to me seems like the most plausible explanation.
I believe that had Diana been properly advised, she would still be Princess of Wales and Camilla would be just the occasional or ex-mistress. As it happens, Diana's determination to punish Charles and Camilla inadvertently opened the way for them to eventually get married. I do not know how Diana would have coped with the wedding of 2005. Here was a wedding that had been soundly critiqued by the press with dire predictions of doom. All that changed nothing. The bride looked very nice for her day and it was quite clear to everyone who wanted to see that Charles was very happy. He remains happy today. I am not sure Diana would have found similar happiness with her companions. The trauma of her life was too deep.
Gee, Royal, Camilla is everything that Diana was not AND makes the Great Man happy, too, and of course that's the most important thing of all, isn't it? And not a criticism in sight of Camilla's behaviour as a married woman and a mother of two through those years when she was sleeping with Charles before and after her marriage and his. Very convenient that Diana's mental health was to blame for the collapse of the Wales marriage, indeed for everything that happened actually, including keeping the star-crossed lovers apart for so long. You sure your surname isn't Junor or Bedell Smith?
I know it is tempting for me to get into yet another "Camilla is good/bad debate" but I will not do that. Camilla's marriage had its own complications and she handled them very differently from Diana. To date she remains on friendly terms with her former husband, something that Diana never quite achieved.
If you read my message carefully
@Curryong, you will see that I wrote about Camilla's role in giving advice and supporting Charles. Saying that it is all due to Camilla and that she is an immoral woman is a great justification but it really does nothing to support or advance the marriage. That is precisely the mistake Diana made in my view. Her strategy was "attack Camilla and make it very difficult for Charles to see her". That is a very good strategy if you want to annoy your husband and make your rival uncomfortable. However, it will not save the marriage and it did not save this one; as well we know. All that Diana succeeding in achieving with that strategy was to push Charles further and further away, as well as losing some of the somewhat positive relationships she had with some members of the royal family.
Yes Camilla is very different from Diana. Apparently Charles infinitely prefers the Camilla version of a wife (they have been together for practically 3 decades so it must mean something).
As for prioritizing the happiness of your spouse, that is very critical in my experience. If you do that, the marriage might just work. If you do not and focus on trying to fight the mistress; the chances are that you end up being divorced. It is a question of deciding what you want: do you want to shame the husband and mistress or do you want to remain married? Whatever you consider to be important will determine your strategy. If Diana wanted to remain married to Charles and Princess of Wales; her chosen strategy was very ineffective.
Double post auto-merged: April 14, 2017, 10:18:17 AM
However; if Diana's intention was to have an acrimonious divorce and dent her husband's popularity then by all means she succeeded brilliantly.
I am not saying that the collapse of the Wales marriage was all due to Camilla at all (though her behaviour certainly didn't help the marriage.) However, the demise of the Wales marriage wasn't all on Diana either, and we certainly hear a lot from those who are more sympathetic to Charles that Diana's mental state and her actions stemming from it was the primary cause of its ending.
Far from any criticism of Camilla there seems to be a complete whitewash of her actions and a huge emphasis on her bolstering and supporting and trying to make Charles happy as justification for any actions of hers that harmed Charles's marriage.
How about a bit of balance. How about a bit of examination of Charles's less attractive qualities that might have impacted on his marriage? How about his neediness and constant need for praise, his tendencies to self pity and his intellectual aggrandisement, his demeaning of his wife on several occasions in front of others, inferring that she was a brainless idiot. How about his self-absorption, ignoring of his wife's friends as uninteresting, his need to intellectualise everything?
But no, Diana was to blame for 80% of the failure of the marriage and Charles wasn't really to blame either for the other 20% because he had his true love and that made everything fine.
It all really comes down to what a person wants from the marriage or even after the marriage. To my mind there was a very fundamental difference between what Charles wanted from a wife and what Diana wanted from a husband. They could not or would not give what the other wanted. At that point relationship breakdown begins. Camilla may have helped to write the postmortem to that marriage but the end really began at the beginning. The fundamentals were just not there: love, respect, admiration, mutuality of interests etc.
Let us say that Camilla's plan (if there was any plan at all) was made so much easier by the strife in the marriage. Camilla offered a shoulder to cry on and less complicated companionship. She contrasted sharply with Diana who Charles perceived as being difficult. Charles jumped at the first opportunity to leave his marriage and refused to return despite Diana's efforts.
Diana wanted to fight but I am not too sure to what end. What was the end goal? Was it a case of venting? Did she want public sympathy? Did she want Charles back? Did she want to separate? Was it just a question of wounded pride? or Did she just want to make life tough for Charles and Camilla? I have never gotten a clear answer to these questions.
All of us who are married make compromises and accept certain things about our spouses which are not particularly pleasant to us. If and when you needle them about those inadequacies they gradually withdraw or find someone that is prepared to put up with them. Charles might be all those things that you say
@Curryong, but it is what he is. Diana chose to marry him and even later did not want to divorce him; warts and call.
It is a pointless exercise to say: "my spouse has this and this and this that is wrong with him. I am unable to change him but I do not want to separate from him or for him to find happiness with someone else". Diana had to make a very firm decision: did she want to be Charles or without him. After that she had to lay a strategy for achieving those goals.
I get the feeling that Diana was the party that wanted the marriage to continue or at least to be a normal marriage whereas Charles had completely detached. At that point you look for an amicable separation or divorce. The interim stuff of tantrums, press briefings, war of the walesses etc. is a waste of a life in my opinion.
I happen to be twice married, the second marriage has been happy. I wouldn't have accepted Charles's proposal, even at nineteen, but that's just me.
You say Diana chose to marry Charles, warts and all. Charles wailed that he was driven to propose by his father but he still proposed himself. Philip wasn't standing behind him with a shotgun. And did he accept Diana, warts and all? Did she never ever compromise for him?
You say Diana may have wanted to make life tough for Charles and Camilla. What!! He was her husband! Also did THEIR romantic association never make life tough for her? You have read, I suppose, of the incident recorded by Wharfe and others when Diana confronted Camilla at a party about the affair, and Charles was in a vile mood all the way home in the car with her. What cheek, for his wife to actually tell his mistress off! How dare she! So much more civilised to play the game!!
It's not just me that asserts that Charles has several unpleasant characteristics that probably impacted on his marriage. His self-pity, self absorption and demeaning of Diana etc have been recorded by others, some of them authors not particularly sympathetic to Diana. His latest biographer has pointed to serious flaws in Charles which you yourself in another thread on this forum agreed must make him a nightmare to live with and work for.
However, you apparently believe that Charles did little to harm his marriage and Camilla nothing, while Diana bears the majority of the blame for its failure. Well, I disagree.
With most marriages the fault can be laid at the door of both partners and it was the same with the Union of Charles and Diana.
Yes a 50:50 split of fault is what Diana actually stated in her Panorama interview. My point was that there had to come a time when Diana had to develop a strategy about what comes next. Charles was Charles. She was never going to change him and certainly the press were never going to persuade him to change or treat his wife with respect. That point was around 1986. "What comes next?" is what I was trying to discuss.
Diana laid out with great eloquence all the things that Charles did wrong in that marriage. She convinced many, many people about how unfairly she had been treated. Later on she became an icon for women who were having troublesome marriages or even some feminists/Republicans who wanted to give the royal family and Charles a bloody nose (psychologically at least).
BUT....to what end? What was the cost on Diana as a person? Did she get any long term satisfaction from what happened? Certainly none of the condemnation that Charles and Camilla faced ever persuaded them to stop or him to return to Diana. That is why I felt that the War of Walesses was an exercise in self-indulgence and childishness. An amicable and civilized divorce or even a "marriage in name only" would have been better options.
Evidently Charles has certain qualities. There are at least 3 women who have engaged in very bitter battles for him so he could not be a complete nasty. Those qualities hooked Diana, Camilla and even Kanga.
BTW I am glad you found happiness. These days one marriage is not always enough to find your true love. If you are lucky enough to get them in time, they can help you forget the nightmare of bad marriages.
Double post auto-merged: April 14, 2017, 12:37:07 PM
That confrontation scene between Diana and Camilla is rather sad to me. It just shows that at that point Diana was defeated and was effectively vacating her marriage. Some of the people that wrote about it say that Camilla responded with icy silence and a mock curtsy. Others say she rhetorically asked Diana what more she wanted when she had two beautiful children and an adoring public.
It all seems so superficial, desperate and pointless (i.e.) "let me go and confront her and we see what happens". Husband sulks and goes straight back to mistress for comforting. In the end it was Diana who spent the night crying. Camilla went back to her normal routines, not particularly perturbed by the incident. I personally would not have done such a thing. I would have sought ways of having an amicable separation or divorce if I could no longer stomach the presence of a mistress in my marriage.
You seem to think that Camilla's sneering and contemptuous reaction to Diana confronting her was perfectly acceptable. I think the exact opposite.
Charles himself indulged in some pretty childish behaviour during the War of the Wales and attempted, through Dimbleby and others, to state his side of the marriage and complain about his parents at the same time. No, Charles isn't a complete nasty, but he's no saint either, and I don't think you can overestimate the cachet that a title of heir to the throne gives when attracting women. Diana too had her champions and although certainly not a saint she was no demon either, just a deeply troubled and heartbroken woman, who died far too soon.
You are quite right, being Princess of Wales does have its attractions although some women have still refused Charles' advances despite his title.
I would not say that Camilla's response was perfectly acceptable but it was certainly the most strategic option on her part at that point. Diana was self-destructing/imploding and the last thing Camilla wanted to do was get involved in a one-to-one quarrel with her. For a start, Camilla was never going to win a PR war against Diana. It was better to just sit back and let Diana go to pieces. It is cruel but certainly not an unwise move if you want to take over someone's home. To date Camilla has pursued a policy of silence about the issue.
Yes, and no wonder! I'd keep quiet too if I were her. The full saga of Charles and Diana's marriage will never be known. Nothing official will be published in Charles and Camilla's lifetimes, for obvious reasons.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 14, 2017, 11:52:23 AM
It all really comes down to what a person wants from the marriage or even after the marriage. To my mind there was a very fundamental difference between what Charles wanted from a wife and what Diana wanted from a husband. They could not or would not give what the other wanted. At that point relationship breakdown begins. Camilla may have helped to write the postmortem to that marriage but the end really began at the beginning. The fundamentals were just not there: love, respect, admiration, mutuality of interests etc.
Let us say that Camilla's plan (if there was any plan at all) was made so much easier by the strife in the marriage. Camilla offered a shoulder to cry on and less complicated companionship. She contrasted sharply with Diana who Charles perceived as being difficult. Charles jumped at the first opportunity to leave his marriage and refused to return despite Diana's efforts.
Diana wanted to fight but I am not too sure to what end. What was the end goal? Was it a case of venting? Did she want public sympathy? Did she want Charles back? Did she want to separate? Was it just a question of wounded pride? or Did she just want to make life tough for Charles and Camilla? I have never gotten a clear answer to these questions.
All of us who are married make compromises and accept certain things about our spouses which are not particularly pleasant to us. If and when you needle them about those inadequacies they gradually withdraw or find someone that is prepared to put up with them. Charles might be all those things that you say @Curryong, but it is what he is. Diana chose to marry him and even later did not want to divorce him; warts and call.
It is a pointless exercise to say: "my spouse has this and this and this that is wrong with him. I am unable to change him but I do not want to separate from him or for him to find happiness with someone else". Diana had to make a very firm decision: did she want to be Charles or without him. After that she had to lay a strategy for achieving those goals.
I get the feeling that Diana was the party that wanted the marriage to continue or at least to be a normal marriage whereas Charles had completely detached. At that point you look for an amicable separation or divorce. The interim stuff of tantrums, press briefings, war of the walesses etc. is a waste of a life in my opinion.
Charles already "left" the marriage when he married Diana to have his heirs with and knowing he preferred Camilla. Camilla and Charles did meet at house parties, hunts, and kept in touch. the whole time. Diana should not have had to compete with Charles mistress. Charles had expectations for the marriage IMO that were unrealistic. APB accepted Charles going to Camilla for a "shoulder to cry on" but Diana did not like it.
Diana did not go to the media until ca. 1991 and after Charles friends leaked stories about Diana, and Charles did not stop them.
Double post auto-merged: April 14, 2017, 01:20:36 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 14, 2017, 12:51:13 PM
You are quite right, being Princess of Wales does have its attractions although some women have still refused Charles' advances despite his title.
I would not say that Camilla's response was perfectly acceptable but it was certainly the most strategic option on her part at that point. Diana was self-destructing/imploding and the last thing Camilla wanted to do was get involved in a one-to-one quarrel with her. For a start, Camilla was never going to win a PR war against Diana. It was better to just sit back and let Diana go to pieces. It is cruel but certainly not an unwise move if you want to take over someone's home. To date Camilla has pursued a policy of silence about the issue.
So it was OK for Charles to propose knowing he did not love her but "bad" for Diana to accept?
Diana did not "go to pieces." Camilla took over Diana's home and played hostess.
Camilla is still not well liked by all to put it mildly so she got the bling and perks but it was a trade-off what she and Charles did was not exactly endearing to the public.
Double post auto-merged: April 14, 2017, 01:21:29 PM
Quote from: Curryong on April 14, 2017, 12:37:37 PM
You seem to think that Camilla's sneering and contemptuous reaction to Diana confronting her was perfectly acceptable. I think the exact opposite.
Charles himself indulged in some pretty childish behaviour during the War of the Wales and attempted, through Dimbleby and others, to state his side of the marriage and complain about his parents at the same time. No, Charles isn't a complete nasty, but he's no saint either, and I don't think you can overestimate the cachet that a title of heir to the throne gives when attracting women. Diana too had her champions and although certainly not a saint she was no demon either, just a deeply troubled and heartbroken woman, who died far too soon.
I agree. I don't think Camilla would have been his mistress if he had not been the Prince of Wales.
Quote from: Curryong on April 14, 2017, 12:37:37 PM
You seem to think that Camilla's sneering and contemptuous reaction to Diana confronting her was perfectly acceptable. I think the exact opposite.
Charles himself indulged in some pretty childish behaviour during the War of the Wales and attempted, through Dimbleby and others, to state his side of the marriage and complain about his parents at the same time. No, Charles isn't a complete nasty, but he's no saint either, and I don't think you can overestimate the cachet that a title of heir to the throne gives when attracting women. Diana too had her champions and although certainly not a saint she was no demon either, just a deeply troubled and heartbroken woman, who died far too soon.
but the point was that she was a damaged and fragile woman.. who was not at all easy to live with. and she could IMO be quite as selfish as Charles and sometimes worse..
I can understand that perhaps it gave Di some satisfaction in some ways ot confront Camailla but ultimately it didn't do her any good. (plus in all honesty one needs a salt shaker to work out the truth of what happened, when reading what Diana said.. she was ofeten contradictory, said things that didn't make sense (that she didn't know how to use a parkng meter?? or a coin box phone?? I mean come on I'm sure she did).. and what about the thing she said about her "throwing herself downstairs?"
So when she told the story of her marriage, charles' behavour and Camilla's I'm apt to be sceptical of a lot of the thigns that she said..
In a way I agree, a strong woman would have done a whole lot worse to Charles. And I mean worse. The Old Diana was fragile excuse "forcing" Charles to sleep with a married woman is getting old IMO and does not hold water. It does not explain why Charles got involved with his friends' wives pre-Diana. I think Charles bought much dysfunction into the marriage to Diana. Diana confronting Camilla did her some good, she got things out in the open (this was after she was seeing her doctor, who encouraged her to do some confronting).
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 14, 2017, 10:09:07 AM
I know it is tempting for me to get into yet another "Camilla is good/bad debate" but I will not do that. Camilla's marriage had its own complications and she handled them very differently from Diana. To date she remains on friendly terms with her former husband, something that Diana never quite achieved.
If you read my message carefully @Curryong, you will see that I wrote about Camilla's role in giving advice and supporting Charles. Saying that it is all due to Camilla and that she is an immoral woman is a great justification but it really does nothing to support or advance the marriage. That is precisely the mistake Diana made in my view. Her strategy was "attack Camilla and make it very difficult for Charles to see her". That is a very good strategy if you want to annoy your husband and make your rival uncomfortable. However, it will not save the marriage and it did not save this one; as well we know. All that Diana succeeding in achieving with that strategy was to push Charles further and further away, as well as losing some of the somewhat positive relationships she had with some members of the royal family.
Yes Camilla is very different from Diana. Apparently Charles infinitely prefers the Camilla version of a wife (they have been together for practically 3 decades so it must mean something).
As for prioritizing the happiness of your spouse, that is very critical in my experience. If you do that, the marriage might just work. If you do not and focus on trying to fight the mistress; the chances are that you end up being divorced. It is a question of deciding what you want: do you want to shame the husband and mistress or do you want to remain married? Whatever you consider to be important will determine your strategy. If Diana wanted to remain married to Charles and Princess of Wales; her chosen strategy was very ineffective.
Double post auto-merged: April 14, 2017, 10:18:17 AM
However; if Diana's intention was to have an acrimonious divorce and dent her husband's popularity then by all means she succeeded brilliantly.
No they have not been "together" for three decades. She could not be "faithful" to Charles when she was a married woman. Charles also had other women so he was hardly "together" unless he was a polygamist.
If Charles wanted a Camilla Version of a wife then he could have pursued her as wife material instead of mistress material when he was single.
Charles was not stopped by Diana from seeing Camilla, he had the servants lie about his whereabouts.
I have to laugh at the comment about Camilla dispensing advice something like ignoring that ridiculous creature (the name she used for Diana). What a joke.
Double post auto-merged: April 14, 2017, 01:31:26 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 14, 2017, 12:51:13 PM
You are quite right, being Princess of Wales does have its attractions although some women have still refused Charles' advances despite his title.
I would not say that Camilla's response was perfectly acceptable but it was certainly the most strategic option on her part at that point. Diana was self-destructing/imploding and the last thing Camilla wanted to do was get involved in a one-to-one quarrel with her. For a start, Camilla was never going to win a PR war against Diana. It was better to just sit back and let Diana go to pieces. It is cruel but certainly not an unwise move if you want to take over someone's home. To date Camilla has pursued a policy of silence about the issue.
Oh please. For a supposedly "self destructing" person Diana did a lot of good work in her life than people who live twice her age could never claim to do. She is not the basket case you try to depict her as. She was admired by Mandela which is decidedly nothing to sneeze at. I doubt Mandela would ever write a dedication to a book about Camilla the way he did for Diana.
Camilla took over Diana's home. Diana showed up as a guest. I am glad she confronted that woman. Good for her
Camilla gave her side to the Sun for ten years and did not keep quiet.
Quote from: Curryong on April 14, 2017, 08:59:23 AM
Gee, Royal, Camilla is everything that Diana was not AND makes the Great Man happy, too, and of course that's the most important thing of all, isn't it? And not a criticism in sight of Camilla's behaviour as a married woman and a mother of two through those years when she was sleeping with Charles before and after her marriage and his. Very convenient that Diana's mental health was to blame for the collapse of the Wales marriage, indeed for everything that happened actually, including keeping the star-crossed lovers apart for so long. You sure your surname isn't Junor or Bedell Smith?
Curryong, not to say that Camilla is perfect, but did she do anything that Diana herself didn't do?? Diana was sleeping with Oliver hoare, when he was married and was so jealous of his going to see his scik daughter that she jumped out of the car, forcing him to go and find her.. She wanted him to leave his wife and kids for her.. How is that her being good and Camilla the bad one? Diana too engaged in a flirtaitotn with Will Carling who was on the verge of marriage to Julia, and then continued a firendship or affair with him that basically finished off the marriage. How is that "Diana is good and Camilla is a wicked adultress"?
if Camilla was bad for having an affair, though married and with a married man then so is Diana. If Camilla is bad for keeping up a close freindshp with her ex-lover and thus making it harder for Charles and Di to settle down into marriage together, then Diana is guilty fo the same behaviour in respect of Will and Julia Carling.
AMabel how do you know about HOare and Diana's alleged intimacy? Neither ever confirmed or denied a physical affair. Hoare is still with his wife. Camilla succeeded in breaking up a marriage and ended up with the ultimate catch of an ambitious mistress. Carling denied an affair.
Camilla was married mistress to Prince Charles and had two young children in the household. Camilla had more than a friendship with Charles.
Diana turned to others when Charles ditched her. Camilla was always involved one way or another from the get go.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 14, 2017, 08:25:19 AM
I think Campbell hit the nail on the head in terms of actually describing what happened, even though she did not like Diana. Charles married Diana with lukewarm feelings at the very best. At the time he assumed that may be he would learn to love her or alternatively that she might be like Queen Alexandra (not fighting with the mistress but focusing on her own royal duties). That way he could get the press and his parents off his back by marrying a seemingly suitable girl and having a quiet life.
Diana got hints that Charles was not that into her right from the beginning but ignored them (long absences, no physical contact and noncommittal answers about being in love), sticking to her Barbara Cartland view of the handsome prince rescuing her from abandonment in her own family. In the beginning Diana was on her best behavior and tried to fit in with the royal family. Once the ring was on her finger, she really did not have to be so accommodating. She started to assert her rights including trying to separate Charles from the Highgrove set.
At first Charles was bewildered at the change in his new wife but he did let her have free reign. Indeed Diana was quite surprised when he bolted because she thought she had finally bulldozed him into being the kind of man she wanted. There are stories of Diana insisting on having her way in everything from naming children, schedules, house decor etc. The dog banishing incidents (some have said they were incontinent) really cemented Charles' view that his wife was trying to control him and had essentially tricked him into seeing one side of her personality.
During that time Diana had bulimia and depression. I repeat: unless you have actually lived with someone that suffers from those conditions, it is nearly impossible to understand how difficult it is to live with them. There are reports of Diana spending hours crying, throwing tantrums, refusing to engage with other members of the royal family, taunting Charles about matters she knew were very sensitive to him like the crown, saying she hated everything he liked etc.
Even if you are madly in love with someone, if they start behaving like that; the love begins to fade away. For Charles it was worse because he did not even really love his wife. Any mistake or difficulty she created was exaggerated in his mind because already he was not in love with her. Now he discovered he did not even like her at all.
Charles' friend were worried about how depressed he was getting about the failing marriage (some report of how he was turning grey). Charles then confided in his mistress Camilla whom he had always been in love with but was not courageous enough to marry at the time. Camilla was everything Diana was not: accommodating, permissive, sensible, patient, discreet and very pragmatic about issues of fidelity. To Charles, it seemed that he had made a terrible mistake in marrying Diana. She was not making him happy and he was certainly not making her happy. At the time, he was afraid of divorce but when Diana started discussing the succession he became determined to get her out of his life for good through divorce.
Campbell wrote that Charles had many mistresses but Diana became obsessed with Camilla specifically because she correctly guessed that this one was going to last. That is when she started the efforts to recapture Charles but he was gone for good. Even the Hewitt affair would not move him. In her desperation she thought that if she reported him to the press, there would be such a backlash that he would have to give up his mistress. At one time Diana even enlisted the help of Kanga (a disgruntled ex-mistress) but nothing moved Charles.
Yes, there was a backlash (which exists in a certain section of the population even up to today) but Diana underestimated the stubbornness of Charles. She tried and tried but the damage to the marriage was irreparable. The press reports and the resultant attempts to bully Camilla turned mild dislike into occasional hate for Diana. Charles became more and more determined that he would never return to Diana. That to me seems like the most plausible explanation.
I believe that had Diana been properly advised, she would still be Princess of Wales and Camilla would be just the occasional or ex-mistress. As it happens, Diana's determination to punish Charles and Camilla inadvertently opened the way for them to eventually get married. I do not know how Diana would have coped with the wedding of 2005. Here was a wedding that had been soundly critiqued by the press with dire predictions of doom. All that changed nothing. The bride looked very nice for her day and it was quite clear to everyone who wanted to see that Charles was very happy. He remains happy today. I am not sure Diana would have found similar happiness with her companions. The trauma of her life was too deep.
Campbell is a gossipy writer. If she said something bad about Camilla, you would agree.
Why is it so imperative that selfish Charles be made happy? He had to reproduce so he selected Diana so he could have the heirs yet keep on his mistress. A selfish man
In Alexandra's time, no mistress would have dared to trash the wife. There is a record that Camilla did. None of Edward's mistresses would have dared place their rear end in ALexandra's chair hosting a party at the wife's house. Camilla did.
Alexandra had a husband who stayed intimate with her (for obvious reasons--they had many children). Charles ditched Diana and decreed no more children after the first two.
Big differences. Plus it was the end of the 20th century compared to about 100 years earlier when the role of women was a lot different.
Oh please enough of the dog banishing. That has been refuted ages ago. The dog went to the bathroom all over the house and needed to be put in a kennel. Charles never lost access to the dog. So Diana should have been a supportive wife by having people sludge through dog waste. GMAB.]
So Diana being accommodating should have included sharing the great man with his mistress. GMAB. Why would Charles be bewildered by her attitude unless he is a total lunkhead.
I thought women came a long way but in your view they seem to live in antiquated times and men are always right
Who is this "Campbell"?
^ Lady Colin, I believe, whose fiction includes the Queen Mother being born of a French cook called Marguerite, hence the nickname the Windsors gave her, 'Cookie'!! If Lady Colin Campbell stated that the sky was blue I'd have to pop outside to check on it! She's a dreadful person.
Quote from: Curryong on April 14, 2017, 02:06:33 PM
^ Lady Colin, I believe, whose fiction includes the Queen Mother being born of a French cook called Marguerite, hence the nickname the Windsors gave her, 'Cookie'!! If Lady Colin Campbell stated that the sky was blue I'd have to pop outside to check on it! She's a dreadful person.
Oh, the only person I could think of was Beatrix Campbell? (I think I'm remembering the name right, who was a left wing writer who wrote a book about Diana years ago).
I can remember reading Beatrix Campbell's 'Wigan Pier Revisited,' an interesting, and searing, account of poverty in 1980's Britain, but I don't think I ever read her book on Diana. I think it went into the sexual politics of her relationships or something like that.
Yes it was when Diana was being admired by some feminists and socialists as a "strong woman" and a rebel.
Double post auto-merged: April 14, 2017, 03:13:25 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 14, 2017, 08:25:19 AM
I think Campbell hit the nail on the head in terms of actually describing what happened, even though she did not like Diana. During that time Diana had bulimia and depression. I repeat: unless you have actually lived with someone that suffers from those conditions, it is nearly impossible to understand how difficult it is to live with them.
Charles' friend were worried about how depressed he was getting about the failing marriage (some report of how he was
I certainly don't agree with a lot of what you says (anad I dotn think anyone should realy use Lady C Campbell as a source because she is TOTALLY off beam most of the time)... but I DO agree about Diana's mental health making it very hard for C to live with her. Even a man very deeply in love, I think would find her hard to cope with. it wasn't her fault, she needed IMO therapy and a quieter life, but I think that no one can perhaps understand how hard it is to live iwht someone who is severely depressed.. no matter how much one might love them.
She was bulimic, which made her angry and irrational. She also cut herself, had rages and according to herself made suicide attempts. I think she may have exaggerated about the suicide attempts but I would certainly believe the self cutting.. and I think that the most patient adoring husband in the world would have found all this hard to cope with. And Charlres was fond of her, but not deeply in love.
I don't think that Camilla "had a cunning plan" to get him back or to continue their affair.. much less to marry him. I think she was always there, though, loved Charles and was ready to be a sympathetic ear when he got worn out by Diana' moods, her vomiting and so on, or fed up with their lack of compatibility. I don't believe that she was working to undermine the marriage.. even if she wanted to do that and possibly cause a scandal there was no need. The marriage was going pear shaped anyway, just because the couple were so ill matched.
There is an old English saying about sour grapes. Many of the responses here just remind me of the mindset that Diana was in at the time. She wanted to make the point (forcefully and repeatedly) that Charles was a bad person who had treated her abominably. Secondly that she was a survivor who had fought her corner. That is all very well and many even be part of the truth. It is great for the feminist movement but unfortunately it means that you lose your husband and position. In panorama Diana indicated that she did not want to do that. She still wanted to remain married to this bad guy who had mistreated her.
But the bottom line is that at the end of the day Charles left her and left her for good. Camilla the shameless adulteress ended up being married to that allegedly bad man. That is where I ask the question: what did Diana really want when she said she did not want a divorce? Was she saying she wanted to remain married to this bad man who had treated her abominably?
From a strategic point of view, Camilla has played her cards very well. She does not confront any of her detractors. It becomes a cycle of recriminations amongst themselves (even here on forums) but recriminations which in no way change the fact that Diana was pushed out and Camilla is now Charles' wife. The wronged wife role is seductive and Diana played it brilliantly. But being a wronged wife and adopting that role as your signature may not actually make you a happy woman.
Even as Diana continued to complain about what had happened to her, Charles just left and moved on with his life. The lack of popularity does not really affect Camilla's role or her marriage. It is just a peripheral concern for those who feel that Diana was badly treated. Couldn't Diana have avoided all that fuss and stress by simply working out an amicable divorce or even a separation? Quarreling and complaining for just its own sake has some relief for people who are suffering but it really does not resolve your problems.
Ultimately Diana was never happy. Her romantic life continued to be a mixture of false starts and painful breakups. Meanwhile Camilla just kept getting elevated and with Charles firmly at her side. To me that shows that Diana's strategy may have been brilliant in terms of winning her short term victories but in the long run it ended up destroying her. That is why I think the wedding in 2005 would have been a real big challenge for Diana unless by that time she was happily married. Otherwise all the old fears of abandonment would come back.
Double post auto-merged: April 14, 2017, 03:48:48 PM
@Curryong. Now I really want to read Beatrix Campbell. The 1980s were a nightmare for many mining communities in England. It was an unhappy time for scores of families and perhaps that is why Thatcher became such a hate figure.
I think that in the end Diana didn't know what she wanted. She was unhappy and angry, and lashing out. And as has often been said, she was a good tactician and won short term victotires but a bad strategist. She won a good financial divorce settlement and she kept a lot of status.. as much as could be expected..
with the publc, She got a lot of sympathy over Morton and Panorama, but in the end she alienated the RF, and the queen, she alienated many of her own class, and while I think Charles retained some feelings for her, he was fed up and wanted out fo the marriage even if he knew the Queen woud not be happy with them divorcing.
So because she didn't think long term, she didn't realise that she might not find being the ex wife of the POW so easy. Yes she had custody of the boys, shared, she had her home in KP, she had plenty of money.. but it was hard to find a new husband when you have been married ot one of the "top men" in the country. She had a lot of baggage, including a connextion to the RF who were not that fond of her any more..
She was rich but that only meant that men who were less rich, were going to feel uneasy with getting together with her..
and the RF were treating her with at best cool courtesy, the Press were less respectful.. so she looked like she hd won a lot but in fact her life was still pretty difficult. Even the public who had sympathised were less sympathetic and I think had grown fed up with the War of the waleses..
@amabel. I am in total agreement with your last post. Diana did not know what she wanted from the situation, certainly not on a long term basis. There were regrets and "what might have been" but that ship had sailed long, long time ago.
Even the divorce settlement was all smoke and mirrors. At first glance it looked wonderful but you only have to consider that Charles' current annual income is higher than the entire divorce settlement to know that Diana was sold some snake oil. Indeed Diana intimated to friends that since the divorce it was getting harder to find invitations from the aristocracy who closed ranks. It became clear that Charles had far more financial clout and influence than anything the settlement had anticipated. I am not even sure there is enough money to compensate one for losing the chance to be the queen.
Charles wasn't proactive about a divorce. He didn't move on a divorce until after Panorama when the Queen wrote to both parties and requested it. So it wasn't as if he was chomping at the bit and doing all these things to get himself completely disentangled.
Camilla wasn't 'elevated' at all during Diana's lifetime. In fact she and Charles kept things very very low key. Diana was dead within a year or so of the divorce and so didn't get a chance to move on. As SBS has written, the drama connected with Diana's divorce and funeral meant that Camilla went to ground again, for months. When she was finally 'elevated' the PTB at BP and Charles's advisers made sure that she did not use the title of Princess of Wales because of the probable public backlash, instead going for the less controversial, less senior title.
Maybe Camilla believes she has 'won' as she moved in on Diana's husband and ultimately became his wife. Mistresses sometimes do 'win'.
However, she remains an unpopular figure, Charles scarcely less so, and even if they both live until their nineties Charles's first marriage, the circumstances of its breakup and of Camilla's part in it will remain. Every biography written about Charles through the centuries after his death will contain that portion of his life. It might still impact on Charles's Coronation in that Camilla may be Princess Consort not Queen Consort.
I have zero respect for Camilla, in fact probably less than zero, and judging by opinion polls over the past decade there are plenty who agree with me.
As for Charles, I'm a life long monarchist from a monarchist family. However, although I respect Charles's hard work as POW and his Princes Trust, the events of the 1990's have seriously tainted my view of him, and my respect for him as my future King. (As I can't stand the Cambridges either for all sorts of reasons including laziness and paranoia about their privacy while playing the press like a harp when it suits them, the beliefs of my lifetime are under serious threat when the Queen dies.)
The next time Australia has a referendum on a republic will be after the Queen's death. I felt strongly about things last time and voted No, but when it comes around again I will vote Yes. This is in spite of my belief in a monarchy being the best form of government, but I just don't want two adulterers on the throne, including one who inserted herself into her lover's marriage and worked actively to destroy it. It goes against everything I believe in in marriage.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 14, 2017, 07:39:30 PM
@amabel. I am in total agreement with your last post. Diana did not know what she wanted from the situation, certainly not on a long term basis. There were regrets and "what might have been" but that ship had sailed long, long time ago.
Even the divorce settlement was all smoke and mirrors. At first glance it looked wonderful but you only have to consider that Charles' current annual income is higher than the entire divorce settlement to know that Diana was sold some snake oil. Indeed Diana intimated to friends that since the divorce it was getting harder to find invitations from the aristocracy who closed ranks. It became clear that Charles had far more financial clout and influence than anything the settlement had anticipated. I am not even sure there is enough money to compensate one for losing the chance to be the queen.
I never read that Diana told friends she did not get invitations from aristocracy and found it "harder" to get them. Why should she? These are the same people who were nice to her face while providing safe houses for C and C. Diana had her own circle of friends.
I think Diana was well rid of Prince Charles.
Double post auto-merged: April 14, 2017, 10:27:35 PM
Quote from: amabel on April 14, 2017, 04:12:40 PM
I think that in the end Diana didn't know what she wanted. She was unhappy and angry, and lashing out. And as has often been said, she was a good tactician and won short term victotires but a bad strategist. She won a good financial divorce settlement and she kept a lot of status.. as much as could be expected..
with the publc, She got a lot of sympathy over Morton and Panorama, but in the end she alienated the RF, and the queen, she alienated many of her own class, and while I think Charles retained some feelings for her, he was fed up and wanted out fo the marriage even if he knew the Queen woud not be happy with them divorcing.
So because she didn't think long term, she didn't realise that she might not find being the ex wife of the POW so easy. Yes she had custody of the boys, shared, she had her home in KP, she had plenty of money.. but it was hard to find a new husband when you have been married ot one of the "top men" in the country. She had a lot of baggage, including a connextion to the RF who were not that fond of her any more..
She was rich but that only meant that men who were less rich, were going to feel uneasy with getting together with her..
and the RF were treating her with at best cool courtesy, the Press were less respectful.. so she looked like she hd won a lot but in fact her life was still pretty difficult. Even the public who had sympathised were less sympathetic and I think had grown fed up with the War of the waleses..
Diana seemed pretty goal oriented after the divorce, she was talking to Blair and others about carving out a role for herself in charities and various causes including the Anti Landmine Campaign. She was focused enough to sell her iconic gowns for charity in 1997 and do some planning for her future.
I doubt Diana would have rushed into another marriage. Charles may have been "important" but I doubt she would want someone like him. She was well rid of him.
I doubt she cared that the royals (or some) were not "fond of her." She was not fond of them.
Double post auto-merged: April 14, 2017, 10:32:27 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 14, 2017, 03:43:18 PM
There is an old English saying about sour grapes. Many of the responses here just remind me of the mindset that Diana was in at the time. She wanted to make the point (forcefully and repeatedly) that Charles was a bad person who had treated her abominably. Secondly that she was a survivor who had fought her corner. That is all very well and many even be part of the truth. It is great for the feminist movement but unfortunately it means that you lose your husband and position. In panorama Diana indicated that she did not want to do that. She still wanted to remain married to this bad guy who had mistreated her.
But the bottom line is that at the end of the day Charles left her and left her for good. Camilla the shameless adulteress ended up being married to that allegedly bad man. That is where I ask the question: what did Diana really want when she said she did not want a divorce? Was she saying she wanted to remain married to this bad man who had treated her abominably?
From a strategic point of view, Camilla has played her cards very well. She does not confront any of her detractors. It becomes a cycle of recriminations amongst themselves (even here on forums) but recriminations which in no way change the fact that Diana was pushed out and Camilla is now Charles' wife. The wronged wife role is seductive and Diana played it brilliantly. But being a wronged wife and adopting that role as your signature may not actually make you a happy woman.
Even as Diana continued to complain about what had happened to her, Charles just left and moved on with his life. The lack of popularity does not really affect Camilla's role or her marriage. It is just a peripheral concern for those who feel that Diana was badly treated. Couldn't Diana have avoided all that fuss and stress by simply working out an amicable divorce or even a separation? Quarreling and complaining for just its own sake has some relief for people who are suffering but it really does not resolve your problems.
Ultimately Diana was never happy. Her romantic life continued to be a mixture of false starts and painful breakups. Meanwhile Camilla just kept getting elevated and with Charles firmly at her side. To me that shows that Diana's strategy may have been brilliant in terms of winning her short term victories but in the long run it ended up destroying her. That is why I think the wedding in 2005 would have been a real big challenge for Diana unless by that time she was happily married. Otherwise all the old fears of abandonment would come back.
Double post auto-merged: April 14, 2017, 03:48:48 PM
@Curryong. Now I really want to read Beatrix Campbell. The 1980s were a nightmare for many mining communities in England. It was an unhappy time for scores of families and perhaps that is why Thatcher became such a hate figure.
IMO Camilla was and is pushy and aggressive which got her where she is today. She IMO is a lot like Wallis Simpson, only she got to be a royal with an HRH.
Camilla "elevated?" Not everybody can stand her and she is controversial since not everyone adores her and what she stands for. A person can have medals and titles and still be a snake.
Diana was with a man who was openly contemptuous of her, she'd have to be a martyr to stay in such a marriage. If she wanted to stay in the marriage there would have been no Morton book (she also was retaliating against Charles' friends leaking nasty stories about her to the media).
The feminist movement means that a woman does not have to be a doormat and put up and shut up while he is with his mistress. A royal family member and a senior one like Charles can still be a jerk. They are not angelic despite the HRH.
Charles moved on with his life after he achieved his goal, have an heir and spare with the suitable wife.
Double post auto-merged: April 14, 2017, 10:34:58 PM
Quote from: amabel on April 14, 2017, 03:02:23 PM
Yes it was when Diana was being admired by some feminists and socialists as a "strong woman" and a rebel.
Double post auto-merged: April 14, 2017, 03:13:25 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 14, 2017, 08:25:19 AM
I think Campbell hit the nail on the head in terms of actually describing what happened, even though she did not like Diana. During that time Diana had bulimia and depression. I repeat: unless you have actually lived with someone that suffers from those conditions, it is nearly impossible to understand how difficult it is to live with them.
Charles' friend were worried about how depressed he was getting about the failing marriage (some report of how he was
I certainly don't agree with a lot of what you says (anad I dotn think anyone should realy use Lady C Campbell as a source because she is TOTALLY off beam most of the time)... but I DO agree about Diana's mental health making it very hard for C to live with her. Even a man very deeply in love, I think would find her hard to cope with. it wasn't her fault, she needed IMO therapy and a quieter life, but I think that no one can perhaps understand how hard it is to live iwht someone who is severely depressed.. no matter how much one might love them.
She was bulimic, which made her angry and irrational. She also cut herself, had rages and according to herself made suicide attempts. I think she may have exaggerated about the suicide attempts but I would certainly believe the self cutting.. and I think that the most patient adoring husband in the world would have found all this hard to cope with. And Charlres was fond of her, but not deeply in love.
I don't think that Camilla "had a cunning plan" to get him back or to continue their affair.. much less to marry him. I think she was always there, though, loved Charles and was ready to be a sympathetic ear when he got worn out by Diana' moods, her vomiting and so on, or fed up with their lack of compatibility. I don't believe that she was working to undermine the marriage.. even if she wanted to do that and possibly cause a scandal there was no need. The marriage was going pear shaped anyway, just because the couple were so ill matched.
ANd it was easy to live with Charles? A self centered self entitled man who felt himself the center of the Universe and before he married was involved with his friends' wives. Her "vomiting" and "moods" came from stress. Better to be with someone who "vomits" than a person who feels it OK to sleep with his friends' wives.
The thing is if Charles only felt "fond" of her he should not have married her to get his heirs. It was a dishonest thing for him to do.
Quote from: SophieChloe on April 13, 2017, 06:25:22 PM
Opening Post : Whilst it is lovely to see you back here @Duch_Luver_4ever. And whilst it "may be agreeable to You" I'm a tad concerned that you have turned this into your own * Speakers Corner*.
QuoteWhile I cant speculate if they will step back from the forum as well, it likely affects their enjoyment of the forum.
Quote
From there, you all can run with it and I may PM a few of you about it, but that way those of you that still want to see my ideas can see them, and those that don't can ignore them, and I dont have to deal with the issue of the subject matters own words linked and referenced being cast out as utter rubbish. So here's my first "digest"
This Forum is meant for all Members to give their thoughts - whether they agree with you or not - they should not be requested to "ignore".
I shall be keeping a close eye on your "digest",
By all means, you and anyone else can keep an eye on it, its far from a speakers corner, its merely a way to pose some of the questions and ideas I have about C&C&D in a way that will work better for everyone, but I did have myself foremost in mind.
As for other members use and enjoyment of the forum, while I cannot speak for them, and do not wish to betray anything said to me in PM's, etc. I can "read between the lines" so to speak when i took a look around a week or so ago at work at the threads. Im not requesting people that disagree with me to ignore, im merely saying they have that option if they arent interested in what i have to say.
I dont want to toot my horn, but some people did express a wish I would return, and while I didnt get messages or mentions from everyone, I can only speculate theres a wide spectrum of people's enthusiasm of my return, and I did want anyone to feel obligated to partake, as i often ask uncomfortable questions that try to get at the root or deeper motivations of the events of that era, and while I'm squarely in Diana's corner, not everyone agrees with my pragmatic approach of seeing a larger view of things.
I am glad to see so much activity on it over the last two days, I just had a chance to peek in now.
Undoubtedly Diana is far more popular than either Charles or Camilla will ever be
@Curryong. If that was her intention then she succeeded brilliantly. Their lives are forever tainted by the events of 1981 to 1997. I am sure there are many, many people who have less than zero respect for Charles and Camilla. The opinion polls are certainly nothing compared to what Diana enjoyed at some point in her life.
But for what purpose? What was the cost to achieve that situation? Who is benefiting or losing out? Do Charles and Camilla rest uneasy because they are not popular? Is anyone seeing them stressed in any way when they do their public or private functions? Did it prevent them from getting married or staying married? What is the value of all the public love in the world if your personal life is in a mess? Do people live their lives and guide their policies based on opinion polls alone?
Now for that great adulterers who have designs on the British throne. I hope people do remember that the list of monarchs is littered with adulterers and sinners of all sorts. Even Diana herself was a self-confessed adulterer and was also involved with a married man. So you see, it boils down to a cycle of recriminations. "Charles and Camilla are bad; Diana was good". That may be true but that did not bring Diana an ounce of happiness.
Camilla started off as a reviled housewife of a minor aristocrat, vilified by the press for her adultery and role in destroying the fairy tale marriage. Within a space of less than 20 years, she is now the Princess of Wales with a realistic prospect of becoming Queen consort. That is some elevation and one that has never been achieved by anyone in history save for perhaps Anne Boleyn.
For my part, I would have said goodbye to the marriage at the earliest opportunity if I was unhappy with the man and situation. Diana chose to stay and even in the end wanted to remain despite the fact that her husband/his family wanted a divorce. Charles was not very active in the divorce until his mother insisted but he had left Diana in 1986 and never returned to her bed as far as we know. I can think of few clearer ways of telling someone you want out than ceasing intimate relationships with them. That was the time to arrange an amicable divorce instead of engaging in the war of the walesses.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 14, 2017, 07:39:30 PM
@amabel. I am in total agreement with your last post. Diana did not know what she wanted from the situation, certainly not on a long term basis. There were regrets and "what might have been" but that ship had sailed long, long time ago.
Even the
I don't believe she was "sold snake oil". As I understand it most of charles' wealth was tied up in various things and a lot of his income comes from the duchy of Cornwall so he had to borrow from the queen to pay Diana her £17m. She did well but in the end of course her money came back to her sons.
I think she got a pretty good settlement financially and in terms of being allowed to keep up a public role...
but there was indeed a certain loss of friendship from the upper class courtiers ciricle as she had alienated many of them by criticising the RF and Charles and outing his affair. and the RF were also cool, naturally. I think the queen still tried ot stay friendly with her out of a desire not to give the public and press something to talk about and for the boys' sake.. but Diana was still uneasy and didn't feel comfortable when invited for Xmas etc. So she was lonely, and I think she had not quite realised that losing her position as future queen would make life so difficult. I think she had hoped that it would set her free to make a new life and find a new partner and she was free- but it wasn't easy. She was now mixing with celebrities, and "super rich people" like the Fayeds, who were largely out for what they could get from friendship or romance with her.
So IMO she had made a big mistake in publicising Cs affair and outing the problems in the marriage and setting out along the road to divorce. She would have bene better to have stayed in her marriage.
That is precisely why wisdom beats emotions most of the time. Had Diana considered what it really meant to be divorced and what the implications of Morton/Panorama really were; she probably would be still Princess of Wales. She chose the battling route and it won her many praises from the feminists/republicans but in the end it never really got her any happiness. Dodi al Fayed may have been a good man but he was very poor compensation for the loss of the Prince of Wales IMO.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 15, 2017, 06:17:29 AM
Undoubtedly Diana is far more popular than either Charles or Camilla will ever be @Curryong. If that was her intention then she succeeded brilliantly.
Now for that great adulterers who have designs on the British throne. I hope people do remember that the list of monarchs is littered with adulterers and sinners of all sorts. Even Diana herself was a self-confessed adulterer and was also involved with a married man. So you see, it boils down to a cycle of recriminations. "Charles and Camilla are bad; Diana was good". That may be true but that did not bring Diana an ounce of happiness.
I don't know why but this post didn't show up at first when I looked . Agian Royal I think that you're not quite correct. There was no possilbity of Diana "arranging an amicilabe divorce". She HAD to stay in the marriage. She was not able to wlak out like an ordinary woman. YOu can't blame her for "choosing to stay in the marriage..."
She had to stay, the only way she could get a divorce would have been to create a scandal (which was what she did) or to go on bashing away at the queen over and over and trying to persuade her to sanction a divorce.
Charles would have liked a divorce I think after the first few years, but he knew he could not have one so he quietly got on with his life and spent his time with Camilla and I am sure that he felt this was the best way - the only way to go.. and that if Di also wanted a private sex and love life, he would not interfere as long as she was discreet.
Again if he was very determined perhaps he might have worn the queen down if he and Di had both nagged on at her and told her that they were miserable together and that they felt worried that their estrangement might become publicly known, if it went on too long.
I don't know if I agree that Chares and Cam are "forever tainted." I don't believe that most people are very worried about them. There are some hardline Diana fans who will never forgive them.. and some Hihg Anlgicans disapprove of the divorce.. but overall most people have become indifferent. they accept Camilla as his wife.. they are busy with their own lives and their OWN divorces!!
I think that years ago it was felt that the monarchy would end if Chas married a divorced woman but as time went by, the hot and heavy feelings cooled and people just shrugged and accepted the issue. The world changes and moves on.
So I agree that I don't think that Charles and Cam are worrying that much. Of course they're not as poplular as some royal couples but they do ok, and they are still the future King and Queen..
I DO agree that it is odd that some people feel that they can't accept Charles and Camilla as they were "adulterers" when (a) many kings have bene adulterers..and (b) if Charles and Di had bene King and Queen they TOO would "both be adulterers".
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 07:22:38 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 15, 2017, 07:15:46 AM
That is precisely why wisdom beats emotions most of the time. Had Diana considered what it really meant to be divorced and what the implications of Morton/Panorama really were; she probably would be still Princess of Wales. She chose the battling route and it won her many praises from the feminists/republicans but in the end it never really got her any happiness. Dodi al Fayed may have been a good man but he was very poor compensation for the loss of the Prince of Wales IMO.
Dodi a good man?? Hardly. NOt a bad guy but IMO far less of an interesting and likable man than Charlres was. He was a lightweight, who lived off his father's money and didn't even settle his bills half the time. He was good natured and pleasant.. and potentially very rich but he'd never had a job, or achieved ANY success at anything in the work world.
I think that he was CERTAINLY poor compensation for Diana's positon as Princess of W and the good work she could do there, esp as he was involved wht anothter woman whom he had been planning to marry..
I hope that Di would have ended her affair with hm.. She did refer to it to some friends as a "summer romance" ad there are signs that she was getting fed up with him, by his habit of fussing over things and the sloppy disorganised life he led, the bodyguards who were hired and not allowed to do their job etc. I don't think that Diana who liked things to be very settled and organised -was happy with him by the time she'd been with him a few weeks..
Odds are that she might have ended the affair when the summer was over, and just remembered the pleasant bits..
I'm a history buff. Can you point to any crowned kings, queens and their consorts in modern British history who were BOTH adulterers, (and both divorced) and the world knew it.
King George VI/Elizabeth, George V/ Mary, Edward VII/ Alexandra, all of whom were crowned monarch and consort in the Abbey. Victoria's Albert wasn't crowned as a consort nor was Philip. However neither Victoria nor Albert were unfaithful to each other. If there is a question mark over Philip there is certainly no evidence the Queen has ever been unfaithful.
How far back do we go? William IV and Queen Adelaide? No. George IV was an adulterer but wouldn't allow his estranged wife Caroline to be crowned with him. King George III and Charlotte. Any evidence of adultery there? No? George II and Caroline of Ansbach, Adulterers? No! I think I'll stop there. If you can tell me of any kings, queens AND their consorts after Henry VIII, I'd like to know.
Sally Bedell Smith has written of Charles's perturbation that his son and wife, Kate and Will were/are likely to overshadow Charles and Camilla in popularity and his criticism of their 2012 Canadian tour which drew massive crowds. He criticised elements of it such as 'tasteless Photo ops'. SBS observed that he and his wife's later visit was overshadowed by this one. Charles didn't like the rockstar receptions his young sons received as they grew to manhood. There are observations in SBS's book about it.
Far from Charles being above observing the popularity of his sons and daughter in law I would suggest that, knowing that bringing crowds out to see you is part of the job of being a Royal, he keeps a sharp eye on this aspect.
It's long been known that he gets exasperated and frustrated when his sons' and Kate's charities get maximum front page publicity while his own causes struggle for oxygen. If you aren't very popular then few come to see you and your charities lose out. That's just common sense.
I really do question whether Charles' work is over-shadowed or lacks oxygen. The Princes' Trust is by far the most effective, efficiently run and impactful royal charity to date. Likewise the Duchy of Cornwall is the most profitable royal estate to date. Charles inherited it when it was in the red and he has turned it round to a profit of nearly $40 million per year. The fact that some people choose to ignore Charles' work and focus on the past problems in his private life does in no way impede the effectiveness of his work. I am also one of those people that do not like royal celebrities who are always chasing opinion polls.
Charles is a much more effective royal than William, Harry, Kate etc in terms of actually substantially changing lives. By their age, Charles had lots and lots of projects to show. Even if he were to die today, there would be plenty of things to remember Charles by. He is continuing to change lives in a very meaningful way; even though the press wants to ignore/denigrate that work.
Having good photo-ops or being photogenic does not equate to effectiveness and hard work. I wish the royals would go back to doing their duty instead of becoming celebs. Celebrity and the paparazzi brought Diana to a sticky end. I for one would like a return to more duty and less holidays.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 09:16:54 AM
@Curryong. Virtually all kings of this kingdom (save for a few notable Windsors and one Saxe Coburg) had mistresses. The Stuarts had plenty of them. Diana is descended from a royal mistress. Caroline was called a name I will not repeat here. Chastity or sexual morality have need been recognized as prerequisites to ascending the throne.
That wasn't the question I asked though. I asked whether, in modern history, any British King AND his consort were known adulterers and were BOTH crowned as monarch and queen consort. There aren't any.
I don't think any royals chase opinion polls. The reputable ones like YouGov are commissioned by various public bodies. However, unless we ask every single individual adult British citizen their views on the monarchy then opinion polls are all we've got to go on.
Yes, Charles's Princes Trust is wonderful and well managed. SBS praises it and the fact that Charles is a hard worker. However, your contention is that popularity doesn't matter to the POW and he doesn't take note of it.
My contention is that on the contrary, public perception of individual royals and the popularity that brings crowds to engagements is important and Charles recognises this.
Bedell Smith simply points out, as others have, Charles's unease about the Cambridges and Harry's popular appeal with the public, both in Britain and in the Commonwealth. It's the same unease that we saw when he was with the charismatic Diana.
Quote from: Curryong on April 15, 2017, 08:52:07 AM
I'm a history buff. Can you point to any crowned kings, queens and their consorts in modern British history who were BOTH adulterers, (and both divorced) and the world knew it.
King George VI/Elizabeth, George V/ Mary, Edward VII/ Alexandra, all of whom were crowned monarch and consort in the Abbey. Victoria's Albert wasn't crowned as a consort nor was Philip. However neither Victoria nor Albert were unfaithful to each other. If there is a question mark over Philip there is certainly no evidence the Queen has ever been unfaithful.
How far back do we go? William IV and Queen Adelaide? No. George IV was an adulterer but wouldn't allow his estranged wife Caroline to be crowned with him. King George III and Charlotte. Any evidence of adultery there? No? George II and Caroline of Ansbach, Adulterers? No! I think I'll stop there. If you can tell me of any kings, queens AND their consorts after Henry VIII, I'd like to know.
It's
but you can't compare the 19th C to now.. back then it was acceptable for men to have mistresses and generally speaking NOT for women to have lovers, outside marriage. Of course in the 18th and 19th C's at least there was often a bit of leeway for upper class women to take lovers once they had produced a few heirs for their husbands- but because of the greater significance of the throne, that leeway wasn't there for royal wives. Now the world is different. Divorce was rare until the 20th C. now its commonplace.
and if it was OK for royal men to be crowned king when they were known adulterers or divorced..are you saying "its worse because CAMILLA is also an "adulteress" and will be crowned Queen??
and as I've said (sorry, I m having trouble with seeing soem posts so I don't know if you have answered it, if Charles and Diana had gotten to the throne, together, they would BOTH be adulterers being crowned king and Queen..
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 10:17:54 AM
Quote from: Curryong on April 15, 2017, 09:28:54 AM
That wasn't the question I asked though. I asked whether, in modern history, any British King AND his consort were known adulterers and were BOTH crowned as monarch and queen consort. There aren't any.
I don't think any royals chase opinion polls. The reputable ones like YouGov are commissioned by various public bodies. However, unless we ask every single individual adult British citizen their views on the monarchy then opinion polls are all we've got to go on.
Yes, Charles's Princes Trust is wonderful and well managed. SBS praises it and the fact that Charles is a hard worker. However, your contention is that popularity doesn't matter to the POW and he doesn't take note of it.
My
I think that he certainly takes note of it, he'd be an idiot not to. They would all be idiots not to. however in the end, unless he gets drastically unlucky or does something really dumb, he's POW and he's on track to be King. Opinion polls don't govern the succession.
I haven't read the book, not inclined to think Hightly of Bedell Smith, but she was certainly quite vicious about Diana.. so I wonder why her perceptions of Charles are likely to be accurate? Is he really jealous of Harry or the Cambridges? Or does he accept that they are young and "pretty" (well Kate is) and likely to outsihine an older man like him in the Press's attentions?
I thnk he probably has accepted that as man of 69 the younger ones are going to have more spotlight than him. And I am very sure that he's aware thtat HIS work has been a lot more solid and worthwhile than the rather aimless ways of his sons and daughter in law...
if He DID die tomorrow, he would have a body of work he could be proud of.. Not so sure that Will and Kate could say the same if they were older. They will have to bump up their work rate as time goe on but I think they'll always do the minimum..
The thread is hotting up nicely and I love it. I am even missing some posts :hehe:
I would hope that Charles has grown up a lot since the days of feeling jealous about the wife. I know that the press like to create mischief but as a mature person, you simply ignore their click bait. I hear Charles never reads the newspapers in order to insulate himself from their vitriol.
William and Kate sometimes worry me a little bit. It is always about "being normal" and the occasional duties. That strikes me as self-indulgence. William's parents were bickering but nobody can accuse them of being lazy. It is staggering to consider the amount of work that they both did in the 1980s and 1990s. By contrast their children seem to want to sit back and enjoy.
Of course Charles is aware of what the media says. He is not some monk sequestered from the outside world. He works with the Media and hired a PR guru Mark Bolland to help promote Camilla. The royals get all the papers delivered. This is a known fact. I think you heard wrong. Charles is well aware of the criticism and does damage control.
Quote from: amabel on April 15, 2017, 10:03:10 AM
Quote from: Curryong on April 15, 2017, 08:52:07 AM
I'm a history buff. Can you point to any crowned kings, queens and their consorts in modern British history who were BOTH adulterers, (and both divorced) and the world knew it.
King George VI/Elizabeth, George V/ Mary, Edward VII/ Alexandra, all of whom were crowned monarch and consort in the Abbey. Victoria's Albert wasn't crowned as a consort nor was Philip. However neither Victoria nor Albert were unfaithful to each other. If there is a question mark over Philip there is certainly no evidence the Queen has ever been unfaithful.
How far back do we go? William IV and Queen Adelaide? No. George IV was an adulterer but wouldn't allow his estranged wife Caroline to be crowned with him. King George III and Charlotte. Any evidence of adultery there? No? George II and Caroline of Ansbach, Adulterers? No! I think I'll stop there. If you can tell me of any kings, queens AND their consorts after Henry VIII, I'd like to know.
It's
but you can't compare the 19th C to now.. back then it was acceptable for men to have mistresses and generally speaking NOT for women to have lovers, outside marriage. Of course in the 18th and 19th C's at least there was often a bit of leeway for upper class women to take lovers once they had produced a few heirs for their husbands- but because of the greater significance of the throne, that leeway wasn't there for royal wives. Now the world is different. Divorce was rare until the 20th C. now its commonplace.
and if it was OK for royal men to be crowned king when they were known adulterers or divorced..are you saying "its worse because CAMILLA is also an "adulteress" and will be crowned Queen??
and as I've said (sorry, I m having trouble with seeing soem posts so I don't know if you have answered it, if Charles and Diana had gotten to the throne, together, they would BOTH be adulterers being crowned king and Queen..
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 10:17:54 AM
Quote from: Curryong on April 15, 2017, 09:28:54 AM
That wasn't the question I asked though. I asked whether, in modern history, any British King AND his consort were known adulterers and were BOTH crowned as monarch and queen consort. There aren't any.
I don't think any royals chase opinion polls. The reputable ones like YouGov are commissioned by various public bodies. However, unless we ask every single individual adult British citizen their views on the monarchy then opinion polls are all we've got to go on.
Yes, Charles's Princes Trust is wonderful and well managed. SBS praises it and the fact that Charles is a hard worker. However, your contention is that popularity doesn't matter to the POW and he doesn't take note of it.
My
I think that he certainly takes note of it, he'd be an idiot not to. They would all be idiots not to. however in the end, unless he gets drastically unlucky or does something really dumb, he's POW and he's on track to be King. Opinion polls don't govern the succession.
I haven't read the book, not inclined to think Hightly of Bedell Smith, but she was certainly quite vicious about Diana.. so I wonder why her perceptions of Charles are likely to be accurate? Is he really jealous of Harry or the Cambridges? Or does he accept that they are young and "pretty" (well Kate is) and likely to outsihine an older man like him in the Press's attentions?
I thnk he probably has accepted that as man of 69 the younger ones are going to have more spotlight than him. And I am very sure that he's aware thtat HIS work has been a lot more solid and worthwhile than the rather aimless ways of his sons and daughter in law...
if He DID die tomorrow, he would have a body of work he could be proud of.. Not so sure that Will and Kate could say the same if they were older. They will have to bump up their work rate as time goe on but I think they'll always do the minimum..
It's all what ifs. Had Charles not had his extramarital affair, Diana most likely would not have had hers, neither would have been adulterers in the marriage. Camilla was the other woman, not Diana. Diana and Charles were married.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 11:11:40 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 15, 2017, 06:17:29 AM
Undoubtedly Diana is far more popular than either Charles or Camilla will ever be @Curryong. If that was her intention then she succeeded brilliantly. Their lives are forever tainted by the events of 1981 to 1997. I am sure there are many, many people who have less than zero respect for Charles and Camilla. The opinion polls are certainly nothing compared to what Diana enjoyed at some point in her life.
But for what purpose? What was the cost to achieve that situation? Who is benefiting or losing out? Do Charles and Camilla rest uneasy because they are not popular? Is anyone seeing them stressed in any way when they do their public or private functions? Did it prevent them from getting married or staying married? What is the value of all the public love in the world if your personal life is in a mess? Do people live their lives and guide their policies based on opinion polls alone?
Now for that great adulterers who have designs on the British throne. I hope people do remember that the list of monarchs is littered with adulterers and sinners of all sorts. Even Diana herself was a self-confessed adulterer and was also involved with a married man. So you see, it boils down to a cycle of recriminations. "Charles and Camilla are bad; Diana was good". That may be true but that did not bring Diana an ounce of happiness.
Camilla started off as a reviled housewife of a minor aristocrat, vilified by the press for her adultery and role in destroying the fairy tale marriage. Within a space of less than 20 years, she is now the Princess of Wales with a realistic prospect of becoming Queen consort. That is some elevation and one that has never been achieved by anyone in history save for perhaps Anne Boleyn.
For my part, I would have said goodbye to the marriage at the earliest opportunity if I was unhappy with the man and situation. Diana chose to stay and even in the end wanted to remain despite the fact that her husband/his family wanted a divorce. Charles was not very active in the divorce until his mother insisted but he had left Diana in 1986 and never returned to her bed as far as we know. I can think of few clearer ways of telling someone you want out than ceasing intimate relationships with them. That was the time to arrange an amicable divorce instead of engaging in the war of the walesses.
Elevation? Camilla? The way she got where she is today is hardly admirable. Charles had to try to whitewash the sordidness and it took them 8 years to marry after Diana's death. She still is controversial.
Diana could not arrange an "amicable" divorce she was supposed to put up and shut up or would possibly lose custody of the children if she walked away from the marriage. Charles left Diana before 1986.
I doubt Diana would have moved on had Charles really worked on the marriage and stopped seeing or contacting Camilla from the get go.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 11:14:54 AM
Quote from: amabel on April 15, 2017, 06:57:04 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 14, 2017, 07:39:30 PM
@amabel. I am in total agreement with your last post. Diana did not know what she wanted from the situation, certainly not on a long term basis. There were regrets and "what might have been" but that ship had sailed long, long time ago.
Even the
I don't believe she was "sold snake oil". As I understand it most of charles' wealth was tied up in various things and a lot of his income comes from the duchy of Cornwall so he had to borrow from the queen to pay Diana her £17m. She did well but in the end of course her money came back to her sons.
I think she got a pretty good settlement financially and in terms of being allowed to keep up a public role...
but there was indeed a certain loss of friendship from the upper class courtiers ciricle as she had alienated many of them by criticising the RF and Charles and outing his affair. and the RF were also cool, naturally. I think the queen still tried ot stay friendly with her out of a desire not to give the public and press something to talk about and for the boys' sake.. but Diana was still uneasy and didn't feel comfortable when invited for Xmas etc. So she was lonely, and I think she had not quite realised that losing her position as future queen would make life so difficult. I think she had hoped that it would set her free to make a new life and find a new partner and she was free- but it wasn't easy. She was now mixing with celebrities, and "super rich people" like the Fayeds, who were largely out for what they could get from friendship or romance with her.
So IMO she had made a big mistake in publicising Cs affair and outing the problems in the marriage and setting out along the road to divorce. She would have bene better to have stayed in her marriage.
If you read Morton, Diana did not out any affair. Camilla was referred throughout the book as Charles "friend." NOt mistress, not lover. People could read between the lines. Charles friends commented and said it was only platonic friendship with C and C. No affair. Diana never told MOrton Charles and Camilla were lovers. Ever.
It took Charles blundering interview in 1994 to force the PB divorce. Charles named Camilla and only Charles spelled out the relationship. The PBs kept up the facade of marriage after the Morton book but they could no longer do so after Charles confessed all in 1994.
As you know, Harry is a favourite of mine and the Cambridges aren't, for lots of reasons. None of the trio do enough Royal duties at all, although they will have to step it up soon as Prince Philip in particular isn't going to last forever. The two princes are doing more this year than last, thank heavens and it looks as if the transition to being Royal full time is on, and certainly not before time.
However, in my view it is ridiculous to take the position that Charles is so highminded that he doesn't care about his own popularity or that of his wife, when biographies have given examples of him minding and of his sniping, for instance about a very successful tour by his son and daughter in law followed by his and Camilla's less successful one. SBS quoted some of the things he has said, she's interviewed people on his staff, and it's clear he does mind about the younger royals' popular appeal overshadowing him.
Amabel, yes, if Diana had lived she and Charles would both have been adulterers, which is not good at all, ever. However, Camilla interfered in the marriage of the heir to the throne, not slept with a rather silly army major or louche art dealer. Charles's adultery could have had constitutional complications. As you know, his fitness for the throne was briefly discussed because of his affair with Camilla.
Amabel, If you object to historical couples, (though there were several on my list whose marriages were 20th century ones) then take a look at foreign couples who are King and Queen now, or Queen regnant and consort. Can you point to any on the thrones of Norway, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands etc in which both individuals ascended the throne as monarch and consort and BOTH were/are known as having been consistently unfaithful to their marital partners? It's only the throne of the U.K. where that is so, and as a result that throne is demeaned, IMO.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 11:28:25 AM
As you know, Harry is a favourite of mine and the Cambridges aren't, for lots of reasons. None of the trio do enough Royal duties at all, although they will have to step it up soon as Prince Philip in particular isn't going to last forever. The two princes are doing more this year than last, thank heavens and it looks as if the transition to being Royal full time is on, and certainly not before time.
However, in my view it is ridiculous to take the position that Charles is so highminded that he doesn't care about his own popularity or that of his wife, when biographies have given examples of him minding and of his sniping, for instance about a very successful tour by his son and daughter in law followed by his and Camilla's less successful one. SBS quoted some of the things he has said, she's interviewed people on his staff, and it's clear he does mind about the younger royals' popular appeal overshadowing him.
Amabel, yes, if Diana had lived she and Charles would both have been adulterers, which is not good at all, ever. However, Camilla interfered in the marriage of the heir to the throne, not slept with a rather silly army major or louche art dealer. Charles's adultery could have had constitutional complications. As you know, his fitness for the throne was briefly discussed because of his affair with Camilla.
Amabel, If you object to historical couples, (though there were several on my list whose marriages were 20th century ones) then take a look at foreign couples who are King and Queen now, or Queen regnant and consort. Can you point to any on the thrones of Norway, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands etc in which both individuals ascended the throne as monarch and consort and BOTH were/are known as having been consistently unfaithful to their marital partners? It's only the throne of the U.K. where that will be so, and as a result that throne is demeaned IMO.
@amabel. Whereas I agree that the royals take notice of public opinion; that is a very different proposition from sitting around and scanning the papers to find out whether some journalist is writing a nasty article about you. If they followed public opinion, it would be a very disorganized establishment indeed. I have always though it was a terrible mistake to open up to the media and cooperate with it on any level. The QM had it just about right. Look good and say absolutely nothing or as they say "Never Complain, Never Explain". That is how you deal with the media.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 12:09:46 PM
The idea of a "moral monarchy" is a very recent addition
@Curryong . Originally royalty was about the exercise of executive power. Queen Victoria started the image of a moral family which ought to be an example. Of course like many things, not everything went according to plan. Her eldest son had many, many mistresses.
Although some people may object to an adulterous king and his adulterous queen; there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that prevents either divorcees or adulterers from ascending to the throne. Even the Church of England was established precisely in order to allow an adulterous King to marry his mistress. Indeed it strikes me as absolutely hypocritical and unreasonable to deny kings the right to divorce wives with whom they no longer get along with when a large section of the population has undergone a divorce. The King or Queen is not a priest and they are not bound by any chastity vows.
Edward VII did not want the responsibility of the throne so he went for the easy way out i.e. abdication. I am of the view that had he struck to his guns and maintained Simpson as a long term mistress; the Church itself would have called for a marriage. Something like that happened to Charles when the arch Bishop actually visited Charles and Camilla before advocating for a regularization of the marriage.
The divorce of Charles and Diana was absolutely necessary. There was really no other workable solution after Panorama. Everyone apart from the absolute romantics realized that this was a terrible marriage that should never have happened in the first place; let alone being allowed to continue. The Queen did the right thing to order a divorce and Charles should have started divorce proceedings as early as 1986 when he practically left the family home.
I know that the idea that the Royal Family represent the best of the nation and set an example started with Victoria, (although King George III and Queen Charlotte were greatly admired as the devoted parents of a large family.) That prevailed during my childhood and it's not a bad thing to aim for.
I didn't say there was a constitutional objection to an adulterer on the throne. I know it's not unconstitutional. What I wrote was that there could be constitutional implications, and pointed to the later discussions of Charles's fitness for the throne.
You surely have to concede that when Charles comes to the throne he and Camilla will be examples that are rare among their immediate ancestors and their colleagues on Continental and Scandinavian thrones, being BOTH divorced and BOTH responsible for the ending of each others' marriages. You may feel that this elevates the British throne, or that it doesn't matter. I happen to think that circumstance demeans the throne and it does matter.
Charles and Diana should not have married and if Charles had had a backbone instead of being an eternal waffler then he would have proposed to Camilla in 1973 and none of this subsequent misery would have happened.
I agree that Charles should never have married Diana and should have instead married Camilla in 1973 when he had a chance. That is his eternal regret; but at the very least he got two children from all those mistakes. It is a pity that Diana never got to experience what it means to have a spouse that loves you and you love them back.
My thinking on adultery is complex. Donald Trump is a multiple adulterer but that does not stop him from being a Head of State. The King of Sweden ditto. The ex King of Spain ditto. It is definitely not desirable but not the worst crime a monarch can commit. It certainly does not stop them from doing their work.
Quote from: Curryong on April 15, 2017, 12:53:33 PM
I know that the idea that the Royal Family represent the best of the nation and set an example started with Victoria, (although King George III and Queen Charlotte were greatly admired as the devoted parents of a large family.) That prevailed during my childhood and it's not a bad thing to aim for.
I didn't say there was a constitutional objection to an adulterer on the throne. I know it's not unconstitutional. What I wrote was that there could be constitutional implications, and pointed to the later discussions of Charles's fitness for the throne.
You surely have to concede that when Charles comes to the throne he and Camilla will be examples that are rare among their immediate ancestors and their colleagues on Continental and Scandinavian thrones, being BOTH divorced and BOTH responsible for the ending of each others' marriages. You may feel that this elevates the British throne, or that it doesn't matter. I happen to think that circumstance demeans the throne and it does matter.
he could not have proposed to Camilla then as she was a woman "wit a past" and so wasn't eligible to be the future Queen.
if you think it matters, then it matters to you, but I think that most people don't think about it at all.. the world's full of people who have had affairs, caused a braek up of a marriage and then married the lover.. I think that the ide that the "RF are "ourselves behaving better" has gone out... Once the RF began to have divorced people in it, such as Margaret, Anne, etc, well it was only a matter of time before the "dviorce issue" was likely to come to the heir to the throne..
and I Really find it hard to see what Camilla did, that Diana didn't do.
So if It would I presume have been OK for Diana to be queen with Charles, I can't see why there is a problem with Camilla and Charles being King and QUeen. the only difference seems to be that (in yor view) Camilla interfered with the "marriage of the heir to the throne" and that that had "constitutional implciations". Yes there was a lot of discussion but in the end, charles' position as heir wasn't affected by his divorce or his remarriage to a divorcee.
Diana accused Camilla of "interefering in her marriage", but she herself then went on to interfere in the very new marriage of WIll and Julia Carling. She also interfered in the marriage of Oliver and Diane Hoare. What's the difference?
I think it is stretching it to say that Camilla is somehow more immoral because her lover was the POW... Diane Hoare and Julia Carling are people too, their feelings were hurt when their husbands were involved with a woman who was able to intrigue them because of her beauty and social position.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 04:53:02 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 15, 2017, 11:56:44 AM
@amabel. Whereas I agree that the royals take notice of public opinion; that is a very different proposition from sitting around and scanning the papers to find out whether some journalist is writing a nasty article about you. If they followed public opinion, it would be a very disorganized establishment indeed. I have always though it was a terrible mistake to open up to the media and cooperate with it on any level. The QM had it just about right. Look good and say absolutely nothing or as they say "Never Complain, Never Explain". That is how you deal with the media.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 12:09:46 PM
The idea of a "moral monarchy" is a very recent addition @Curryong . Originally royalty was about the exercise of executive power. Queen Victoria started the image of a moral family which ought to be an example. Of course like many things, not everything went according to plan. Her eldest son had many, many mistresses.
. Even the Church of England was established precisely in order to allow an adulterous King to marry his mistress. Indeed it strikes me as absolutely hypocritical and unreasonable to deny kings the right to divorce wives with whom they no longer get along with when a large section of the population has The
Not true about the C of E.
however I agree that in today's world where there is an almost 50% divorce rate in the UK, it seems ridiclulous to force a couple like Charles and Di to stay married.. if they had grown to hate each Other. But Charles could nt have either married Cam in the 70s NOR "asked for a divorce" in 1986. I think the queen would just have said no. by the 1990s I think maybe she was beginning to feel that it was dangerous for the POW and his wife to be on such cool terms and for both of them to be involved in affairs which might blow up in their face.. but even then, she waited till the disaster had happened before she was wiling to sanction a divorce...
I think that Charles would have liked a divorce, back in the later 80s but he accepted that it was not possible and just got on with his life..
I agree tht it would be ridiculous for the RF to be fussing about every little swing in their PR.. Newspapers and the public are fickle and they know that a good rating one day can be followed by a bad one a day or 2 later.. but they do have to take inot account public opinion up to a point. that does mean being seen to work hard,not fall out of bars and not to have too much of an unorthodox sex life.
I don't believe that Charles likes having PR experts but accepts that hey are necessary, and I'm sure that while he may think it is vulgar to play to the crowds he is not htat bothered by his Sons having a time when they are "seen as rock stars". that time comes nad passes.. he knows that.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 15, 2017, 01:04:56 PM
I agree that Charles should never have married Diana and should have instead married Camilla in 1973 when he had a chance. That is his eternal regret; but at the very least he got two children from all those mistakes. It is a pity that Diana never got to experience what it means to have a spouse that loves you and you love them back.
My thinking on adultery is complex. Donald Trump is a multiple adulterer but that does not stop him from being a Head of State. The King of Sweden ditto. The ex King of Spain ditto. It is definitely not desirable but not the worst crime a monarch can commit. It certainly does not stop them from doing their work.
All those mistakes? Charles got the heirs with the suitable girl, got to marry the mistress and prior to that sow wild oats and court women who were suitable royal brides. I doubt William and Harry consider themselves "mistakes." It is water under the bridge now because Charles can't undo anything except perhaps get spin doctors to help rewrite history.
I don't think what trump and others did makes what Charles did "OK." Clinton cheated but he did not dump his wife and marry Monica Lewinsky or some of the other women he saw.
Diana got to experience love--from her beloved children and from her friends. I don't think Charles got cheated he always loved himself IMO.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 05:49:41 PM
Quote from: Curryong on April 15, 2017, 12:53:33 PM
I know that the idea that the Royal Family represent the best of the nation and set an example started with Victoria, (although King George III and Queen Charlotte were greatly admired as the devoted parents of a large family.) That prevailed during my childhood and it's not a bad thing to aim for.
I didn't say there was a constitutional objection to an adulterer on the throne. I know it's not unconstitutional. What I wrote was that there could be constitutional implications, and pointed to the later discussions of Charles's fitness for the throne.
You surely have to concede that when Charles comes to the throne he and Camilla will be examples that are rare among their immediate ancestors and their colleagues on Continental and Scandinavian thrones, being BOTH divorced and BOTH responsible for the ending of each others' marriages. You may feel that this elevates the British throne, or that it doesn't matter. I happen to think that circumstance demeans the throne and it does matter.
Charles and Diana should not have married and if Charles had had a backbone instead of being an eternal waffler then he would have proposed to Camilla in 1973 and none of this subsequent misery would have happened.
Charles did not marry her. Maybe he really never wanted to marry her nor saw her as suitable to marry and have his children. But he got it all: the suitable wife, heirs, and then got to marry the mistress. She was the last woman standing.
Once Charles named her as his mistress, I think he was obligated to her after her husband divorced her.
Had Diana tried to get along with the other wife, Camilla would have been up a tree. Charles would have to life the "civilized life" pretending all is rosy but having extracurricular activities.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 05:52:17 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 15, 2017, 11:56:44 AM
@amabel. Whereas I agree that the royals take notice of public opinion; that is a very different proposition from sitting around and scanning the papers to find out whether some journalist is writing a nasty article about you. If they followed public opinion, it would be a very disorganized establishment indeed. I have always though it was a terrible mistake to open up to the media and cooperate with it on any level. The QM had it just about right. Look good and say absolutely nothing or as they say "Never Complain, Never Explain". That is how you deal with the media.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 12:09:46 PM
The idea of a "moral monarchy" is a very recent addition @Curryong . Originally royalty was about the exercise of executive power. Queen Victoria started the image of a moral family which ought to be an example. Of course like many things, not everything went according to plan. Her eldest son had many, many mistresses.
Although some people may object to an adulterous king and his adulterous queen; there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that prevents either divorcees or adulterers from ascending to the throne. Even the Church of England was established precisely in order to allow an adulterous King to marry his mistress. Indeed it strikes me as absolutely hypocritical and unreasonable to deny kings the right to divorce wives with whom they no longer get along with when a large section of the population has undergone a divorce. The King or Queen is not a priest and they are not bound by any chastity vows.
Edward VII did not want the responsibility of the throne so he went for the easy way out i.e. abdication. I am of the view that had he struck to his guns and maintained Simpson as a long term mistress; the Church itself would have called for a marriage. Something like that happened to Charles when the arch Bishop actually visited Charles and Camilla before advocating for a regularization of the marriage.
The divorce of Charles and Diana was absolutely necessary. There was really no other workable solution after Panorama. Everyone apart from the absolute romantics realized that this was a terrible marriage that should never have happened in the first place; let alone being allowed to continue. The Queen did the right thing to order a divorce and Charles should have started divorce proceedings as early as 1986 when he practically left the family home.
THere was no workable solution after Charles ditched Diana after she had the heir and spare. Diana had she been older when she got engaged could have tossed the engagement ring in Charles' face (after the Fred and Gladys cufflinks episode), packed her things, and left for good.
@amabel. It now seems so extraordinary that "a woman with a past" was once considered to be unsuitable for marriage. How silly could they have been? No wonder they ended up getting someone who was in no way suited to be a companion to Charles and he in turn was in no way suitable to be a companion to her. Had they appointed a committee of great men and women of the realms; they could not have come up with a worse mismatch than the Charles and Diana marriage.
Those rules caused so much chaos. Meanwhile Charles failed to propose to the love of his life. Indecision is one of the worst qualities in a leader. Even the frowning upon divorce seems so silly in hindsight. What sense does it make to have two people who cannot stand each other live together, against their will? Divorce was the best resolution to that mess. The queen acted at last...very late but at least she stopped all that nonsense of interviews and counter interviews.
It was not that she was "unsuitable for marriage" Charles decided not to pursue her as wife material. Charles never even told her to wait for him.
Charles could not marry someone close to his age in 1981 because chances are the woman was either married or had a past. HE needed a young, fertile aristo to have his heirs. Diana filled the bill. I don't think Charles even cared if he loved her or not, she would serve his purposes.
Charles IMO did not even think of proposing to Camilla Shand back then.
Divorce was discouraged for an heir to the throne back then. Charles and DIana kept up appearances.
@Duch_Luver_4ever -Good to see you posting again and sharing your thoughts. It keeps all of us on our toes and our fingers quite busy!
Double post auto-merged: April 16, 2017, 01:27:45 AM
QuoteAmabel, If you object to historical couples, (though there were several on my list whose marriages were 20th century ones) then take a look at foreign couples who are King and Queen now, or Queen regnant and consort. Can you point to any on the thrones of Norway, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands etc in which both individuals ascended the throne as monarch and consort and BOTH were/are known as having been consistently unfaithful to their marital partners? It's only the throne of the U.K. where that is so, and as a result that throne is demeaned, IMO.
And the answer is....(drum roll)...Belgium's Albert and Paola!!!!! :happy17: :windsor1: :Jen:
Huh huh. Well done
@TLLK and they were actually very popular too. :teehee: :lol:
Yes, but unfortunately TLLK, I said 'who are King and Queen NOW, (as in April 2017) or Queen Regnant and consort.'
I agree that if Charles and Cam came to the throne next month or next year and Albert and Paola were still reigning in Belgium they could duke it out for the adultery gold cup. What an honour! Even so, Paola wasn't a second wife who had inserted herself into Albert's first marriage with a young wife.
The point being that adultery is no barrier to inheriting a crown or even being effective in that role once crowned.
I also question the idea that another person can insert themselves into a marriage without the active participation of one or more of the parties. Charles and Diana decided to get married. Their vows to one another and the primary responsibility for that marriage lies with them. Blaming third parties is a bit of scapegoating. I still maintain that Charles made a conscious decision to leave Diana/stay with Camilla. He was not some helpless victim in the face of a seductive temptress.
No it isn't a barrier to ruling but that doesn't make it right or make the rulers who indulge in it honourable people.
No Charles wasn't a victim. He was a vacillating individual, (and still is) who shilly shallied and waffled and let the woman he wanted go, only to pick up his affair with her while she was still married and after her children were born.
He then, knowing he was getting older and was expected to marry, picked a girl he thought suitable who would fit into his way of life, but whom he was not in love with. He had doubts but chose to regard his father's letter to him asking him to make up his mind as an order.
Charles then married Diana without loving her in the way he should, because he didn't have the guts to ignore the media and tell his father and family 'I don't think we will be happy and I don't feel for her as a should for someone I want to spend my life with.'
He weakly IMO married her, having said a fond farewell to Mrs PB with a present, thus upsetting his new fiancée. The marriage failed, so he then returned to Camilla, the woman who had all the feelings for that he didn't have for Diana, and afterwards wailed to friends 'How could I have got it so wrong!' God save us from wafflers who don't have the courage of their own convictions and lead others into disaster too.
I cannot imagine Philip for instance, under any circumstances whatsoever, behaving as his son did in the run up to his first marriage!
Well I still can't quite see what the issue is. For one thing, there's never going to an EXACT parallel situation, because Royal families and countries are different and royal behaviour is different in different eras. So of course there would not be likely to be a previous situation where a King married a divorced woman when divorce was very uncommon until the mid-20th C. In the 30s when Edward wanted to marry Mrs Simpson divorce was rare and most English people were church goers, who at least paid some heed to the church... so it was not acceptable for him to marry a divorcee..
And there are situations in other Royal families abroad that are also controversial even if not quite the same.
Letizia -queen of Spain, a very Catholic country, is a divorcee. ( I believe there as some "tut tutting" over that.) The future queen of Norway has had a child from a previous relationship, and was apparently involved in a very bohemian "rebelling against society" lifestyle as a young girl that would have debarred her from being considered suitable to marry a future King In bygone days. (Again many people disapproved of her marrying him even now).
Yes 30 years ago, Camilla's sexual past or her being divorced would have debarred her from marrying a senior royal like Charles but things have changed. William and Kate lived together before they got married. Harry is said to be in a serious relationship with a divorced woman. Other royals have married divorced women and Anne is remarried after a divorce.. (And has had affairs during her marriage to Mark P).
As far as I can see the issue that some have with Camilla is that she "insinuated herself" into Charles's marriage. I don't know if she did that...
I belive that Charles, lonely and miserable with a wife who was ill, depressed and totally incompabitel with him, turned to the woman he found most sympathetic and felt comfortable with, for affection, when he knew that his marriage had been a mistake. I think he always loved Camilla most, but was prepared to try and grow into love with Diana. But she was too immature, too mentally fragile but I DO think it did not show up till she was married.
Camilla could not "make" Charles turn to her, if he wasn't already eager to do so and I think he was, because he was so depressed by how his marriage had turned out. But it was his choice. And it was Diana's choice to turn to a couple of other men who were married and to look to them for comfort or an affair.
And As I've said, I can't see anything that Charles or Cam are accused of, that Diana did not do as well. She blamed Camilla for "being there" when she herself was newly married and making it hard for Charles and her to settle into their married relationship. But she then went on to get involved in a flirtation with Will Carling who was on the point of marrying Julia C and continued the flirtation (or possibly an affair) after he was married to his new wife. So that seems to me to be pretty much the same behaviour that she and others criticised in Camilla
Di then got into an affair with Oliver Hoare and she didn't care that the affair bothered his wife... who was tolerant of his having affairs as long as she didn't think they were going to impinge on their marriage. But clearly Diane H did reach a point where she felt the affair WAS dangerous to her marriage. And Diana continued to chase Hoare with phone calls, wanting him back, and not caring that he did not want to leave his wife and that his wife was upset by the affair. So again, what's the difference?
I don't think that it is much of a difference that Charles was the future King and Hoare is an art dealer or Carling a rugby player. Both times Diana got involved in affairs that damaged or split up a couple. If chrles isn't "honourable" because he let himself be pushed into marriage (or did his duty as I think it was),and then had an affair, what about Diana? Was she honouralbe in getting inot a situation twice where she infetreed in a marriage?
One huge difference is that Diana stood in front of that altar in Westminster Abbey as a young girl of twenty, totally in love with her fiancé and believing in her wedding vows.
Charles was, by vows, an old 32 (and certainly old enough to know his own mind though apparently not) not in love with his bride (emotionally attached to another woman) and believing he was pressed into the union by his father.
Hoping that you 'will grow to love' someone just isn't good enough for a lifelong commitment, especially in a family where the Prince of Wales was never expected to divorce.
What other man was Diana emotionally connected to on her wedding day? Hoare etc came later.
Quote from: Curryong on April 16, 2017, 07:06:38 AM
One huge difference is that Diana stood in front of that altar in Westminster Abbey as a young girl of twenty, totally in love with her fiancé and believing in her wedding vows.
Charles was, by vows, an old 32 (and certainly old enough to know his own mind though apparently not) not in love with his bride (emotionally attached to another woman) and believing he was pressed into the union by his father.
Hoping that you 'will grow to love' someone just isn't good enough for a lifelong commitment, especially in a family where the Prince of Wales was never expected to divorce.
Its possible to make a lifelong commitmet without being desperately in love.. In fact lost of people marry who have lived together, who are passionately In love and the marriages dotn last. Charles was fond of Diana, he knew that he could not marry "just where he chose" like an ordinary man, and he knew that he had reached a time when he really hd to marry. If he waited another few years, and had to have a bride with no past, he was goig to be maybe 15or more years older than her. I don't think that is a DISASTER but the bigger the age gap, the more problems are likely to arise.
I beliveve that Charles thought that he and Di had a certain amount in common, that she was a sweet girl who seemed to love him and he was fond enugh of her to think the marriage would work out.
so i dotn quite see what the difference was. Diana too was having uneasy feelings as we are told. She was in love with him but she was not longer sure if the marriage was right for her..but she hoped that they DID care enough for each other for the marriage to work
But very soon after the marriage, Diana was yelling that she hated Balmoral and the country things that she had seemed to like, and that she was fed up with being stuck up there in the rain iwht the RF, whom she now found vey hard to cope with. I think that he was entitled to be bewildered that she no logner seemed to enjoy the lifestyle of "country lfie" that he had thought she liked, which was soemthing that he believed they had in common.
And I think that the RF began to feel when they saw "Diana had changed" that she had put on a show of liking the lifestyle and the country sports and that as soon as the ring was on her finger, she ahd shown her true colours.
^ This 'Diana loved the countryside before marriage in order to entrap Charles' thing is quite exaggerated IMO. How many dates did she and Charles have in the countryside? It's been calculated that she and Charles only had about twelve dates all up before he proposed.
It's perfectly possible that she did thoroughly enjoy herself among new surroundings in Sandringham and Balmoral without falling head over heels with the country lifestyle for all time. Charles may have assumed, as he did over so many other things, that because she had grown up in the country she loved it as he did. Why did he never ask her why she was living in London? Why assume it all.
I'm not really a country person, though I enjoy horse riding (or did until a few years ago.) People who know me superficially may then make assumptions about me from that. When I was a lot younger I had a friend who enthusiastically took up cricket watching because her boyfriend was a demon cricketer. In reality she hated it. When they married it turned into a joke between them, as they had had eighteen months before their marriage to find these things out about each other. It doesn't mean that the girl concerned was a lying little deceiver, it's simply something that girls and women sometimes do to impress the men in their lives.
The trouble was that there was not a year or 18 months to find out things about each other. During the short engagement Charles was often away. He seemed to want to get it all over and done with so he could return to his polo and his work and his friends and his way of life. An extra year of dating would have made a huge difference, IF they had sat down and really listened to each other.
No I never said that Diana deliberately deceived him. But she did take part in country activites. she watched him shooting and fishing. According to friends she went stalking with him and appeared to enjoy it. IIRC she said at their pre marital interview that the country was something they enjoyed and had in common.
So I think it is possible that the RF did start to believe that when she abruptly changed and seemed to hate it all, she had been fooling Charles during their courtship.
I'd question that they literally only had 12 dates, they were courting for some months, and she spent weekends with him when he was at Highgrove (she was staying in Camilla's hose and he was camping in HG because he was decorating it.) And she visited Balmoral and Sandringham. So a fair bit of their courtship was spent in country surroundings and if Di had hated it all (which I think she essentially ddi) I don't tink she conveyed that to Charles. Other girlfriends had been taken to Balmoral by him and had not been able to hide their boredom with all the sporty stuff and those relationships had finished.
It was normal for a young upper class girl to spend a few years in London, once she'd left school, getting a job, but these girls usualy went home to the country at weekends. so it wasn't an indicator that Diana was a real townee, that she was living in London.. besidies part of Charles' life IS in London..and Diana accompanied him to the opera or music events there...
The courtship was relatively short because thats' how things were done then. I believe that Fergie also said that she had not been with Andy that long before they got engaged..
but the RF operated on the basis that a "gel" who was of a sutiable class to marry a royal, was from a similar landed gentry background, and knew about the RF and its ways and all that was necessary to "court" was for the girl to spend a bit of extra time with the man concerned and see how they got on.
Charles might have appreciated a bit longer, to court her but he had been pressured by Philip to "get on with it" and that if he was serious about Diana -it wasn't right or gentlemanly to keep her dangling and with the Press chasing her. And I think that Diana was anxious for him to propose, as quickly as possible. She would not have wanted a longer courtship..
As for wanting to get back to his "normal life and his friends" I believe that C wrote to his friends before he got married to say that he wouldn't have as much time to spend with them as before.
Besides, I don't think that you've really answered my initnal question. we seem to have now gone back to C and Di's courtship.. but I questioned why it was "just about OK" for Charles and Diana to ascend the throne as a couple who were unfaithful to each other..but not OK for Charles and Camilla.
If you have, sorry but for some reason my PC doesn't seem to show up all the posts at once.
^ I have I think, but it was some posts back. It's the one where I begin.. adultery is never right for anyone. I disagree that Charles intended to put himself out for Diana, whatever he may have said. He intended that her life and interests fall in with his and not the other way around. There courtship was very short. Bedell smith found in her researches that they met a dozen times before he proposed.
I don't get the notion that marriage has to involve undying passionate love. There are many marriages that are based on mutual sympathy, interests and understanding. Eventually a deep spiritual connection may arise. Of course some people marry the loves of their lives but that is not always the case. Diana lived in a world of Barbara Cartland. When reality turned out to be different, she lashed out and threw all the toys out of the pram. The lashing out was cathartic but it did not bring her personal happiness. She still wanted to be married to Charles but the drama had gotten to him to the extent that he wanted out.
Charles' biggest sin in all this is indecision. Had he been decisive and refused to marry Diana regardless of the pressure, the story would be very different. Diana would be a fairly anonymous aristocrat, married to someone of her set. Conversely if the royals had not minded so much about "women with a past"; Charles might have married Camilla. She would have been a wonderful consort to him and we would not have had the heartache and chaos of the 1980s/1990s. It is plain to see that Charles should have married Camilla in the first place. She complements him in every way and he has actually become less morose since he married her.
^ Yes, there are but would you say that Charles and Diana married on 'the basis of mutual sympathy, interests and understanding' and any kind of spiritual connection? One was in love, one was hoping for love to grow but was emotionally attached to another.
As well, I do think that the majority of brides, especially young brides, believe and expect that their grooms are in love with them. That's not being Barbara Cartlandish, just a matter of fact.
Yes you'#ve said that adultery isn't right, for anyone Curryong but not why it was worse for Camilla. however! I would say that there is SOMe truth that charles expected his bride to fit in with him, but she had seemed to WANT To fit in and he was the POW, the royal, she was marrying inot the RF.
She HAD To fit in.. not the other way around. (Now when the RF IS more relaxed and allows its "young wives" like Kate to spend more tiem with thtier own families, I've seen royal watchers complaining about this)
and I would say that yes, Charles DID think that he had some interests and sympathies in common with Diana and that he thought that a marriage would grow into a deeper love becuase they DID start with things in common.
THey both wanted kids, they both were "serious" people.. (I mean she wasn't a bar hopping party girl).. they botht (he thought) liked country life and sports and they loved music. And He probably felt that in time she'd learn more about the more intellectual things that he liked such as philsophy..
And I agree that Diana had a very unrealistic perception of love. It was probably inevitlabe given her age.. but it didn't help her to face the realities of married life. I think we all know that its not hearts and flowers and roses round the door. but I've seen girls older than her who do think this.. and I suppose they grow wiser with experience. However friends of Dis' have said (kindly) that they felt that evene as a woman in her 30s who had experienced a bad marriage, she STILL had a wild romance idea of love and marriage.
Brides always dream but do not always get what they dream for. In a way the lack of clarity either way meant that the couple was never truly connected. Diana wanted a romantic marriage with a fully involved husband with no alternative emotional entanglements. Charles was an official consort who would fit into his way of life and generally make things easy for him. I would go as far as saying that Camilla seems to fit in better with Charles' vision of what a suitable consort for him might be.
Quote from: amabel on April 16, 2017, 09:44:43 AM
Yes you'#ve said that adultery isn't right, for anyone Curryong but not why it was worse for Camilla. however! I would say that there is SOMe truth that charles expected his bride to fit in with him, but she had seemed to WANT To fit in and he was the POW, the royal, she was marrying inot the RF.
She HAD To fit in.. not the other way around. (Now when the RF IS more relaxed and allows its "young wives" like Kate to spend more tiem with thtier own families, I've seen royal watchers complaining about this)
and I would say that yes, Charles DID think that he had some interests and sympathies in common with Diana and that he thought that a marriage would grow into a deeper love becuase they DID start with things in common.
THey both wanted kids, they both were "serious" people.. (I mean she wasn't a bar hopping party girl).. they botht (he thought) liked country life and sports and they loved music. And He probably felt that in time she'd learn more about the more intellectual things that he liked such as philsophy..
And I agree that Diana had a very unrealistic perception of love. It was probably inevitlabe given her age.. but it didn't help her to face the realities of married life. I think we all know that its not hearts and flowers and roses round the door. but I've seen girls older than her who do think this.. and I suppose they grow wiser with experience. However friends of Dis' have said (kindly) that they felt that evene as a woman in her 30s who had experienced a bad marriage, she STILL had a wild romance idea of love and marriage.
Charles had a weird perception of love and marriage. He brought it into the marriage to Diana. He already had a history of being with his friend's wives and their being OK with it.
DIana's real friends never spoke to the media. I don't know which "friend" you are quoting. Doesn't sound much like a friend to me.
I don't think Charles is remotely an intellectual.
Double post auto-merged: April 16, 2017, 11:07:18 AM
NO, Camilla did not fit into Charles' image. His first marriage produced the heir and spare, Camilla was not chosen by him to do that. After years of their sneaking around and the years of waiting for PR to possibly kick in, Camilla joined the family.
Quote from: sandy on April 16, 2017, 11:05:40 AM
Quote from: amabel on April 16, 2017, 09:44:43 AM
Yes you'#ve said that adultery isn't right, for anyone Curryong but not why it was worse for Camilla. however! I would say that there is SOMe truth that charles expected his bride to fit in with him, but she had seemed to WANT To fit in and he was the POW, the royal, she was marrying inot the RF.
She HAD To fit in.. not the other way around. (Now when the RF IS more relaxed and allows its "young wives" like Kate to spend more tiem with thtier own families, I've seen royal watchers complaining about this)
and I would say that yes, Charles DID think that he had some interests and sympathies in common with Diana and that he thought that a marriage would grow into a deeper love becuase they DID start with things in common.
THey both wanted kids, they both were "serious" people.. (I mean she wasn't a bar hopping party girl).. they botht (he thought) liked country life and sports and they loved music. And He probably felt that in time she'd learn more about the more intellectual things that he liked such as philsophy..
And I agree that Diana had a very unrealistic perception of love. It was probably inevitlabe given her age.. but it didn't help her to face the realities of married life. I think we all know that its not hearts and flowers and roses round the door. but I've seen girls older than her who do think this.. and I suppose they grow wiser with experience. However friends of Dis' have said (kindly) that they felt that evene as a woman in her 30s who had experienced a bad marriage, she STILL had a wild romance idea of love and marriage.
Charles had a weird perception of love and marriage. He brought it into the marriage to Diana. He already had a history of being with his friend's wives and their being OK with it.
DIana's real friends never spoke to the media. I don't know which "friend" you are quoting. Doesn't sound much like a friend to me.
I don't think Charles is remotely an intellectual.
Double post auto-merged: April 16, 2017, 11:10:00 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 16, 2017, 09:11:30 AM
I don't get the notion that marriage has to involve undying passionate love. There are many marriages that are based on mutual sympathy, interests and understanding. Eventually a deep spiritual connection may arise. Of course some people marry the loves of their lives but that is not always the case. Diana lived in a world of Barbara Cartland. When reality turned out to be different, she lashed out and threw all the toys out of the pram. The lashing out was cathartic but it did not bring her personal happiness. She still wanted to be married to Charles but the drama had gotten to him to the extent that he wanted out.
Charles' biggest sin in all this is indecision. Had he been decisive and refused to marry Diana regardless of the pressure, the story would be very different. Diana would be a fairly anonymous aristocrat, married to someone of her set. Conversely if the royals had not minded so much about "women with a past"; Charles might have married Camilla. She would have been a wonderful consort to him and we would not have had the heartache and chaos of the 1980s/1990s. It is plain to see that Charles should have married Camilla in the first place. She complements him in every way and he has actually become less morose since he married her.
IF he walked away from Diana, he would not have married Camilla Parker Bowles. He would have looked for and selected another young aristo, who may or may not have been amenable to having another woman around.
How is it known Camilla would have been "wonderful?"
Quote from: Curryong on April 16, 2017, 04:45:35 AM
Yes, but unfortunately TLLK, I said 'who are King and Queen NOW, (as in April 2017) or Queen Regnant and consort.'
I agree that if Charles and Cam came to the throne next month or next year and Albert and Paola were still reigning in Belgium they could duke it out for the adultery gold cup. What an honour! Even so, Paola wasn't a second wife who had inserted herself into Albert's first marriage with a young wife.
Okay that is a minor technicality IMO because they're still known as King and Queen. :lol: However I still think that I deserve some sort of consolation prize! :P
TLLK, I send you a (metaphysical) large box of chocs. :flower: However, save them, as I'm sure you have eaten many, many chocolate eggs this weekend! :D
Just received them
@Curryong!! :D :blowkiss:
I was chatting to someone about an alternative strategy by Diana. The one she used was "fight to hurt". I would propose a "fight to win" strategy. Instead of going to the press, I personally would have requested the queen to give APB a fabulous posting somewhere far away with at least 10 years on it. Maybe Australia, New Zealand, Canada or Africa. Camilla would have to follow suit. That would give me a chance to be the sweetest wife ever without the competition.
If that did not work, I would make KP my safe space and demand that the royal family does not interfere in my private life. I would certainly not have inspired them to ask for a divorce. That meant that I could have my private life and my public life intact.
What do you guys think of my strategy? I welcome your thoughts.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 17, 2017, 05:30:05 AM
I was chatting to someone about an alternative strategy by Diana. The one she used was "fight to hurt". I would propose a "fight to win" strategy. Instead of going to the press, I personally would have requested the queen to give APB a fabulous posting somewhere far away with at least 10 years on it. Maybe Australia, New Zealand, Canada or Africa. Camilla would have to follow suit. That would give me a chance to be the sweetest wife ever without the competition.
If that did not work, I would make KP my safe space and demand that the royal family does not interfere in my private life. I
None of that would be possible. ANdre PB wasn't posted abroad, ever as far as I udnerstanad, and ithink it would be pretty awful to send him away to "get his wife away from Charles". Harldy decent behaviour interfering in someone's life like that. No way wuodl that happen. Even if ANdrew were abroad, Camilla would not necessarily follow him.
and even ifshe DID, what good would this do? Do you realy think that without Camilla, Charles would fall madly in love with a difficult sick wife, whom he had grown fed up with? He might try ot get on with her, a litle better but even so I believe he would spend most of his time iwht his own friends (as Diana did wit hers)and find another lover whom he found more congenial.
Woud Diana be happy if Charles was just with her because he's been ordered to by the queen, esp if he had been parted from Camilla?
as for your last point, the RF didn't "interfere in Di's private life anyway. They let her get on with it as long as she ws discreet and as long as she stuck to the public side of her life and turned up with Charles when requested.
Upper class couples often led separate lives, they had plenty of space and money, more than one residence.. lots of "room" to be apart, but they were supposed to obey certain rules of decorum, such as being polite, and putting up a front, for servants and the family.. ie no rows and ructions that made others uncomfortable... Discretion, ie not tattling to the meida or to indiscreet friends about ther own or thteir spouses' affairs.. and a basic loyalty to their partners even if they weren't faithful.
Diana had all that, privacy and space to do her own thing provided she kept it quiet.
Marriage is supposed to be in sickness and in health. So what if Charles had had the eating disorder?
Diana was very young when Charles ditched her. I think she wanted a real marriage not the "civilized" way Charles/Camilla/APB had.
Double post auto-merged: April 17, 2017, 11:12:17 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 17, 2017, 05:30:05 AM
I was chatting to someone about an alternative strategy by Diana. The one she used was "fight to hurt". I would propose a "fight to win" strategy. Instead of going to the press, I personally would have requested the queen to give APB a fabulous posting somewhere far away with at least 10 years on it. Maybe Australia, New Zealand, Canada or Africa. Camilla would have to follow suit. That would give me a chance to be the sweetest wife ever without the competition.
If that did not work, I would make KP my safe space and demand that the royal family does not interfere in my private life. I would certainly not have inspired them to ask for a divorce. That meant that I could have my private life and my public life intact.
What do you guys think of my strategy? I welcome your thoughts.
The Queen had her chance to intervene pre Diana. Some courtiers complained about Charles with Camilla. The QUeen did nothing. She even condoned Charles taking Camilla as his "official escort" to Zimbabwe (again Pre Diana). The Queen could have cleaned up the mess sooner but didn't.
Actually, when I think about it the idea is not that good. Changing other people's careers to accommodate a love affair sound selfish. However, the royal family has done it before. They send people on missions to keep them away. Also APB was no slouch when it came to adultery.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 17, 2017, 11:23:32 AM
Actually, when I think about it the idea is not that good. Changing other people's careers to accommodate a love affair sound selfish. However, the royal family has done it before. They send people on missions to keep them away. Also APB was no slouch when it came to adultery.
yes there were lots of things that were done in bygone days, but they wont fly now, and I'm sure the queen would have no intention of interfering with someone's life and career, to keep Charles away from Camilla. (esp since back years ago, she was notoiriuos for trying to ignore any problems and just pretend they weren't happening.
I don't see that it would matter anyway, since it woudlnt make C and Diana any more compatible..
I haven't got an exact source but the queen is reputed to have said that "Ken Palace isn't exactly bijou," so she could not understand why Diana was kicking up and wanting a separation.. that there was plenty of space and money for the Waleses to quietly lead separate lives.
Of course they had a lot of press attention, that did mean they got found out eventually, but if they had stuck together, been loyal - they could have problably stared down the press.
Well Camilla could always have divorced him. But it would not put her in the safe category for Charles. It seemed to become a convenient relationship (APB/Camilla/Charles) for all concerned
I think Camilla's absence in Charles and Diana's marriage would have greatly improved chances for it working out. Another woman around is not a good thing for any marriage.
The Queen Mum was scared of another abdication crisis and when Camilla was "free" after her divorce from APB, she would not allow a marriage of C and C in her lifetime and Charles had to wait.
@amabel. I think Diana was spoiling for a fight. She was a woman scorned and wanted to get back at Charles and Camilla. Living in splendid isolation at KP was not good enough. She did not want Charles to be happy with Camilla, let alone him marrying her. If he was going to leave Diana, she hoped that at least he would have to lose his place in the succession and even access to his children/family.
Morton has a statement to that effect "If I could write my own script...my husband would go away with his ladies and I would continue the Wales name with my children". Of course that was a silly and unrealistic idea. Without Charles, there would be no throne and certainly no prestige. As I said before: I think Diana fought to hurt rather than fighting to win. She chose the acrimonious route over the consensus route.
In some ways I understand her pain but in others I think she was extremely unwise to engage in confrontations that ultimately would diminish her position in Charles' life. The more strident she became in her demands, the further Charles retreated and the more allies she lost in people of her own social set. Of course the tabloids and masses loved it . Everybody loves to watch a good brawl. Diana self-destructing was one of the first hints of the reality television entertainment genre that we see today.
I think she wanted out sometimes and sometimes, she thogh that she could stay as Princess, with chalres having a separate court.. or maybe he might have chosen ot marry Camila, go abroad and leave his place in the succession. I think the queen HOPED It would never come to that.. but there was a bit of pressure... as some people DID think "If he's divorced and had an affair with Camilla and is now married to her, ther IS an issue with his being Supreme GOvernor of the Church."
But Diana overplayed her hand. She might have been acceptable as a "princess without a husband" if she was seen as being "good", modest and just quietly doing her charity work and backing up her son..and was not seen to be engaged in any affairs. But of course she was involved with men and the Hoare scandal made her seem very much out of control.. THe Bashir Interview where she questioned whether Charles would be happy as King looked like her trying to push him out and was too naked a piece of "talking out of turn."
and yes it alienated a lto of people, even if the public enjoyed it.. It angered the queen and RF, it annoyed her own class of people, mostly.
In time, the whole row began to seem too much and disgusted a lot of the public who were getting fed up with Diana's woes and fuming and fighting.. and felt that the more Shew was in the public eye, the more her weaknesses were showing.. so when the public began to get "War weary", the Press got sneerier with Diana...
I don't think Diana wanted this. Prince Philip advised they lead separate lives and co-exist that way. Diana was still young and wanted a real marriage and family not a sort of halfway house. Diana was only divorced for one year. How can judgments be made about her based on one year? She did her charity work, she was a free woman and had relationships with Khan and later, Dodi. She was free to date and be a single woman.
I don't think Diana was out of control with Hoare. ANd the Hoares stayed married.
the journalists and some politicians criticize Charles "talking out of turn." SHe did not say he was unfit.
Charles own 1994 interview alienated many people including his parents and siblings. He forced the APB/Camilla divorce which was a no no. Diana was popular in 1997 no matter the insistence that she wasn't. Maybe not popular with Junor or Seward but popular the public.
Double post auto-merged: April 17, 2017, 12:20:47 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 17, 2017, 11:52:05 AM
@amabel. I think Diana was spoiling for a fight. She was a woman scorned and wanted to get back at Charles and Camilla. Living in splendid isolation at KP was not good enough. She did not want Charles to be happy with Camilla, let alone him marrying her. If he was going to leave Diana, she hoped that at least he would have to lose his place in the succession and even access to his children/family.
Morton has a statement to that effect "If I could write my own script...my husband would go away with his ladies and I would continue the Wales name with my children". Of course that was a silly and unrealistic idea. Without Charles, there would be no throne and certainly no prestige. As I said before: I think Diana fought to hurt rather than fighting to win. She chose the acrimonious route over the consensus route.
In some ways I understand her pain but in others I think she was extremely unwise to engage in confrontations that ultimately would diminish her position in Charles' life. The more strident she became in her demands, the further Charles retreated and the more allies she lost in people of her own social set. Of course the tabloids and masses loved it . Everybody loves to watch a good brawl. Diana self-destructing was one of the first hints of the reality television entertainment genre that we see today.
Diana was a realist no way would Charles have lost custody. She said in an interview she told William and Harry that she and Papa loved each other but could not live together anymore. She did not sneer at him. Charles never said he loved his wife to his biographers. Big difference.
Charles acted like a spoiled brat. He was not entitled to a mistress and he needed to take responsibility with his wife to help work on the marriage and leave the other woman out of it.
Diana was not self destructing. That is wishful thinking IMO on your part.
You know
@amabel, there was a time when Diana had all the cards. She was separated and they could not quite push her out through divorce. She had the moral high ground as a woman wronged. Her love for her children was evident and besides she was doing magnificent charity work. Somehow, somewhere, someone persuaded her to do panorama. That meant she had lost all her cards. She now was being pushed out and had no legitimate reason for staying in.
It was an understandable emotional outburst to do Panorama and even Morton...she wanted people to know that she was hurting and that it was not her who wanted the marriage to end. But speaking strategically it was wrong, wrong, wrong. Diana was always going to be better off as the Princess of Wales rather than an embittered ex looking for love in all the wrong places.
well according to some people (I can't remember the details) she was persuaded to do Panorama against her wishes, but I don't think so. She looks to me like she was pleased to have a chance to put out her story on TV, knowing that she was always "visually appealing".. and that she could put across her tale better on the TV than Charles could. She also said to Jephson that he would be proud of her, and of course he was horrified because it WAS pushing her to a point with the RF that they would nol longer show her any loyalty.. He had wanted ot keep her as a "Separated princess inside the family orbit "but she was reckless and was half wanting to get out, but I think hlaf not realising that this interview would finally burn her bridges with the Queen.
Yes it was a bad move and it ended with the Q givng her the order to divorce, and she was I think frightened then. Her friends told her not to do it, saying that if she escalated the fighting, the RF would escalate too and that it would "go nuclear".. and that was what happened.
Had she remained as Princess, I think that people would have guessed that the marriage wasn't too happy and would have sympathised with her and felt "Oh well if she has a boyfriend, discreetly who can blame her? She's a good mother, and she does great wrok for the RF and for her charities.." but she wanted soemting more/different.. to being a wife within the RF..
Panorama was a result of listening to "woman's intuition" rather than actually listening to the experts including her press secretary. Diana systematically cut out or ignored those who advised against the program. Instead she listened to those who told her what she wanted to hear: (i.e.) stick the boot in. She was coached by leading Thatcherites and her famous soundbite about three in a marriage was contrived by a comedian (Ruby Wax I think).
Bashir allegedly showed her fake evidence of a plot to kill her in order to do the final coaxing. The interview itself was a ratings success and was quite good for those who already believed in her. However, it exposed a certain hardness and bitterness which was becoming unappealing. Some people were asking why a millionaires was always complaining about her lot. The gestures and makeup were overdone. The establishment was appalled and was almost universal in its call for a divorce. Even the Arch Bishop of Canterbury felt that enough was enough.
When the backlash started, Diana panicked . All those announcements about giving up the title then missing it were just the signs of someone that had made a monumental error but could not turn back. Princess Margaret who was once friendly and sympathetic to her became a mortal enemy. QM allegedly ordered that her name was not to be mentioned again in her house. Even the queen was very disappointed that a member of the family could betray them in such a way.
I wish Diana had listened to good advisers and took the pragmatic course. She would probably be alive today and on the verge of being crowned queen. But again...that was her personality and it is part of what made her so popular to her fans.
No, it was not "women's intuition" it was her taking advice from people supposedly "in the know." Morton in his Diana in Search of Love book (2004) recounts why Diana chose to do the interview.
I don't think Diana wanted to go back to Charles. Ever. She did well in the settlement IMO.
The QM ordered Camilla's name not be mentioned after she was no longer "safe" and having divorced Andrew Parker Bowles. This after Charles blundering Dimbleby interview over a year before Diana's interview.
No way would Diana would have been crowned Queen after the separation. She and Charles could not stand being in the same room by that point.
Double post auto-merged: April 17, 2017, 10:42:04 PM
Quote from: amabel on April 17, 2017, 06:25:59 PM
well according to some people (I can't remember the details) she was persuaded to do Panorama against her wishes, but I don't think so. She looks to me like she was pleased to have a chance to put out her story on TV, knowing that she was always "visually appealing".. and that she could put across her tale better on the TV than Charles could. She also said to Jephson that he would be proud of her, and of course he was horrified because it WAS pushing her to a point with the RF that they would nol longer show her any loyalty.. He had wanted ot keep her as a "Separated princess inside the family orbit "but she was reckless and was half wanting to get out, but I think hlaf not realising that this interview would finally burn her bridges with the Queen.
Yes it was a bad move and it ended with the Q givng her the order to divorce, and she was I think frightened then. Her friends told her not to do it, saying that if she escalated the fighting, the RF would escalate too and that it would "go nuclear".. and that was what happened.
Had she remained as Princess, I think that people would have guessed that the marriage wasn't too happy and would have sympathised with her and felt "Oh well if she has a boyfriend, discreetly who can blame her? She's a good mother, and she does great wrok for the RF and for her charities.." but she wanted soemting more/different.. to being a wife within the RF..
I don't agree that it was only because of the Panorama interview that caused the Queen ordering the divorce. It was a series of specific events: the 1992 separation, the embarrassing Camillagate Tape, the Dimbleby book and interview where Charles admitted adultery and the PBs getting a divorce in 1995. The Panorama interview was the icing on the cake.
Diana wanted a real marriage and family and had said so. I don't think she would have been happy being married in name only for the rest of her life and not being able to remarry and have more children. She was not "old" when she died. This seems to be forgotten.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 14, 2017, 12:51:13 PM
You are quite right, being Princess of Wales does have its attractions although some women have still refused Charles' advances despite his title.
Lady Sarah Spencer had dated Prince Charles. She dated him only so long. She did not become the Princess that Diana became.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 17, 2017, 10:24:16 PM
Panorama was a result of listening to "woman's intuition" rather than actually listening to the experts including her press secretary. Diana systematically cut out or ignored those who advised against the program. Instead she listened to those who told her what she wanted to hear: (i.e.) stick the boot in. She was coached by leading Thatcherites and her famous soundbite about three in a marriage was contrived by a comedian (Ruby Wax I think).
Bashir allegedly showed her fake evidence of a plot to kill her in order to do the final coaxing. The interview itself was a ratings success and was quite good for those who already believed in her. However, it exposed a certain hardness and bitterness which was becoming unappealing. Canterbury felt that enough was enough.
When the backlash started, Diana panicked . All those announcements about giving up the title then missing it were just the signs of someone that had made a monumental error but could not turn back. Princess Margaret who was once friendly and sympathetic to her became a mortal enemy. QM allegedly ordered that her
WHat leading Thatcherites? why woud tey wish for this? from what I've read the "plot" was soemting to do with Charles Spencer, and it was nothing like a threat to kill him or her.
This seems very exaggerated stuff, quite honestly. where did you get it from? I would like to hear of some sources
I don't know if any of it is trure. I think that she wanted to tlak on TV because Charles had done so, and she wanted a right of reply, and believed that she would do better than he had done.. because his TV interview had not won him any sympathy. And that pretty much everyone she knew had advised her NOT to do anyting like that because they felt thtat it WOULD make the RF and the Establishment hostile to her. And that's what happened. She still had a lot of sympathy esp from women, but some of the public were beginning to find the whole saga bit off putting and just wanted the pair of thtem to shut up.. and others did have sympathy at first but felt that she was a spoiled woman who was complaining because she had an unhappy marriage and making a big fuss.
Her staff were horrified, I don't think her family were too happy...
And when the queen ordered a divorce, I think she DID indeed panic and felt that this was'nt what she wanted at all.. (she had said so during the interview that she didn't want a divorce). I think she began to realise that without the RF as part of her "backing team", she would be very isolated. SHe would lose the HRH, and the RF would be polite in public - just about - and cold In private adn her own class would cool on her. She got a good financial settlement but I think that many in the RF wuodl never forgive her
Lady Sarah shot herself in the foot as far as her romance with Charles went by giving an interview to Nigel Nelson and James Whitaker, tabloid journalists. Over a meal she talked about her relationship with Charles, characterised him as a romantic 'who falls in love easily', said she wasn't in love with him and if he asked her she would turn him down as she was 'a whirlwind sort of lady'. She stated he wasn't ready for marriage anyway.
Weeks later Whitaker published a long article in Woman's Own magazine, rehashing and extending this article, and writing about Sarah's anorexia, drinking, expulsion from boarding school and 'claim to have had 'thousands of boyfriends'. Whitaker wrote that Sarah rang Charles to alert him to the article and Charles said 'You've just done something extremely stupid'. Sarah frantically tried to backpedal, protesting to the DM that her remarks had been obtained by trickery, but it was too late.
Diana later told her employer Mary Robertson that Sarah had spoken to the Press and 'that was the end of her'. However, Sarah, although impetuous and flattered that Charles was courting her wasn't in love with him. Her misstep led to a happy marriage to Neil McQuodale.
@amabel. This is a synthesis of some of the wider issues surrounding that interview. Some of the pages have been turned upside down for some reason but you can use your reviewer to skew them back correctly:
</title> endstream endobj 15 0 obj 17 endobj 16 0 obj [ /Indexed /DeviceRGB 1 17 0 R ] endobj 17 0 obj << /Length 18 0 R >> stream ÿÿÿ endstream (http://www.wlym.com/archive/oakland/brutish/FallOfWindsor/EIR%20970912%20Can%20the%20House%20of%20Windsor%20survive%20Dianas%20death.pdf)
Double post auto-merged: April 18, 2017, 12:53:27 PM
As for Sarah: just goes to show discretion was never a strong quality amongst the Spencers. Why the need to blurb details about your suitor or potential suitor...and to tabloid journalist of all people??? If you are not interested, you just tell the person...not run to the nearest journalist and spill the beans. I have a wicked satisfaction in knowing that Diana later made her an "extra lady in waiting". Lol :hehe:
I think Sarah would have been miserable with Prince Charles. She did much better for herself in the long run.
I don't think Sarah really wanted to marry Charles.
Quote from: Curryong on April 18, 2017, 10:25:47 AM
Lady Sarah shot herself in the foot as far as her romance with Charles went by giving an interview to Nigel Nelson and James Whitaker, tabloid journalists. Over a meal she talked about her relationship with Charles, characterised him as a romantic 'who falls in love easily', said she wasn't in love with him and if he asked her she would turn him down as she was 'a whirlwind sort of lady'. She stated he wasn't ready for marriage anyway.
Weeks later Whitaker published a long article in Woman's Own magazine, rehashing and extending this article, and writing about Sarah's anorexia, drinking, expulsion from boarding school and 'claim to have had 'thousands of boyfriends'. Whitaker wrote that Sarah rang Charles to alert him to the article and Charles said 'You've just done something extremely stupid'. Sarah frantically tried to backpedal, protesting to the DM that her remarks had been obtained by trickery, but it was too late.
Diana later told her employer Mary Robertson that Sarah had spoken to the Press and 'that was the end of her'. However, Sarah, although impetuous and flattered that Charles was courting her wasn't in love with him. Her misstep led to a happy marriage to Neil McQuodale.
Thank you for the information
@Curryong. I'd known that Sarah had made some comments to the reporter but didn't recall all of the details. Anyhow I agree with everyone that she found a better partner in Neil McQoudale.
I rather suspect the royal family were also pleased in hindsight that Charles never actually got serious with Sarah. If she was blabbing to the press on first dates, what would happen if she was fully installed as a consort. Lack of discretion is definitely a very bad quality in a royal girlfriend or wife. Sarah is definitely better off where she is and I am sure Charles has no regrets on that score.
Btw I remember something being written about a spencer girl who said at the entrance of the cathederal on Diana's wedding; "All this could have been mine." Is it a true story and if true, who was it?
Sorry Royal but please where do you read these things? I've never heard of them and I am fairly well up on the Charles and Di marriage and royal history.. I would be interested to know wherhe you read them. If such a thing had been said it could only have been sarah S, obviously, anad I'm sure she never thought such a thing.
Double post auto-merged: April 18, 2017, 06:49:30 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 18, 2017, 12:49:32 PM
@amabel. This is a synthesis of some of the wider issues surrounding that interview. Some of the pages have been turned upside down for some reason but you can use your reviewer to skew them back correctly:
</title> endstream endobj 15 0 obj 17 endobj 16 0 obj [ /Indexed /DeviceRGB 1 17 0 R ] endobj 17 0 obj << /Length 18 0 R >> stream ÿÿÿ endstream (http://www.wlym.com/archive/oakland/brutish/FallOfWindsor/EIR%20970912%20Can%20the%20House%20of%20Windsor%20survive%20Dianas%20death.pdf)
Double post auto-merged: April 18, 2017, 12:53:27 PM
As for Sarah: just goes to show discretion was never a strong quality amongst the Spencers. Why the need to blurb details about your suitor or potential suitor...and to tabloid journalist of all people??? If you are not interested, you just tell the person...not run to the nearest journalist and spill the beans. I have a wicked satisfaction in knowing that Diana later made her an "extra lady in waiting". Lol :hehe:
I daresay she would have sung another tune if Charles had asked her to marry him. However I think he wasn't that pushed about her.. IIRC he wasn't too happy to find that she smoked when they were on holiday, and wasn't much of a skier... I think that she was just at best a very mild romance..
Camilla smoked. So obviously, it was not an obstacle for Charles.
I think Sarah wanted to marry the Duke of Westminster, not Charles. Charles helped her through her illness (anorexia) after her breakup with the Duke. I don't think she wanted to marry Charles.
Double post auto-merged: April 18, 2017, 07:03:37 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 18, 2017, 05:40:38 PM
I rather suspect the royal family were also pleased in hindsight that Charles never actually got serious with Sarah. If she was blabbing to the press on first dates, what would happen if she was fully installed as a consort. Lack of discretion is definitely a very bad quality in a royal girlfriend or wife. Sarah is definitely better off where she is and I am sure Charles has no regrets on that score.
Btw I remember something being written about a spencer girl who said at the entrance of the cathederal on Diana's wedding; "All this could have been mine." Is it a true story and if true, who was it?
She was darn lucky she did that. She might have married Charles. She got a nice husband instead.
Sarah did not say all this could have been mine. I think that is a myth.
Lady Sarah Spencer remarked, 'I wouldn't marry anyone I didn't love whether he was the dustman or the King of England.'
The Prince of Wales was certainly not the dustman.
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on April 18, 2017, 11:38:24 PM
Lady Sarah Spencer remarked, 'I wouldn't marry anyone I didn't love whether he was the dustman or the King of England.'
The Prince of Wales was certainly not the dustman.
I don't think he was every goig to ask her and certainly not agter she had been so stupd and ill bred as to tlak to the press.
I think she really did not want to marry him.
Did Lady Sarah consider all the beautiful royal jewels she could have worn if Charles had proposed and marry her? :hmm: :hmm:
Probably not. At that time, in the 1970's, the Queen and the Queen Mother were wearing a lot of those beautiful jewels themselves on a far more regular basis than the Queen does now. I just don't think Charles and Sarah S were that seriously involved, though Sarah liked the prestige of being a gf of the Prince of Wales. I don't think either of them were each other's cup of tea, and thinking about acquiring family jewels is no basis for a future marriage, anyway.
If she had had a chance of marrying him, she would probably have grabbed iwht both hands.. and at the lovely jewellery too. But she had probalbly worked out on their holiday that he liked her as a frend but it wasn't goign to go any further than that. I beleive that she wasn't a good skiier, and she was a heavy smoker.. and he wasn't really quite ready to consider her as a possible wife... it was a few years before he had to really start thinking about that.
Charles was turned down by other women (Amanda Knatchbull and Anna Wallis and possibly Lady Jane Wellesley) so not every woman wanted him or thought he was a "Catch." Sarah wanted to marry the Duke of Westminster and he broke up with her. She started seeing Charles after that. I don't think she wanted to marry Charles if she did she would not have been careless with the media (it might have been a subconscious or conscious way of ending things. She said he was like a "brother" to her at one point which does not scream wanting to be a wife to him, for obvious reasons. It is not always Charles who was the dumper, sometimes he was the one dumped. I think Sarah lucked out and found the right person for her who was not Charles.
Some good points, Charles relationship was viewed more as consoling her after her prior relationship breakdown, and Diana did mention in the Settlen tapes that Sarah thought it was odd he didnt try to sleep with her. Towards the end the word was getting out among potential suitors of the PoW about the pressure of the press and Camilla and as it dragged on, more girls were waking up and saying "no".
So it leads back into the whole Private Eye thing and how much Diana knew at the start, and what her thoughts were about winning Charles over/changing his mind/heart about Camilla.
I read in one book that Sarah was more concerned about Kanga than Camilla. She dated Charles during the "kanga years" when Camilla was having children with APB and not available for Charles. But I think Charles was a "transitional" for her after her heartbreaking breakup with the DUke of Westminster.
Diana thought Charles loved her, at 19 she thought he courted her and wanted to marry her because he loved her. She told this to Morton. Diana did not travel in Charles' "set" until he started dating her. So she did not know as much about Camilla as Charles' circle (in his age group did). Charles probably did some sweet talking to Diana as well.
why woudl she be concerned about Dale Tyron if she wasn't interested in Charles?
Why not find out who wrote it and ask the writer, why ask me?. I am just reporting what I recalled reading.
I still think she did not want to marry Charles. She made a lucky escape. IMO
I rather suspect that there were some regrets on Sarah's part. That interview was a real mess-up. It is ridiculous to pretend that girls were not falling over themselves to get married to him. Sour grapes IMO. Being Charles' wife is nothing to sniff about; otherwise Diana would not have fought tooth and nail to remain his wife. Even at his advanced age now, Charles can still get women if he really puts his mind to it: if for nothing but that pesky little thing called the British crown. Those who claim to have rejected him were really just defeated by the looming presence of Camilla or his refusal to take things further. At least Knatchbull was sensible enough to realize that it was hopeless to try to remove Camilla from Charles' life.
I don't believe anyone rejected him apart from Amanda Knatchbull and from what I've read that was parlty because esp after her grandfather's assassination, she was very reluctant to marry someone who would be in the public eye and also IIRC, her mother has said that there was "no spark" between her and Charles. She probably was too closely related to him to see him as a boyfriend.
I think there were certainly women whom he dated in the 70s who liked him but weren't that serious, and knew he wasn't "that serious" as he was still young and playing the field.. or found that as they got to know him, they didn't have enough in common to make up for the loss of freedom which a royal marriage would demand. however I'd say that most of his girlfriends were at least likely to be tempted if he made a proposal. However Sarah Spencers behaviour suggests that she was anxious to draw attenton to herself, chatting to the press and I would say she was not dating Charles just because she liked his company, she also hoped that there was a chance he might propose. possibly she thought that talking about him might be a quid pro quo to the reporters, and they'd leave her alone and she could then pursue the romance and see if it ended in a proposal.. But it just woud have annoyed Charles..
Mountbatten had a Gigi scenario, Charles had to wait for Amanda to grow up and come of age until he could court her. In the meantime, Mountbatten advised him to sow wild oats. Mountbatten would take the two on vacations so they could spend time together. Amanda probably did not feel any chemistry with Charles and said no to his proposal. Once Mountbatten died, he could not be around to try to talk his granddaughter into saying yes to Charles. Sarah only dated Charles after she was turned down by the Duke of Westminster, the man she wanted to marry. I don't think Sarah was that interested in Charles. She even said he was like a "brother" to her.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 22, 2017, 09:50:31 PM
I rather suspect that there were some regrets on Sarah's part. That interview was a real mess-up. It is ridiculous to pretend that girls were not falling over themselves to get married to him. Sour grapes IMO. Being Charles' wife is nothing to sniff about; otherwise Diana would not have fought tooth and nail to remain his wife. Even at his advanced age now, Charles can still get women if he really puts his mind to it: if for nothing but that pesky little thing called the British crown. Those who claim to have rejected him were really just defeated by the looming presence of Camilla or his refusal to take things further. At least Knatchbull was sensible enough to realize that it was hopeless to try to remove Camilla from Charles' life.
After finding Mr Right and having children with him, I doubt Sarah has the least thought of what might have been with Prince Charles. It is not ridiculous--Amanda Knatchbull got a proposal from Charles and turned him down. Anna Wallace ditched him and walked away from the relationship.
Diana did not cling to being Charles wife. If she had wanted to stay with Charles she could have become bff with Camilla, not cared if Charles strayed and not bothered with Andrew Morton and the tell all. She'd just enjoy the perks. She could have become a doormat. Diana had enough of the marriage.
I think the women who want Charles would be sycophants and royalists. Charles has not aged well but the HRH I suppose may hold some attractions for some women...
Amanda Knatchbull did not want to marry Charles. It may not necessarily have had anything to do with Camilla. It is possible for women not to be "mad" over Charles.
Sarah probably is very thankful she did not marry Charles. She has a husband that she's been married to for many years and has had beautiful children. Lucky her.
She may have seen the 1980 private eye mag and thought it wasn't anything deep enough to worry about because it did mention apb being there. I do recall seeing in the A & E documentary that she was somewhat relieved after having a talk between c and c in 1980 or 81',I'm not sure if that was true.
She told Morton she felt some relief when she found a note from Charles the night before the wedding telling her he was proud of her and looked forward to the wedding. She had the talk with Camilla some years later.
Quote from: michelle0187 on April 22, 2017, 11:39:23 PM
She may have seen the 1980 private eye mag and thought it wasn't anything deep enough to worry about because it did mention apb being there. I do recall seeing in the A & E documentary that she was somewhat relieved after having a talk between c and c in 1980 or 81',I'm not sure if that was true.
why would she talk to Charles and Camilla in 1980? esp if she allegedly didn't know what was going on until during her engagement and she didn't want Camila or Dale Tyron at the wedding? As I recall the official story from charles' side was that Diana approacted him about Camilla during the engagement and that he told her that he had loved Camilla and other woman I the past and that now he loved HER...
If Charles said he loved Diana to her face, I wonder why he had that "whatever in love means" reply when asked by a reporter if he was in love with her? Camilla and Diana were seen together in photographs for a time. I think Diana did not want Camilla at the wedding breakfast (Camilla was at the wedding) because of the gift of the FG bracelet Charles was giving to her. I think Kanga also got a trinket.
Diana did give contradictory messages about whether she believed Camilla had been having an affair with Charles right through the marriage or whether he just left Diana for her after 1986. Some friends report that Diana found it so hurtful that people were saying that he never loved her. In Panorama she seems to indicate that there was a point at which he left (according to her woman's intuition) which means that for a time at least, he was not in contact with Camilla. In Morton Diana explicitly talks about happy times; so it was not an entirely unhappy marriage, quite contrary to those who insist that Charles never loved her at all and merely used her as a brood mare.
If someone is looking for signs that Charles is a bad man, they will definitely find them. Likewise if someone is looking for signs that he is a good man, they will find them. When you listen to the engagement interview in its entirety, you realize that "whatever love means" was an ironic put down to the reporter who was asking an impertinent question. Those who preferred the story of Charles the cold fish took it to mean that Charles was essentially saying he did not really love his wife. Diana's reaction here is very interesting. She cringes a bit. Another time they were in Wales and Charles joked about two wives. It was a joke and Diana smiled, but she also looked uncomfortable. That tells me that she was already very paranoid about Camilla and any joke would be interpreted as an attack on her.
There is an African proverb that you should not make jokes about feeble bones when there is a lame person nearby (It is a very mangled interpretation so advance apologies) but in this case it applies. The seeds of doubt had been sown and Diana was looking for evidence to support her conclusion. She found that evidence in everything that Charles did and reacted accordingly. He in turn found her entreaties and outbursts exhausting, particularly those that were off the mark.
Messy relationship for sure: one partner suspicious of the other and the other bored to death by the suspicions of their partner. Meanwhile you have the armchair marriage counselors telling you how you should love one another so that you can fulfill their private fantasies of a fairy tale royal romance. It was all headed south due to the toxic mix of third party interference, public scrutiny, media intrigue and the basic incompatibility of the two principals.
In his confessions to Dimbleby, Charles did admit he preferred Camilla when he married Diana. He never said he loved Diana in all the words he said to Dimbleby. Diana did not claim this, Charles actually admitted it. This was over a year before Panorama. MOrton never said Camilla was Charles' lover or mistress just a "friend." Later, Charles admitted to Dimbleby she was his mistress. Charles never said publicly he loved DIana. The fact remains. And he and Camilla and his friends were interviewed by Bedell Smith and she Diana gets worse treatment in Smith's book than she did in Dimbleby (I suppose her being alive when Dimbleby's book came out had something to do with it).
Charles did not just plain say "yes" when asked if they were in love. That fact remains. His silly comment I think showed he was hedging perhaps to please Camilla. Diana did not cringe, she looked at him and just started agreeing with him when someone said they were "two happy people."
Diana was no way paranoid about Camilla. If she were, Camilla would still be happily married to Andrew Parker Bowles and she and Charles never got together. Diana was spot on. Diana was uncomfortable with Charles' jealousy of her during public appearances and mentioned this to Bashir in 1994. I think Charles remark was tasteless.
Diana had every right to be suspicious and she was spot on about Camilla.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 23, 2017, 01:01:13 PM
If someone is looking for signs that Charles is a bad man, they will definitely find them. Likewise if someone is looking for signs that he is a good man, they will find them. When you listen to the engagement interview in its entirety, you realize that "whatever love means" was an ironic put down to the reporter who was asking an impertinent question. Those who preferred the story of Charles the cold fish took it to mean that Charles was essentially saying he did not really love his wife. Diana's reaction here is very interesting. She cringes a bit.
I think that charles' remark was just him trying to sound clever, I don't think that Diana cringes, but perhaps she was a bit embarrassed by what seemed a rather clumsy remark.. she was used to playing along nicely with the media... whereas Charles was uneasy with them,
and yes she was a bit vague about the early years of the marriage and when it went pear shaped. I don't believe ti was all misery even if the problems were there from early on. And All marriages even the best have problems. I think they had some happy times when the children were babies, and when she was pregnant, but there was always tension..
But you see Amabel, that is precisely why it is so important for some royal watchers to insist on that fiction that Charles was sleeping with Camilla from day one of that marriage. Anything other than that would show them up to be the sanctimonious intruders in that marriage who claim to know more about what happened than the people who were in the marriage. Like any marriage it had ups and downs; with the important difference that Charles gave up trying after 1986 and moved back to his old mistress.
Diana herself was no longer happy about being portrayed as a victim whose husband never loved her and cheated her from day one. It was just not true and even demeaning to her. I wish she was here to put some of her fans straight. They seem stuck on the "Charles is a very bad man and it is all Camilla's fault" train. I gave up long time ago trying to reason with them. I just say my piece and move on. It is safer that way and less risk of falling foul of the moderators.
Quote from: amabel on April 23, 2017, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 23, 2017, 01:01:13 PM
If someone is looking for signs that Charles is a bad man, they will definitely find them. Likewise if someone is looking for signs that he is a good man, they will find them. When you listen to the engagement interview in its entirety, you realize that "whatever love means" was an ironic put down to the reporter who was asking an impertinent question. Those who preferred the story of Charles the cold fish took it to mean that Charles was essentially saying he did not really love his wife. Diana's reaction here is very interesting. She cringes a bit.
I think that charles' remark was just him trying to sound clever, I don't think that Diana cringes, but perhaps she was a bit embarrassed by what seemed a rather clumsy remark.. she was used to playing along nicely with the media... whereas Charles was uneasy with them,
and yes she was a bit vague about the early years of the marriage and when it went pear shaped. I don't believe ti was all misery even if the problems were there from early on. And All marriages even the best have problems. I think they had some happy times when the children were babies, and when she was pregnant, but there was always tension..
I don't think Charles wanted to say he loved her. He hedged. His "clever" remark made him look very confused. It could not have been all misery since they shared a bed, obviously and had two children together.
Double post auto-merged: April 23, 2017, 09:59:22 PM
Charles and Camilla kept in touch. This is a fact. They did not have to sleep together the whole time but Charles did admit he preferred Camilla but still met up with her at the hunts and at house parties and they spoke on the phone. Charles did not "give up" Diana until he got what he wanted: the heir and spare. He had Camilla 'there for him.' He had no business marrying Diana when he did not love her.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 23, 2017, 08:15:04 PM
But you see Amabel, that is precisely why it is so important for some royal watchers to insist on that fiction that Charles was sleeping with Camilla from day one of that marriage. Anything other than that would show them up to be the sanctimonious intruders in that marriage who claim to know more about what happened than the people who were in the marriage. Like any marriage it had ups and downs; with the important difference that Charles gave up trying after 1986 and moved back to his old mistress.
well its manifestly absurd to say that chas was sleeping with Cam from day 1 and I don't think that Diana ever claimed that. But He did problaby always have a fondness for her that he coud't shake off, esp when his marriage wasn't working out.
It was a whole lot more than "fondness". He went into the marriage preferring Camilla. His marriage did not work out because he did not go into it in an honest way. He'd be a darn fool to think his relationship with Camilla did not hurt his first marriage. He did his duty and got the heir and spare which is what he wanted from Diana. He felt she would fall into line like Andrew Parker Bowles.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 23, 2017, 08:15:04 PM
. Diana herself was no longer happy about being portrayed as a victim whose husband never loved her and cheated her from day one. It was just not true and even demeaning to her. I wish she was here to put some of her fans straight.
well unfortuanately that was the picture that Diana put out in Morton, that she was a helpless innocent who knew nothing bout the affair with Camilla, (whch every upper class person knew about) and who was so naïve that she didn't know anything about sex or indeed anything very much. That she had never heard of Camilla, and only discovered there was an affair during her engagement, when of course it would have bene too late ot break it off. and that Charles had evilly plotted with Camilla to go back to her after he had married Diana and fathered an heir or 2. and that she had been the hapless victim of their plotting. So having put that story out, how could she then go back and say that it hadn't been quite like that?
Diana was 12 years younger than Charles and would not know what the Highgrove set knew about CHarles and Camilla. She only started meeting his friends in 1980 and it was in CHarles interest to present Camilla as the safe married friend, the housewife with a husband and two small children. And she was said to have to approve Charles' girlfriends. She was more of a matronly figure. I would not say every upper class person knew. Diana did not have experience which is what Charles wanted for a wife and future mother of his heirs. Diana thought Charles loved her and after the wedding would not be seeing Camilla anymore. Unfortunately, Diana trusted Charles too much.
Interesting contrast in last 2 posts, as usual id say the answer lies somewhere in the middle....
Diana was not a masochist, if she had the power to see into the future she would have dumped Charles early on. She was dazzled by Charles and he sweet talked her. She did not grow up in Charles' circle but was about his much younger brothers ages. Diana thought Charles loved her because he proposed to her. The word in the media was that Camilla was the "safe" married friend who vetted Charles girlfriends. This was a well known fact back then.
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on June 03, 2017, 03:58:01 PM
Interesting contrast in last 2 posts, as usual id say the answer lies somewhere in the middle....
I agree but like you I tend to see gray and not merely black and white when it comes to historic figures.
Quote from: amabel on June 03, 2017, 06:16:26 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 23, 2017, 08:15:04 PM
. Diana herself was no longer happy about being portrayed as a victim whose husband never loved her and cheated her from day one. It was just not true and even demeaning to her. I wish she was here to put some of her fans straight.
well unfortuanately that was the picture that Diana put out in Morton, that she was a helpless innocent who knew nothing bout the affair with Camilla, (whch every upper class person knew about) and who was so naïve that she didn't know anything about sex or indeed anything very much. That she had never heard of Camilla, and only discovered there was an affair during her engagement, when of course it would have bene too late ot break it off. and that Charles had evilly plotted with Camilla to go back to her after he had married Diana and fathered an heir or 2. and that she had been the hapless victim of their plotting. So having put that story out, how could she then go back and say that it hadn't been quite like that?
that girlfriend who jumped Charles at a party, because he was dancing with Camilla, also knew he was sleeping with Camilla when she (the girlfriend, i think sandy must know the name of the young woman) was being courted by charles?
^
@dianab The woman was Anna Wallace
Thanks Trudie. I thought the woman was named Anna. But wasnt sure.
Jumped Charles at a party? Do you mean tried to get off with him?
Well known as & WHY Anna Wallace left Charles. At that party Camilla saw Anna W wouldnt to be a good 'mouse'. I highly doubt the Anna W' reaction to Charles at that party was because she knew about the nature of 'friendship' betweeten C & c
Thank God the thread is back :goodpost:
Quote from: dianab on June 03, 2017, 11:44:56 PM
Well known as & WHY Anna Wallace left Charles. At that party Camilla saw Anna W wouldnt to be a good 'mouse'. I highly doubt the Anna W' reaction to Charles at that party was because she knew about the nature of 'friendship' betweeten C & c
what does that mean? Obviously she knew that Charles and Camilla were or had been lovers, which is why she got cross and stomped off...
I thought the Anna Wallace incident occurred at the Queen Mother's eightieth birthday party held at Windsor. I read that Charles escorted Anna to this party and then, as was his wont, drifted off to dance with Camilla for most of the night. Camilla went there with Andrew PB presumably. Anna, who had a temper, became agitated, and when Charles finally tore himself away from Mrs PB and returned to her Anna hissed at him, 'Nobody does this to me. Not even you!' and sped off there and then in a borrowed car.
I have read, though i can't remember where, that there were 2 incidnets. once Anna stormed off because Charles had danced a few dances with Camilla, and alos with other lady guests and that that was "proper party behaviour".. (so posslbly that is the QM's birthday party - where it would be good form for charles to mingle with most of the guests)
presumably she had made up with him afterwards because another incident occurred some time later, that he DID spend more time with Cam than with her..and she finished their relationship. However I believe she was still friends with him later, as I have read that at one party much later on, where Diana had been dancing a lot with some young man, charles had spent the evening talking to Anna.
But I think that Anna was someone wo was likely to remain as a girlfriend, rather than a wife...and I'm sure she was aware that Charles had been in an affair with Camilla and was still very close to her..
All I can say about Anna Wallace: CLEVER GIRL!!!!
The man was dithering and behaving in a very cowardly way and she was wise to give him a miss.
Quote from: amabel on June 04, 2017, 09:05:40 AM
I have read, though i can't remember where, that there were 2 incidnets. once Anna stormed off because Charles had danced a few dances with Camilla, and alos with other lady guests and that that was "proper party behaviour".. (so posslbly that is the QM's birthday party - where it would be good form for charles to mingle with most of the guests)
presumably she had made up with him afterwards because another incident occurred some time later, that he DID spend more time with Cam than with her..and she finished their relationship. However I believe she was still friends with him later, as I have read that at one party much later on, where Diana had been dancing a lot with some young man, charles had spent the evening talking to Anna.
But I think that Anna was someone wo was likely to remain as a girlfriend, rather than a wife...and I'm sure she was aware that Charles had been in an affair with Camilla and was still very close to her..
Anna moved on I think she had at least two husbands. Charles was said to be besotted with Anna. I think Camilla may have perceived her as a threat.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 04, 2017, 01:37:08 PM
All I can say about Anna Wallace: CLEVER GIRL!!!!
The man was dithering and behaving in a very cowardly way and she was wise to give him a miss.
he wasn't dithering. He was passionate about Anna for a time,b ut it was not a relationship likely to lead to marraiage.
Just been reading this article:
Prince Charles's hand-written letters to Nancy Reagan | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4569560/Prince-Charles-s-hand-written-letters-Nancy-Reagan.html#reader-comments)
Two things strike me:
1. How the Reagans could be so discreet. I never suspected that there Charles' chums outside the formal banquets.
2. How many commentators have an unhealthy obsessive dislike for Charles that turns even the least acrimonious letters into a point of high drama. Some people need counselling to get over this saga.
Too bad Charles had to whine to these people. At the outset, he and Diana should have gone to an objective marriage counselor. I am not at all sure that Charles and Nancy Reagan were all that close. Nancy's husband was her life and center of her universe. I doubt she had much time to devote to Charles problems.
I see obsessive dislike for Diana in some of those comments.
I think people can and should express their opinions and not be accused of "Needing Counseling." Not everybody is going to approve of everything Charles does or says. Charles IMO tends to dramatize and it is all about him.
I personally think Charles should have not been such a whinger and dealt with problems instead of airing them to strangers.
Woe betide Diana if she had been the one to write those letters.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 04, 2017, 01:37:08 PM
All I can say about Anna Wallace: CLEVER GIRL!!!!
The man was dithering and behaving in a very cowardly way and she was wise to give him a miss.
WELL SAID!
Double post auto-merged: June 04, 2017, 10:45:32 PM
Quote from: sandy on June 04, 2017, 01:42:06 PM
Quote from: amabel on June 04, 2017, 09:05:40 AM
I have read, though i can't remember where, that there were 2 incidnets. once Anna stormed off because Charles had danced a few dances with Camilla, and alos with other lady guests and that that was "proper party behaviour".. (so posslbly that is the QM's birthday party - where it would be good form for charles to mingle with most of the guests)
presumably she had made up with him afterwards because another incident occurred some time later, that he DID spend more time with Cam than with her..and she finished their relationship. However I believe she was still friends with him later, as I have read that at one party much later on, where Diana had been dancing a lot with some young man, charles had spent the evening talking to Anna.
But I think that Anna was someone wo was likely to remain as a girlfriend, rather than a wife...and I'm sure she was aware that Charles had been in an affair with Camilla and was still very close to her..
Anna moved on I think she had at least two husbands. Charles was said to be besotted with Anna. I think Camilla may have perceived her as a threat.
IF he was besotted or 'passionate' with her, Charles would NOT have spent the night dancing with Camilla. From which i read he'd have married her if not for this 'Camilla episode'... As far as he was concerned she was marriage material.
Camilla dropped the act of the safe married friend when she was around Anna Wallace. With Diana, she invited her to weekends at the home she shared with her husband and small children to look "harmless." I think she thought Diana not as clever as Anna and could pull the wool over her eyes. I think "monopolizing" Charles that night put a coffin nail in the relationship of Anna and Charles.
QuoteHow the Reagans could be so discreet
I believe that the Reagans could have been discreet because they understood what it was like to have the press intruding upon their personal lives. They'd been the subject of tabloid intrusion themselves. :shrug:
Quote from: dianab on June 04, 2017, 10:35:35 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 04, 2017, 01:37:08 PM
All I can say about Anna Wallace: CLEVER GIRL!!!!
The man was dithering and behaving in a very cowardly way and she was wise to give him a miss.
WELL SAID!
Double post auto-merged: June 04, 2017, 10:45:32 PM
Quote from: sandy on June 04, 2017, 01:42:06 PM
Quote from: amabel on June 04, 2017, 09:05:40 AM
I have read, though i can't remember where, that there were 2 incidnets. once Anna stormed off because Charles had danced a few dances with Camilla, and alos with other lady guests and that that was "proper party behaviour".. (so posslbly that is the QM's birthday party - where it would be good form for charles to mingle with most of the guests)
presumably she had made up with him afterwards because another incident occurred some time later, that he DID spend more time with Cam than with her..and she finished their relationship. However I believe she was still friends with him later, as I have read that at one party much later on, where Diana had been dancing a lot with some young man, charles had spent the evening talking to Anna.
But I think that Anna was someone wo was likely to remain as a girlfriend, rather than a wife...and I'm sure she was aware that Charles had been in an affair with Camilla and was still very close to her..
Anna moved on I think she had at least two husbands. Charles was said to be besotted with Anna. I think Camilla may have perceived her as a threat.
IF he was besotted or 'passionate' with her, Charles would NOT have spent the night dancing with Camilla. From which i read he'd have married her if not for this 'Camilla episode'... As far as he was concerned she was marriage material.
Maybe she did not want to marry him. Charles was "besotted" with other ladies and it seemed he would actually have married Davina Sheffield except for the fact that her ex showed up and said they had lived together. She eventually married someone else, happily.
Charles appears to have been very confused and conflicted. I think he was the sort who wanted to have it all.
Yes Anna was a clever girl,
@royalanthropologist i think she knew what was what, didnt need an issue of Private Eye to figure it out. She struck me as not suffering any fools, and would speak her mind. I find it interesting the think about the idea that Charles feelings for her, plus getting dropped by her, combined with her looks and willful nature, is it any wonder that Diana would catch his eye at the De Passe's BBQ?
As for the Regans and Charles, I read an article today that lined up with what
@TLLK said about the tabloids and such being a common concern and helped in their discretion. I remember when Nancy died recently seeing the pic in the Oval Office I believe of the four of them, and thinking back when that picture was taken if youd have told me Charles would be the last one alive, id have told you that was impossible... :no:
well if Anna had the brains of a mouse, she would have known what every deb knew, that Camilla was a special friend of Charles. and if she could figure it out, why did Diana need six months to do so....
I don't believe that Charles would have married her, he was passionate about her for a time, but he was as he said, someone who fell in love easily, and if he had had serious intentions towards her he would not have been caught making love to her outdoors in balmoral. He would have been more careful of her reputation. So she wasn't really losing anything by wlaking out...
Double post auto-merged: June 05, 2017, 07:16:34 PM
Quote from: TLLK on June 05, 2017, 12:09:49 AM
QuoteHow the Reagans could be so discreet
I believe that the Reagans could have been discreet because they understood what it was like to have the press intruding upon their personal lives. They'd been the subject of tabloid intrusion themselves. :shrug:
Seems they weren't very discreet if they have allowed the letters to become public property, while Charles is still alive...
Anna was more sophisticated than Diana. She was in her twenties and had experience and was not a teenager like Diana was. Anna found out about Camilla because Camilla was more obvious than she was with Diana. Diana was introduced to her and she was a housewife with a husband and two small children and acted like the "mentor" who would "help" Lady Diana. Camilla made her interest in Charles quite clear in front of Anna. Charles may well have married Anna but it will never be known. The fact is Anna walked out on him.
Charles probably sweet talked Diana and Diana actually got a proposal from Charles and she thought it meant Charles loved her. She was not that cynical.
I would not say "every" deb knew about Camilla. Diana never was a "deb" and did not have a coming out party and was a lot younger than Charles.
I think most people agree that Diana could be incredibly naive sometimes. Her life experiences seem almost childish when you compare her with 20-year olds of today. She was caught between the world of knowing aristocratic girls who had done the deb thing and knew the score on one hand; and the modern teenager who liked pop. The royal family expected someone who was well-versed in palace intrigue and would play along with every thing that they required.
If Charles had say waited another 5 years he probably would have found the 'inexperienced girl' he would need to marry would be about 20 years younger.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 06, 2017, 12:22:18 AM
I think most people agree that Diana could be incredibly naive sometimes. Her life experiences seem almost childish when you compare her with 20-year olds of today. She was caught between the world of knowing aristocratic girls who had done the deb thing and knew the score on one hand; and the modern teenager who liked pop. The royal family expected someone who was well-versed in palace intrigue and would play along with every thing that they required.
No they weren't. They expected a ladylike sensible girl who knew about aristociratic and royal social life and who would if necessary be able to handle any marital problems in a discreet way. And IMO Diana knew perfectly well about Camila and it did not bother her. Until she began to fear that Charles would never love her as much as he had done with Camilla and she found the whole royal life thing much more stressful than she expected.
THe RF seem to have genuinely like Diana at first and believed that she was charming, pretty, sweet, and able to handle the press attention. She had done very well during her courtship. She seemed to enjoy the country and to want to be married and have a family, and to love Charles. Theres no evidence that they believed she would have to handle her husband having an affair, or that she was too young to compete with an experienced older woman...
So I think they were as bewildered as Charles when Diana seemed to be unhappy and worked up during the Balmoral honeymoon bit, when she seemed to be unable to cope with the rituals of being part of the house party, the shooting, the long weeks of doing nothing but watching the men shooting and looking out at the rain.
Amabel, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree about exactly what Diana knew about Camilla and how au fait she was with Society gossip at the time. I think she knew that Camilla had been a longterm mistress but she didn't know the degree of it or how much Charles was still in thrall to C.
However, what I feel that you are really discounting is the fact that by the time the Balmoral portion of the honeymoon came around Diana was in the early stages of pregnancy.
Pregnancy can do very funny things to people. I've described in a previous post how my elder daughter was during her first pregnancy and it wasn't pretty! I've known people become weeping hormonal messes, become silly and irrational and irritable when they are in those early weeks. We don't all escape coming motherhood unscathed and bouncing with health.
And Diana was not just hormonal and weepy but had around her a set of people who ranged from mildly sympathetic to uninterested and detached. They were people with whom she had little in common and whom in most cases she scarcely knew.
I loved my own kindly mother in law, but I certainly wouldn't have liked to have spent half my first pregnancy (as Diana did at BP until the KP apartment was finished) in the close proximity of my inlaws! And I wasn't just twenty and learning to cope with all the other changes in my life that had come about in the last twelve months, either! Much less was I with a husband whom I wasn't certain loved me.
I agree Curryong. Camilla was presented as a "friend" to Charles who was married to one of Charles own good friends and she had small children. She was presented as an "advisor."
I agree about Balmoral and how could Diana enjoy anything when she felt ill from morning sickness.
Double post auto-merged: June 06, 2017, 01:12:30 PM
Quote from: amabel on June 06, 2017, 06:00:05 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 06, 2017, 12:22:18 AM
I think most people agree that Diana could be incredibly naive sometimes. Her life experiences seem almost childish when you compare her with 20-year olds of today. She was caught between the world of knowing aristocratic girls who had done the deb thing and knew the score on one hand; and the modern teenager who liked pop. The royal family expected someone who was well-versed in palace intrigue and would play along with every thing that they required.
No they weren't. They expected a ladylike sensible girl who knew about aristociratic and royal social life and who would if necessary be able to handle any marital problems in a discreet way. And IMO Diana knew perfectly well about Camila and it did not bother her. Until she began to fear that Charles would never love her as much as he had done with Camilla and she found the whole royal life thing much more stressful than she expected.
THe RF seem to have genuinely like Diana at first and believed that she was charming, pretty, sweet, and able to handle the press attention. She had done very well during her courtship. She seemed to enjoy the country and to want to be married and have a family, and to love Charles. Theres no evidence that they believed she would have to handle her husband having an affair, or that she was too young to compete with an experienced older woman...
So I think they were as bewildered as Charles when Diana seemed to be unhappy and worked up during the Balmoral honeymoon bit, when she seemed to be unable to cope with the rituals of being part of the house party, the shooting, the long weeks of doing nothing but watching the men shooting and looking out at the rain.
Not everybody pores over the society pages. And the society pages would not spell out that Charles and Camilla were lovers and she was cheating on her husband. That would have been a no no. And it would have led to a divorce of the PBs.
Diana reasonably thought Charles loved her which is why he asked her to marry him. She only saw the hold Camilla had after the ceremony when those cufflinks emerged. And Charles would call her up from his honeymoon with Diana, according to Stephen Barry.
Obviously Diana did not want a marriage where the husband cheated. And no it is not the "aristocratic" way since not all of them cheat.
As I had said before, Diana had a difficult pregnancy with William and she was sick all the time. How could she go frolicking out going stalking. She would be near no bathroom for one thing, she was throwing up. Diana was not pregnant or had morning sickness when she went out to the country with Charles during their courtship. Different scenarios. Diana also went to Balmoral every year until the separation.
Quote from: Curryong on June 06, 2017, 06:24:19 AM
Amabel, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree about exactly what Diana knew about Camilla and how au fait she was with Society gossip at the time. I think she knew that Camilla had been a longterm mistress but she didn't know the degree of it or how much Charles was still in thrall to C.
However, what I feel that you are really discounting is the fact that by the time the Balmoral portion of the honeymoon came around Diana was in the early stages of pregnancy.
Pregnancy can do very funny things to people. I've described in a previous post how my elder daughter was during her first pregnancy and it wasn't pretty! I've known people become weeping hormonal messes, become silly and irrational and irritable when they are in those early weeks. We don't all escape coming motherhood unscathed and bouncing with health.
I
well if she knew Cam had been a long term mistress, then surely she msut have been wary of dating and marrying Charles. If she knew the affair had been on and off for some years, then surely she would have felt that "Camilla must be very special to Charles and is he ever going to deeply love anyone else?" and not gone out iwht a man who was already emotionally committed to another woman? If she knew Cam was a long term mistress, then she DID know there was a deep relationship, and that it was problaby never going to go away completely..
And as for the pregnancy being the cuase of her problems at balmoral I don't think so. it didn't help I suppose (though she could only have ben a few weeks pregnant when she was there)but she was bulimic and depressed not "ill with pregnancy blues". Sorry but IMO that's very obvious. Charles and the RF I think hoepd that her bad moods etc were cuased by the pregnancy, but it was much more than that. She disliked Balmoral later on, hated it and she wasn't pregnant all the time she was there. She had bulimia, that is nothing to do with pregnancy but IS to do with mental stress manifesting itself in an eating disorder. Sorry But I think you must know that..
If it was just her pregnancy, she would not have gone on disliking Balmoral in later years.
And yes, she had to live in their old apartment because the new one wasn't ready and she had to hang around with the RF nad her mother in law. But that's Royal life. esp at that time, they spent a lot of leisure time together in the autumn and Christmas.. and the queen was very formal and didn't have much time for anyone who wasn't trying to fit in. but again, that's royal life at the time. Now I think the queen is more easy going, and doesn't insist on the family all gathering.. but I'm sure that the Balmoral house parties are still very formal..
If Diana didn't like it, she could have said no to Charles. If she didn't know what it would be like, well really, she was a courtier's daughter. Her grandmother was a close friend of the QM, are we really to believe that she knew nothing of what "the royals at leisure" are like?
I think perhaps she thought that she was an "ex" not a "long term mistress." It was an open secret among Charles and his pals. Diana was not in his circle, she was a lot younger and did not meet his friends until she started dating him. Diana at 19 assumed Charles was in love with her (he did have other exes besides Camilla) and the marriage proposal to her equated love. Diana saw Camilla as special in the sense that she was said to "vet" and "approve" Charles girlfriends or disapprove of them. At the time of the wedding this was the image of Camilla to the media. In a TV movie in 1981 (it's on Youtube), Camilla and Andrew are seen as friends of Diana and Charles no hint of Camilla being an "ex."
Diana said she had morning sickness. Why is this not believed? She had the stress also and bulimia symptoms. Diana went back to Balmoral year after year and never confessed after the first year there that she "hated it." She did confess that the proximity to Camilla's home from Highgrove was disturbing. She never said oh I hated Balmoral every year I went there. She just didn't.
If Charles did not love Diana and preferred Camilla then he should not have proposed to her. I think it a cop out when he thought he could "fall in love with her" after they married. Why is she blamed for accepting and he's not for proposing to her?
1. Her father was a courtier in 1950s! She wasnt raised in that 'enviromment'. (So much Charles just met her when she was living far away from Sandringham) He gave his children a very spoiled and relaxed upbringing.
2. Diana was never close to Ruth Fermoy who was aware that her granddaughter wouldnt adapt or like the Windsor lifestyle. The advise is known she gave Diana, says how she knew that Diana had no clue the lifestyle she was getting into when marrying into the Windsors.
And Diana said as the treatment changed ater she got married. One thing was she being well treated as a guest. Other totally different is the treatment she received as a guest. The ex and current husband of Anne sure agree/d with Diana, according to several reports. Kate is another in-law who has a tough time in Balmoral.
Fermoy and the Queen Mum promoted the match early on. Fermoy even was chaperone to Charles and Diana on their first date. Fermoy was a true royalist and even testified against her daughter Frances so her grandchildren would grow up next door to Sandringham. I think the Spencers held back any misgivings about the match. Her mother said she did but her father was exuberant about Diana marrying the Prince of Wales. It seemed to be the high point of his life.
I agree with Dianab on this one. It wasn't as if Diana's parents were active courtiers, ie her mother a lady in waiting for example. Johnny Spencer had been an equerry to the Queen for a brief period as a young man. However equerries, especially if they are new to the job, are pretty low down on the Court totem pole really. Even then, he went on tour overseas with the Queen, missed his fiancée Frances so much that the Queen tolerantly gave him leave to fly home, so it wasn't as if he was daily at Court. During Diana's childhood Johnny led a very quiet life in Norfolk, moping a bit after Frances left. His 'courtier' days were long behind him.
Yes, Ruth Fermoy was a great friend of the Queen Mother and one of her ladies in waiting. Yes, she may have been there as a sort of chaperone on one of those first dates,(to a concert) although the days of chaperonage were well and truly over by 1980.
However, it's debatable how close Ruth really was to her grandchildren. Also, being ensconced in the Queen Mother's circle in one of her cosy homes isn't the sort of life that Diana was expected to live. The advice her grandmother imparted, the very words Ruth used, that 'the Royal Family's 'sense of humour' and 'lifestyle' were different, and 'might not suit her' show that she knew Diana had very little comprehension of how the BRF lived in private. And I don't think that either the Queen Mother or Lady Fermoy orchestrated the union.
I also think that while Earl Spencer was quite delighted with the match (he was an ebullient sort of character anyway when he was in good health) I think he was far from being a Boleyn or de Wydeville. And I do think that once Diana was part of the family and no longer a guest the very detached way the royals behave with each other got to her. According to much of what I've read they go their separate ways at Balmoral and do their own thing, and then meet up for tea or lunch, (if they're not too far away on the estate) and then a formal dinner. That would take some getting used to if you came from a London flat with your girlfriends around you, and you were used to going out in the evenings to restaurants and the cinema, laughing and joking and having a good time like most twenty year olds.
so Did Lady F say anything to Diana about the courtship with Charles? I agree I don't think that the "grannies promoted the match". They may have thought it was a nice idea, and I'm damn sure that Lady Fermoy didn't dislike it..
but I don't think they did anything much other than smile on it and leave it to the young people to work out,.
but if we assume she DID say anything to Diana, surely she would have said "ok I'm glad you had a date or 2 with Charles, because he's a nice fellow and its good that you have been seen as one of his dates, but I don't think that you are up to fitting into royal life, or being his Princess. You dotnt know anything about court life, you don't know anything much except those barb Cartlands you keep reading.. if the relationship is serious and you DO want to marry hm, there are things you'll need to learn."
If she did this and Diana didn't listen well some of it is on Diana, that she didn't try to learn more about her husband's family and their ways.
None of it is rocket science.. if Diana DID want to marry Charles, and I think she did, very much, why not read up at least a few magazine artilces or books about the RF that would have given her some idea what the court life is like and about royal history?
^ As far as I know Ruth Fermoy only said to Diana what I quoted. Quite subtle and not likely to put anyone off. However, reading about Royal life and actually living it are two very different things, aren't they? I'm not sure that there were articles in magazines in those days that spoke any home truths about the detached lifestyle each Royal lived. I remember reading a couple of articles about how some of the BRF don't see each other for months, how some are jealous of the amount of publicity others get, how the Queen and members of her family sometimes communicate by notes even when they are in the same house.
However, I think these articles came out in the last couple of decades, not in the late 1970's, and even if she had read them would Diana have necessarily believed it? No biography of Charles pre 1980 that I ever read in magazines ever emphasised that he was rather a loner who enjoyed his own company, or that members of the family were left to their own devices at Balmoral. It was very much fluffy stuff about the royals as far as I can remember. Stuff about the Snowdens and about Anne being rather gruff and sulky on occasions, certainly, but as far as Charles was concerned, a lot of it was Action Man stuff and him being kissed by models on Aussie beaches.
I agree that reaiding about something and living it are 2 differnet things. However a bit of basic knowledge would not have gone amiss and Diana IMO clearly did not have that. according to the way she portrayed herself she was like some childlike innocent who knew nothing about anything.. and who found it all a big shock and surprise when she married Charles. But IMO that's on her. She could have read stuff about Charles, I think that there were bios and articles which certainly portrayed him as parlty action man but also a seirous rather lonerish young man who was deeply committed to his work and a worrier about "doing good" for his country.
and she refused, when newly engaged or married to read about previous Princesses of Wales and how they had hanlded the job, so IMO she didn't know things because she did not really want to try and learn.
No more than immaturity perhaps but it did'n't bode well that even when married to Charles she did'nt seem to want to learn.
And unlike most of us, she had friends and family who were friends of the RF, she must have heard gossip about what Royal life was "really like", about the affair with Camilla, about problaby how stiff and formal the RF were In private as well as public.
Diana's dearest friends were young women much like herself. Others had brief acquaintanceship with Charles through houseparties and his charities. Sarah S had only known him for a brief while and when she had been a guest at Sandringham and the like. She was not likely to get too much from those brief glimpses.
If Charles was serious about Diana why didn't he consult her grandmother, other relatives or make an effort to get to know her friends, so that he could get a handle on whether for instance she really liked the countryside and country sports or knew about Camilla? Or would that have been too much of an effort? Seems to me that if Charles was serious about her he would have and certainly should have, made the effort to find out more instead of leaving it to chance and surface impressions after one long weekend in the country.
If he was as self-aware as some have portrayed him why did he not say to himself 'I require solitude sometimes. I prefer my own company at times. I'm happiest in the country. For the sake of our future happiness I have to find out over time if she is fine and OK with all that, especially as she's so much younger than me.' However, there is absolutely no evidence that he ever asked himself those questions or took the trouble to find the answers.
For such a deep thinker (as we are always told Charles is) he seems to have taken a lot to do with Diana on trust without getting to know her better in any deeper way.
Quote from: amabel on June 07, 2017, 05:51:23 AM
so Did Lady F say anything to Diana about the courtship with Charles? I agree I don't think that the "grannies promoted the match". They may have thought it was a nice idea, and I'm damn sure that Lady Fermoy didn't dislike it..
but I don't think they did anything much other than smile on it and leave it to the young people to work out,.
but if we assume she DID say anything to Diana, surely she would have said "ok I'm glad you had a date or 2 with Charles, because he's a nice fellow and its good that you have been seen as one of his dates, but I don't think that you are up to fitting into royal life, or being his Princess. You dotnt know anything about court life, you don't know anything much except those barb Cartlands you keep reading.. if the relationship is serious and you DO want to marry hm, there are things you'll need to learn."
If she did this and Diana didn't listen well some of it is on Diana, that she didn't try to learn more about her husband's family and their ways.
None of it is rocket science.. if Diana DID want to marry Charles, and I think she did, very much, why not read up at least a few magazine artilces or books about the RF that would have given her some idea what the court life is like and about royal history?
In the Bradford book and other books, I read that the Queen Mum told Charles about that "Spencer girl" Diana and if Charles wanted to marry her he needed to do so, or someone else would. Or words to that effect.
Fermoy was anxious when Lady DIana returned from the Balmoral visit and wanted to know how she did.
Diana could not really learn about "their ways" until she married into the family. As a guest, it was a different story than joining the family.
Double post auto-merged: June 07, 2017, 10:05:58 AM
Quote from: Curryong on June 07, 2017, 09:39:19 AM
Diana's dearest friends were young women much like herself. Others had brief acquaintanceship with Charles through houseparties and his charities. Sarah S had only known him for a brief while and when she had been a guest at Sandringham and the like. She was not likely to get too much from those brief glimpses.
If Charles was serious about Diana why didn't he consult her grandmother, other relatives or make an effort to get to know her friends, so that he could get a handle on whether for instance she really liked the countryside and country sports or knew about Camilla? Or would that have been too much of an effort? Seems to me that if Charles was serious about her he would have and certainly should have, made the effort to find out more instead of leaving it to chance and surface impressions after one long weekend in the country.
If he was as self-aware as some have portrayed him why did he not say to himself 'I require solitude sometimes. I prefer my own company at times. I'm happiest in the country. For the sake of our future happiness I have to find out over time if she is fine and OK with all that, especially as she's so much younger than me.' However, there is absolutely no evidence that he ever asked himself those questions or took the trouble to find the answers.
For such a deep thinker (as we are always told Charles is) he seems to have taken a lot to do with Diana on trust without getting to know her better in any deeper way.
I think Charles should have spelled things out to Diana and I mean everything about what he expected. Before the proposal. Then she could have walked away if she did not like Camilla being around and Charles' interest in her.
Quote from: Curryong on June 07, 2017, 09:39:19 AM
Diana's dearest friends were young women much like herself. Others had brief acquaintanceship with Charles through houseparties and his charities. Sarah S had only known him for a brief while and when she had been a guest at Sandringham and the like. She was not likely to get too much from those brief glimpses.
If Charles was serious about Diana why didn't he consult her grandmother, other relatives or make an effort to get to know her friends, so that he could get a handle on whether for instance she really liked the countryside and country sports or knew about Camilla? Or would that have been too much of an effort? Seems to me that if Charles was serious about her he would have and certainly should have, made the effort to find out more instead of leaving it to chance and surface impressions after one long weekend in the country.
If have to find out over time if she is fine and OK with all that,
I'm sure a lot of talk at Sloaney dinner parties was about the Windosr family, since they were all upper class and had some kind of connextion with them. Sarah Spencer went on holiday with him, IMO knew him fairly well and SHE Didn't know about Camilla and pass on this titbit to her young sister??
and was charles really supposed to sound out Diana's family and friends and say
"well she says she loves the country and is longing to be a wife and mum, but maybe she's fibbing? what is the truth?"
In fact there is something in Bradford that Charles DID ask an older lady friend, "do you think it matters that she's so much younger than me"? however it was a bit too late, like Diana's "not knowing about Cam until she was engaged to him."
Diana and Charles spent more than a weekend or 2 together. They met several times, in London and at Highgrove, they were together on the Royal yacht and at Balmoral. OK they didn't get ot know each other that well, but IMo that was because both of them were overly anxious to get married...
As fro C being a loner, I thin most men are rather like this, enjoying their own company and masculine company and requiring "me time".. and most women find this out, in a relationship..
You can find a lot out from friends and relatives without being that blunt, just in general conversation over time.
The truth is that these two weren't suited temperamentally or any other way really, and if Charles hadn't been as weak as water and not regarded his father's letter as an ultimatum he could have taken his time and explained to his parents, if they complained, that he wanted to make 110% sure that Diana was the girl for him and he was the man for her as their future happiness depended upon it.
In fact Philip wasn't demanding an engagement and even if he had been if Charles hadnt been so afraid of him and so wishy washy he (Charles) could have pointed out that several years had elapsed between Princess Elizabeth at 17 when she and Philip really started to get to know each other, and the princess at 21 when she wed. He could have asked for a year before talk of an engagement, and if Philip and the Press didn't like, it well then they could go heave. But Charles was gutless and crumbled at the thought of challenging his father.
Quote from: sandy on June 06, 2017, 11:08:21 PM
Fermoy and the Queen Mum promoted the match early on. Fermoy even was chaperone to Charles and Diana on their first date. Fermoy was a true royalist and even testified against her daughter Frances so her grandchildren would grow up next door to Sandringham. I think the Spencers held back any misgivings about the match. Her mother said she did but her father was exuberant about Diana marrying the Prince of Wales. It seemed to be the high point of his life.
I understand it was Camilla who promoted the match. It was told that Diana was one of names of 'suitable girls' in a list put together by Camilla and/or Kanga. The others 3 'girlfriends' that Charles had shortly before court Diana, including the granddaughter of Mountabatten, were in list. I think Lady Fermoy knew how unsuitable Diana would be to Windsors.
When Charles was dating Sarah Spencer, he was 'close' to Kanga. Camilla was having her kids with her husband Andrew.
Yes, Camilla made the list with Kanga. And was "mentor" to Charles approving of or disapproving of girlfriends he brought to the PB home.
Even if Diana asked what Charles was "really like" to his relatives or friends I doubt they would have been truly honest with her.
I don't think Philip was the reason Charles decided to marry then and Philip could not "force" him. Charles gave himself his own deadline of marrying at age 30 and the birthday came and went. He also was turned down by at least two other women. So Diana was his next lady friend and I think he felt in need of having heirs otherwise his brother Andrew would be his heir, something I think Charles did not want.
What bothers me about Fermoy is her lack of loyalty to her daughter and granddaughter.
Double post auto-merged: June 07, 2017, 11:55:05 AM
Quote from: Curryong on June 07, 2017, 10:29:50 AM
You can find a lot out from friends and relatives without being that blunt, just in general conversation over time.
The truth is that these two weren't suited temperamentally or any other way really, and if Charles hadn't been as weak as water and not regarded his father's letter as an ultimatum he could have taken his time and explained to his parents, if they complained, that he wanted to make 110% sure that Diana was the girl for him and he was the man for her as their future happiness depended upon it.
In fact Philip wasn't demanding an engagement and even if he had been if Charles hadnt been so afraid of him and so wishy washy he (Charles) could have pointed out that several years had elapsed between Princess Elizabeth at 17 when she and Philip really started to get to know each other, and the princess at 21 when she wed. He could have asked for a year before talk of an engagement, and if Philip and the Press didn't like, it well then they could go heave. But Charles was gutless and crumbled at the thought of challenging his father.
Charles was free to end the relationship with Diana without asking his parents. I think the man was and is very weak and wishy washy. I agree with your assessment. Both Diana and Charles were free to walk before the engagement and even then they could have broken things off.
Philip just told Charles to in effect, make up his mind. Charles does tend to blame others for his own choices and I think he scapegoated his father. He also blamed a courtier instead of himself for Charles own blundering confession of adultery with Camilla. He just can't accept responsibility which is a huge character flaw.
Quote from: Curryong on June 07, 2017, 10:29:50 AM
You can find a lot out from friends and relatives without being that blunt, just in general conversation over time.
The truth is that these two weren't suited temperamentally or any other way really, and if Charles hadn't been as weak as water and not regarded his father's letter as an ultimatum he could have taken his time and explained to his parents, if they complained, that he wanted to make 110% sure that Diana was the girl for him and he was the man for her as their future happiness depended upon it.
In fact Philip wasn't demanding an engagement and even if he had been if Charles hadnt been so .
Philip is a bully to Charles and I can quite understand Charles feeling pressured, esp sicne he was now into his 30s and no sign of a wife. And in essence Phil was right. it wasn't the same as his relationship wit the queen, now the press and public were making a lot of noise, chasing the Royals eveyrhwere, they would be on C's trail now that he was over 30 and dating a pretty young woman who seemed in their eyes an ideal princess.
As the queen's reported to have said the RF in general could not take the idea of this sort of press pursuit going on for a long time and I'm sure Diana didn't want and could not have handled a longer courtship with photographers dogging her every step.
SHe wanted to get married. She was said to be anxious that Charles hadn't proposed. Phil was in essence right. Charles had reachted an age when he should get married, Press intrusion was now massive and if he did wait much longer, he was going to be twice his bride's age, if he had to go for a virgin, which he did.
And I would not like to feel that my boyfriend was uneasy that I was deceiving him about whether I shared his tastes and asking my family behind my back, which is what the idea of Charles "talking to her friends or family" amounts to.
Diana had given the impression that she liked many of the things that Charles liked, and if she was giving the wrong impression, she was the one who would be most unhappy when reality kicked in and she found that she was now tied to a lifestyle and a family she didn't like.
I don think that she lied deliberately but I think she fooled herself that she was having a great time with Charles taking her to watch him fishing, just as she took a big interest in medicine when she was in love with Khan or art when she was with Oliver Hoare.
I think it was a trend of hers when she was in love, to adopt the beloved's interests, and not to see any obstacles to the relationship. She even seems to have given J Hewitt the idea that she really rather liked horsey stuff....
Charles said publicly he thought 30 was a good age for him to get married. He chose to say it. Not his father. In this day and age he could have waited until he was in his fifties like Prince Albert of Monaco. But back then it was not.
the world knew that Diana did not hunt and also that she did not ride (being thrown from a horse as a child). She did not pretend to hunt. She took lessons in fishing and took walks with Charles. Charles gave the wrong impression to Diana by bringing her to Camilla and her husband's home and Camilla seen as the "friend." Diana knew the hold Camilla had on Charles after the ceremony when she knew her the woman was not going anywhere. Diana dutifully went to Balmoral year after year until the separation. I would not say Diana did not "like" his family but she found them as rather remote with her.
I think she did have a great time with Charles since she wanted to get to know him and what better way than to accompany on his country pursuits.
Diana is not exactly the only woman who wanted to learn more about a boyfriend's interests. There is nothing wrong with that. She did not "adopt" medicine when she met Khan, obviously she couldn't. But she took an interest in what he did. Nothing wrong with that.
Diana was no phony.
Hewitt never said Diana "pretended" anything. Diana's riding lessons came about because she wanted to learn to ride and get over her fear of horses. Hewitt knew of Diana's dislike of participating in equestrian sports.
Diana was an excellent skier and she and Charles went together on ski trips each year before the separation.
QuoteI don think that she lied deliberately but I think she fooled herself that she was having a great time with Charles taking her to watch him fishing, just as she took a big interest in medicine when she was in love with Khan or art when she was with Oliver Hoare.
I think it was a trend of hers when she was in love, to adopt the beloved's interests, and not to see any obstacles to the relationship. She even seems to have given J Hewitt the idea that she really rather liked horsey stuff....
:goodpost:
@amabel
I do think she really was having a good time with Charles. She was smitten with Charles then and wanted to be with him. Diana was always interested in alternative medicine and good health so she did not just learn about this for Khan's sake. The reason she approached Hoare was not because of art but because she though since he was a friend of Charles he could help her re: her marriage. His being a friend of Charles and Camilla intrigued her. No, Hewitt did not have the idea she liked the horsey set. She took lessons to try to get over fear of horses. She never really joined the horsey set or pretended to.
Women do take an interest in boyfriend's interests when dating--to be with them and get to know them. Though after the couple gets married, she may skip the football games that she went to when they dated, for instance.
Quote from: sandy on June 07, 2017, 03:09:55 PM
Charles said publicly he thought 30 was a good age for him to get married. He chose to say it. Not his father. In this day and age he could have waited until he was in his fifties like Prince Albert of Monaco. But back then it was not.
not
Diana is not exactly the only woman who wanted to learn more about a boyfriend's interests.
Hewitt never said Diana "pretended" anything. Diana's riding lessons came about because she wanted to learn to ride and get over her fear of horses. Hewitt knew of Diana's dislike of participating in equestrian sports.
Quote from: sandy on June 07, 2017, 03:09:55 PM
I know ther'es no point in saying this to you but I didn't SAY that J Hewitt said that Diana pretended. he believed that she really DID get to enjoy country life and horsey pursuits.
he is so egotistical that he problaby thought that he overcame her fear of horses and her boredom with the country, because he was so wonderful to her.
And if Diana was watching Charles fishing and learning to fish, how come she soon gave up on this and clearly found this sport, like other country sports, boring and distasteful?
Hewitt appears clueless. Diana did not get to enjoy country and horsey pursuits. She loathed hunting and was never seen riding to the hunts.
I believe I covered why Diana followed Charles around at Balmoral when they dated--she wanted to get to know him. Why not blame millions of other women for doing the same thing--they want to get to know their boyfriends so they go to football games, fishing (which they are not interested in) and after the marriage, the husbands go solo to these events with their friends. Nothing bad about that. Is the point is that Diana was a phony? she was a young woman who wanted to spend time with her boyfriend. Plain and simple. Charles OTOH presented Camilla as the "safe" married friend.
Diana was pregnant in 1981 at Balmoral, perhaps if she did not have morning sickness she would have been more active.
Diana went riding with Hewitt, Sandy and he not being the brightest spark has said that she really quite enjoyed country life and riding with him. I don't know wath you are on about hunting. as fro "spendign time with Charles" by going to watch hm shooting etc. yes its true that some women do go to football matches to get a man's attention and then drop it, however they usually do so gradually and they don't start married life by saying "I hate hate hate football and I don't want you to go"...
I think Hewitt enjoyed her company for obvious reasons. ANd would IMO have gotten involved with her whether she enjoyed the country or not. She did spend time at his mother's "country place" but also in the city. How do you know Diana told his family she 'hated' country pursuits?. She could not have "hated" it that much if she went every year until the separation. I think her morning sickness/bulimia the first year would obviously put a damper on her enthusiasm. Plus a honeymoon with the in-laws around. How many brides would thrill to that scenario? Not many I believe. Hunting to the royals did mean fox hunting for one thing, and Diana never went there. Charles did and he knew she did not before the marriage.
If Prince Charles had waited until his fifties for his Royal Wedding, what eligible Princesses and Aristocracy/Nobility ladies were there?
He could have met and married someone a lot younger like Albert married Charlene, who was not from the aristocracy or nobility.
Quote from: sandy on June 08, 2017, 08:45:29 PM
I think Hewitt enjoyed her company for obvious reasons. ANd would IMO have gotten involved with her whether she enjoyed the country or not. She did spend time at his mother's "country place" but also in the city. How do you know Diana told his family she 'hated' country pursuits?. She could not have "hated" it that much if she went every year until the separation. I think her morning sickness/bulimia the first year would obviously put a damper on her enthusiasm. Plus a honeymoon with the in-laws around. How many brides would thrill to that scenario? Not many I believe. Hunting to the royals did mean fox hunting for one thing, and Diana never went there. Charles did and he knew she did not before the marriage.
Hewitt got involved with her because he would do so with any woman who gave him a chance. It helped that Diana was rich and famous.
she didn't have any enthusiasm. And her reaction to Balmoral was negative. Its clear from many sources
She had to go to Balmoral, she did not have any choice about it, so it is not a sign of virtue or enjoying country life that she went there each year, as you know perfectly well.
and knowing that, if she really didn't enjoy country life, why marry Charles? why sign up for a life that meant a lot of time in the country and a lot of time either joining in country sports or at least waitng for her husband to come back in from shooting or stalking or fishing? If she dd not enjoy that way of life, why take on a husband whose lifestyle was going to consist of that sort of life?
It was a given that she had to go there for part of her honeymoon, she had already had 3 weeks cruising on a yacht, in the sunshine so she had plenty of time on the honeymoon to enjoy summer sport and sun, so if she didn't enjoy the Balmoral part of the honeymoon as much, she knew or should have known that she had to put up iwht it. She could have decided to make the best of it and enjoy it as much as she could but she didn't. She was unhappy, fretting, not wanting Charles to go out and enjoy his shooting and not able to amuse herself while he was out.
This was nothing to do with her pregnancy, she always disliked ths part of her life with Charles.
I don't kow what you are going on about Fox hunting for. Diana wasn't asked to go fox hunting. She wouldn't have been able to do so because she wasn't a good ridier. Noone asked her to go hunting.. just to let Charles do it.
But her exact words about it are subject to speculation. She went year after year to Balmoral with the Family. Fergie went also. So the "hate" could not have been too deep for the place.
So if Charles did not really love her and preferred Camilla why did he marry Diana? I see this as more serious as Diana not liking the country. Diana also was very ill the first year with morning sickness. She'd have had to have a sick bucket nearby if she stalked with Charles.
Diana loved Charles that's why she said yes to the proposal. The world knew she did not ride and hunt. Because of that fall.
On the yacht, she and Charles were not alone, the "crew" was there and there were many of them.
I don't think Charles spelled out the customs at Balmoral. One example was Christmas. Diana brought expensive gifts for the family and found out that (on Christmas morning) that they gave "token" gifts or "joke gifts." Obviously Charles was remiss in keeping Diana in the loop.
It had everything to do with her feeling sick.
I think Camilla wanted to be with Charles on the foxhunts so Diana would be "in the way." But because of her aversion to riding she could not have gone even if invited. I am not "going on" about foxhunting isn't that where people ride horses and hunt? So it is relevant.
Charles apparently could not give an inch. She wanted to get to know him so perhaps he could have bent the rules because it was after all their honeymoon. And yes it was supposed to be their honeymoon. This was said in the media. First Broadlands, then the Yacht, then Balmoral. That was the schedule. She went to work after Balmoral on a tour in Wales.
It was known that Diana did not like to hunt animals. Well known. She did not pretend to be Annie Oakley. Just walked with Charles.
It is ridiculous to talk of Diana hunting when she could barely ride, as I'm sure you know. Noone asked her to be Annie Oakley but when she had given a performance of watching Charles stalking, shooting and fishing, claiming to love the country and then so clearly didn't, it was bound to lead to the RF feeling that she had put on her "love of the country" to get his attention and then abruptly dropped it. (and if she "Didn't like to hunt animals" why did she watch him shooting birds?
And as I've repeatedly said, and I'm sure you know very well, the fact that Di went ot Balmoral every year does NOT mean that she didn't dislike the place very much. She had to go. it was part of the royal routine that they spend weeks up there every autumn and that shooting is the main entertainment together with country walks. She had to go and so she went.
And if Diana was really so dim that she did not know that the RF give inexpensive gifts, she really must have never ever read a thing about the family she was married into. Any royal watcher knows that, and she wasn't just a royal watcher... she lived near them, she was part of their social circle.. her grandmother was a close friend of the QM.. and she didn't know what any girl wjho liked the RF, and who had the price of a woman's magazine knew?
She already had Charles' attention. He started courting her. He needed to find the suitable young woman to marry and have his heirs. He did not marry her for her "stalking" ability but to be able to provide heirs. She wanted to get to know Charles.
If Diana really hated Balmoral she could have pleaded illness. She went there for 10 years give her some credit.
I read a lot on the royals and I had no clue what the royals gave each other until I read the Diana at CHristmas story. Charles was the dim one not telling her about it to make sure she followed custom. Was he that helpless? So also why did not Grandma tell her what they gave each other? Grandma did not marry into the family the way Diana did. Diana is always scapegoated. Diana was invited to childrens' parties with Edward and Andrew and had ice cream and cake. I doubt there was a seminar about what they gave for Christmas.
I remember Hewitt being quoted in several books (including the Sarah Bradford book) saying Diana was always uncomfortable riding and she hadnt overcomed her fear of horses but obviously enjoyed his company.
Diana lived in ONE of MANY houses at Sandringham, if it meant something why Charles had never met her before she was 16, living far away in Althorp? And why when she was a guest in Balmoral, in 1980, no one of the circle of Windsors had a clue who was she (one of granddaughters of Lady Fermoy)?
According to several accounts, Johnnie Spencer was quite a recluse during his Sandringham years.
Quote from: sandy on June 09, 2017, 09:09:56 PM
She already had Charles' attention. He started courting her. He needed to find the suitable young woman to marry and have his heirs. He did not marry her for her "stalking" ability but to be able to provide heirs. She wanted to get to know Charles.
If Diana really hated Balmoral she could have pleaded illness. She went there for 10 years give her some credit.
I read a lot on the royals and I had no clue what the royals gave each other until I read the Diana at CHristmas story. Charles was the dim one not telling her about it to make sure she followed custom. Was he that helpless
no she would NOT have been able to plead illness everyr year to get out of Balmoral. YOu know that well I'm sure. According to Diana, the RF were very much insistent that she did her duties even fi she wasn't well, so why would they let hr off a "holiday duty" of goig to the shooting at Balmoral - if she went on pleading illness every year she would be pretty severely talked to and ordered to turn up.
And IMO most royal watchers have read the story that the RF don't give expensive gifts, Diana was from the inner circle of Royal friends, so I doubt if she could have possibly not known this.
Double post auto-merged: June 11, 2017, 10:51:29 AM
Quote from: dianab on June 09, 2017, 10:08:18 PM
I remember Hewitt being quoted in several books (including the Sarah Bradford book) saying Diana was always uncomfortable riding and she hadnt overcomed her fear of horses but obviously enjoyed his company.
Diana lived in ONE of MANY houses at Sandringham, if it meant something why Charles had never met her before she was 16, living far away in Althorp? And why when she was a guest in Balmoral, in 1980, no one of the circle of Windsors had a clue who was she (one of granddaughters of Lady Fermoy)?
He did meet her before she was 16. Althrop isn't far away from Sandringham. He just didn't know her well and neither would his older friends, or the queen's friends, because she was only a young girl.
Charles didnt met Diana before he to be dating Sarah. And if that was the case (I've never read that in any place before) Why this young girl should know everything as were the Windsors in private and about CHarles & Camilla when no one of them had one clue who was she?
I think Diana fell into the trap of always blaming others (particularly Charles) for the mistakes and mishaps she made. You never learn or grow when you do that because there is always someone else to blame. Oh, he did not advise me that the royal family do not do expensive gifts. Oh, he is the one responsible for making me date unsuitable men since he did not love me enough etc.
At other times you get into this tit for tat game that leads down to the pathway of destruction. He is cheating, so I will cheat. He is briefing so I will brief back. The end result is that you effectively lose your marriage. The POW always had the cards and could cast away Diana if he so wished. Not even the public support could insulate her from his rejection. Diana had this notion of an "equal partnership" which later turned into "feminism" on her part. The role of Princess of Wales is not designed like that, as Diana should know. The other spouse is always two steps behind the royal and must be deference in order to remain in the firm.
It is never advisable for new brides to try and change their husbands. Likewise husbands should not attempt to change their wives. You accept the person as they are. It seems to me that Diana wanted a different husband from Charles and he wanted a different wife from her. She tried to change him and he run away. When he saw she was not the kind of wife he wanted, he simply bolted and moved on. Neither party accepted the other for what they were, warts and all. They wanted perfection where there is none.
Right from the beginning, Diana was collecting a catalog of faults in her husband. He was boring, inattentive or too attentive. I was particularly taken aback when she said in the Morton tapes that he was "obsessed" with her and coming on too strongly. It is ironic to consider that she later became truly furious when he ceased having any sort of sexual interest in her.
I have heard (not sure whether it is true) that at one point Diana scored Charles a 0 out of 10 and some of her other lovers very highly. For the life of me, I cannot imagine any other member of the royal family releasing such information. In any case if Charles is so bad, why insist that you want to remain with him? Why accept his proposal when he repulses you and you are worried about another woman? Why, why, why? That is the complexity of Diana.
Quote from: dianab on June 11, 2017, 11:55:59 AM
Charles didnt met Diana before he to be dating Sarah. And if that was the case (I've never read that in any place before) Why this young girl should know everything as were the Windsors in private and about CHarles & Camilla when no one of them had one clue who was she?
yes he did. he saw her at times when she was a child. and they knew who she was. Do youreally think that when she was invited to the QM's birthday party etc, the RF went "who on earth is this girl and how ddi she get in"?
As for wehter she should know about them, Yes if she was interested in the RF i'd expect her to know about them. They are not a private family, there is stuff about them in papers and mags and I'm sure that at her friends' dinner parties, there was gossip and chit chat bout the latest stories from the Royal front.
Double post auto-merged: June 11, 2017, 12:19:48 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 11, 2017, 12:04:40 PM
.
Right from the beginning, Diana was collecting a catalog of faults in her husband. He was boring, inattentive or too attentive. I was particularly taken aback when she said in the Morton tapes that he was "obsessed" with her and coming on too strongly. It is ironic to consider that she later became truly furious when he ceased having any sort of sexual interest in her.
I have heard (not sure whether it is true) that at one point Diana scored Charles a 0 out of 10 and some of her other lovers very highly. For the life of me, I cannot imagine any other member of the royal family releasing such information. In any case if Charles is so bad, why insist that you want to remain with him? Why accept his proposal when he repulses you and you are worried about another woman? Why, why, why? That is the complexity of Diana.
where did you read this? Diana certainly behaved with an appalling lack of discretion at times, talking to people like Settelen about her private life incluidng her sex life, but I've never heard of this. I don't believe its true.
However, I agree that she swung around violently in her opinion on Charles. SHe was put off presumably? by his "coming on strong" to her, when they first dated.. (possibly she was'nt at that stage all that highly sexed?) but later, she complained that he only seemed to want sex with her occasionally and that she was annoyed by this.
Charles blabbed his troubles to his friends and even to Nancy Reagan and people who were merely acquaintances.. I don't call that discreet. He's not one to carp on what DIana did.
Charles coming on to Diana all of a sudden was a bit much and unsubtle. He also wanted her to leave the party with him and drive back to London. She refused. She would have been damned if she did then if she had slept with Charles she may well have been moved to mistress material.
THey were MARRIED when she complained about the sex life. He was her husband then. Big difference.
Charles could have looked in on his much younger brother's party and seen a blonde child called Diana Spencer. It's not as if they could have had any meaningful conversations then.
He only really noticed her when she was about 17 and coming "of age." The papers never said ca 1980-81 that Charles was sleeping with two married women. That was not in the papers. He was depicted as a young man looking for Ms Right.
Double post auto-merged: June 11, 2017, 12:46:20 PM
Quote from: amabel on June 11, 2017, 10:50:05 AM
Quote from: sandy on June 09, 2017, 09:09:56 PM
She already had Charles' attention. He started courting her. He needed to find the suitable young woman to marry and have his heirs. He did not marry her for her "stalking" ability but to be able to provide heirs. She wanted to get to know Charles.
If Diana really hated Balmoral she could have pleaded illness. She went there for 10 years give her some credit.
I read a lot on the royals and I had no clue what the royals gave each other until I read the Diana at CHristmas story. Charles was the dim one not telling her about it to make sure she followed custom. Was he that helpless
no she would NOT have been able to plead illness everyr year to get out of Balmoral. YOu know that well I'm sure. According to Diana, the RF were very much insistent that she did her duties even fi she wasn't well, so why would they let hr off a "holiday duty" of goig to the shooting at Balmoral - if she went on pleading illness every year she would be pretty severely talked to and ordered to turn up.
And IMO most royal watchers have read the story that the RF don't give expensive gifts, Diana was from the inner circle of Royal friends, so I doubt if she could have possibly not known this.
Double post auto-merged: June 11, 2017, 10:51:29 AM
Quote from: dianab on June 09, 2017, 10:08:18 PM
I remember Hewitt being quoted in several books (including the Sarah Bradford book) saying Diana was always uncomfortable riding and she hadnt overcomed her fear of horses but obviously enjoyed his company.
Diana lived in ONE of MANY houses at Sandringham, if it meant something why Charles had never met her before she was 16, living far away in Althorp? And why when she was a guest in Balmoral, in 1980, no one of the circle of Windsors had a clue who was she (one of granddaughters of Lady Fermoy)?
He did meet her before she was 16. Althrop isn't far away from Sandringham. He just didn't know her well and neither would his older friends, or the queen's friends, because she was only a young girl.
Diana went to Balmoral. She only knew how she felt. The only time she complained was the first year she was there as Charles' wife.
Charles could hardly have confided in Diana when she was a little girl.
Charles and Diana went skiing every year so it's not that they never had a retreat together that they both enjoyed.
Double post auto-merged: June 11, 2017, 12:52:21 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 11, 2017, 12:04:40 PM
I think Diana fell into the trap of always blaming others (particularly Charles) for the mistakes and mishaps she made. You never learn or grow when you do that because there is always someone else to blame. Oh, he did not advise me that the royal family do not do expensive gifts. Oh, he is the one responsible for making me date unsuitable men since he did not love me enough etc.
At other times you get into this tit for tat game that leads down to the pathway of destruction. He is cheating, so I will cheat. He is briefing so I will brief back. The end result is that you effectively lose your marriage. The POW always had the cards and could cast away Diana if he so wished. Not even the public support could insulate her from his rejection. Diana had this notion of an "equal partnership" which later turned into "feminism" on her part. The role of Princess of Wales is not designed like that, as Diana should know. The other spouse is always two steps behind the royal and must be deference in order to remain in the firm.
It is never advisable for new brides to try and change their husbands. Likewise husbands should not attempt to change their wives. You accept the person as they are. It seems to me that Diana wanted a different husband from Charles and he wanted a different wife from her. She tried to change him and he run away. When he saw she was not the kind of wife he wanted, he simply bolted and moved on. Neither party accepted the other for what they were, warts and all. They wanted perfection where there is none.
Right from the beginning, Diana was collecting a catalog of faults in her husband. He was boring, inattentive or too attentive. I was particularly taken aback when she said in the Morton tapes that he was "obsessed" with her and coming on too strongly. It is ironic to consider that she later became truly furious when he ceased having any sort of sexual interest in her.
I have heard (not sure whether it is true) that at one point Diana scored Charles a 0 out of 10 and some of her other lovers very highly. For the life of me, I cannot imagine any other member of the royal family releasing such information. In any case if Charles is so bad, why insist that you want to remain with him? Why accept his proposal when he repulses you and you are worried about another woman? Why, why, why? That is the complexity of Diana.
I think Charles is the master at blaming others and his apologists blame others: courtiers, the Spencers, his mother for his own choices.
So how could DIana have found out about the sort of gifts the royals got? Was she supposed to be a mind reader? Charles should have told her. Period.
Charles did not accept Diana as she was. He wanted his own idea of marriage. He ignored Diana's pleas about Camilla and did what he pleased. He even said about Diana "all she did was say yes to me." Shows the man has an overinflated ego.
So the man came on to her when they were not even dating yet? If she jumped into bed with him then, her critics would say she was too easy or even a s...t. She would have been relegated to mistress material by Charles. They were MARRIED when she complained. Big difference.
Double post auto-merged: June 11, 2017, 01:08:07 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 11, 2017, 12:04:40 PM
I think Diana fell into the trap of always blaming others (particularly Charles) for the mistakes and mishaps she made. You never learn or grow when you do that because there is always someone else to blame. Oh, he did not advise me that the royal family do not do expensive gifts. Oh, he is the one responsible for making me date unsuitable men since he did not love me enough etc.
At other times you get into this tit for tat game that leads down to the pathway of destruction. He is cheating, so I will cheat. He is briefing so I will brief back. The end result is that you effectively lose your marriage. The POW always had the cards and could cast away Diana if he so wished. Not even the public support could insulate her from his rejection. Diana had this notion of an "equal partnership" which later turned into "feminism" on her part. The role of Princess of Wales is not designed like that, as Diana should know. The other spouse is always two steps behind the royal and must be deference in order to remain in the firm.
It is never advisable for new brides to try and change their husbands. Likewise husbands should not attempt to change their wives. You accept the person as they are. It seems to me that Diana wanted a different husband from Charles and he wanted a different wife from her. She tried to change him and he run away. When he saw she was not the kind of wife he wanted, he simply bolted and moved on. Neither party accepted the other for what they were, warts and all. They wanted perfection where there is none.
Right from the beginning, Diana was collecting a catalog of faults in her husband. He was boring, inattentive or too attentive. I was particularly taken aback when she said in the Morton tapes that he was "obsessed" with her and coming on too strongly. It is ironic to consider that she later became truly furious when he ceased having any sort of sexual interest in her.
I have heard (not sure whether it is true) that at one point Diana scored Charles a 0 out of 10 and some of her other lovers very highly. For the life of me, I cannot imagine any other member of the royal family releasing such information. In any case if Charles is so bad, why insist that you want to remain with him? Why accept his proposal when he repulses you and you are worried about another woman? Why, why, why? That is the complexity of Diana.
DIana never kept score of her lovers. I think that sounds like tabloid stuff. IT is not true. Whatever happened between Diana and Dodi never came out except that she told Monckton she enjoyed listening to his voice on her answering machine. She never talked about the intimacy between herself and Hasnet. Hewitt made the relationship sound like a romantic novel in his confessions to Pasternack. Diana never spoke of their sex life. So I don't know where this point keeping idea came from.
@amabel. You must forgive me because I do not reference some of the information I read. But I remember I read that from one of the pro-Diana trolls on some forum who was effectively saying that he scored lower than other lovers in bed. You see in troll-land, you never know what is real and what is not. They do make these sweeping statements that sometimes begin to influence you. e.g. "he was cheating before, during and after the marriage". Of course that is a nonsensical sentence but they do say that a lot.
Diana had numerous complaints about her husband from the word go. He was bad, bad, bad. Not a single sentence about his good qualities. The tapes speak for themselves. This is Diana in her own words. My own reading of them is that she never loved him at all and was actually somewhat repulsed by him. That then beggars my earlier question. Why accept his proposal and why insist on remaining married to him when he no longer wants to be with you? That is the enigma of Diana. She convinced many that Charles was a very bad man but then turned around and married him. She went as far as saying she did not want to divorce him, after all the horrendous things she claims he did to her. Puzzling stuff
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 11, 2017, 02:33:38 PM
@amabel. You must forgive me because I do not reference some of the information I read. But I remember I read that from one of the pro-Diana trolls on some forum who was effectively Diana had numerous complaints about her husband from the word go. He was bad, bad, bad. Not a single sentence about his good qualities. The tapes speak for themselves. This is Diana in her own words. My own reading of them is that she never loved him at all and was
does it occur to you that "stuff on the internet from what you describe as pro Diana trolls isn't very reliable?
and that yes Diana spoke unkindly of Charles in her tapes to Settelen and Morton, but she was harldy in a state to be fair to him.. since they had been unhappy for many years, and she was now estranged from him.
It doesn't mean that she didn't love him at the start...
QuoteI think Charles is the master at blaming others and his apologists blame others: courtiers, the Spencers, his mother for his own choices.
QuoteI think Diana fell into the trap of always blaming others (particularly Charles) for the mistakes and mishaps she made.
:shrug: IMVHO both Charles and Diana shared this trait of blaming others for their decisions. During the War of the Wales they both indiscreet and then would choose to point fingers at each other and those around them.
@TLLK I hate to be the one to point this out to you but unlike Charles putting the blame on PP in his choice to marry Diana, She never blamed others for her decision to marry Charles.
@Trudie-While that is true for that decision during her married life, she like her ex-husband had a habit of blaming others for her poor decisions. Unfortunately it is an unattractive trait that the couple had in common IMO.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 11, 2017, 02:33:38 PM
@amabel. You must forgive me because I do not reference some of the information I read. But I remember I read that from one of the pro-Diana trolls on some forum who was effectively saying that he scored lower than other lovers in bed. You see in troll-land, you never know what is real and what is not. They do make these sweeping statements that sometimes begin to influence you. e.g. "he was cheating before, during and after the marriage". Of course that is a nonsensical sentence but they do say that a lot.
Diana had numerous complaints about her husband from the word go. He was bad, bad, bad. Not a single sentence about his good qualities. The tapes speak for themselves. This is Diana in her own words. My own reading of them is that she never loved him at all and was actually somewhat repulsed by him. That then beggars my earlier question. Why accept his proposal and why insist on remaining married to him when he no longer wants to be with you? That is the enigma of Diana. She convinced many that Charles was a very bad man but then turned around and married him. She went as far as saying she did not want to divorce him, after all the horrendous things she claims he did to her. Puzzling stuff
Diana fans are not trolls. I don't think it polite to call other posters trolls (here and elsewhere) no matter what their opinions might be.
Diana said she loved her husband. Charles did not accord the same thing to Diana.
Diana never rated her lovers. That is just fictional. A Diana fan would not even give any credence to this.
The enigma is that Charles proposed to her knowing he did not love her. DIana was not "repulsed" byCharles and never said so. She was "repulsed" by the goings on with Camilla.
Double post auto-merged: June 11, 2017, 10:10:46 PM
Quote from: amabel on June 11, 2017, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 11, 2017, 02:33:38 PM
@amabel. You must forgive me because I do not reference some of the information I read. But I remember I read that from one of the pro-Diana trolls on some forum who was effectively Diana had numerous complaints about her husband from the word go. He was bad, bad, bad. Not a single sentence about his good qualities. The tapes speak for themselves. This is Diana in her own words. My own reading of them is that she never loved him at all and was
does it occur to you that "stuff on the internet from what you describe as pro Diana trolls isn't very reliable?
and that yes Diana spoke unkindly of Charles in her tapes to Settelen and Morton, but she was harldy in a state to be fair to him.. since they had been unhappy for many years, and she was now estranged from him.
It doesn't mean that she didn't love him at the start...
Charles was not exactly Mr Wonder ful to Diana. OF course she'd have some bitterness. The tapes were never intended to see the light of day. DIana passed on at age 36 and probably never imagined Settelen would air those tapes.
What exactly are "trolls?" I don't think pro Diana people are necessarily "trolls" nor should they be placed in that category.
Trolls just say offensive things on the Internet.
Double post auto-merged: June 11, 2017, 10:12:03 PM
Quote from: TLLK on June 11, 2017, 07:59:05 PM
@Trudie-While that is true for that decision during her married life, she like her ex-husband had a habit of blaming others for her poor decisions. Unfortunately it is an unattractive trait that the couple had in common IMO.
Diana never said her mother or father "forced her" to marry Charles. Ever. But OTOH Charles blames everybody else for his own choices.
QuoteDiana never said her mother or father "forced her" to marry Charles. Ever. But OTOH Charles blames everybody else for his own choices.
@sandy-I never claimed that she did so I don't know why you are suggesting that I made a statement regarding her mother and father forcing her to marry Charles. :unsure: However if you can find where I did state that, I'd appreciate it if you would share it with me.
IMHO
BOTH Charles and Diana had a history of blaming each other and other people for their actions/words.
That is the "party line" for Charles spin. I see it all the time.
I was addressing the spin not you in particular.
^^^If you were not addressing me then why would you quote me?
I was referring to the content in your email and never said you came up with this. It is well known that the PR is that Charles was "forced" by his father. It was prominent in the Smith book that just came out and it went all the way back to 1994 with the Dimbleby biography. It was never the original idea of anybody on this board.
Quote from: TLLK on June 11, 2017, 11:16:37 PM
QuoteDiana never said her mother or father "forced her" to marry Charles. Ever. But OTOH Charles blames everybody else for his own choices.
@sandy-I never claimed that she did so I don't know why you are suggesting that I made a statement regarding her mother and father forcing her to marry Charles. :unsure: However if you can find where I did state that, I'd appreciate it if you would share it with me.
IMHO BOTH Charles and Diana had a history of blaming each other and other people for their actions/words.
I think with Diana she was more inclined to disclaim responsibility, or say that she didn't know about things than to directly blame others. One of her aides (cant' remember who) said that after the divorce, she said to him something like "you know I never wanted this to happen". And he was thinking "but she MADE it happen, by talking about her marriage."
and she portrays herself in Morton as a very very naïve unknowing girl who didn't realise anything about the Royal life.. or Charles or anyting really. So the reasoning is I suppose "they can't blame me for things, if I say "I didnt' understand what I was getting into. I didn't know about Charles and Cam" etc.
Charles made it happen when his friends started trashing her and prior to that not giving up Camilla. And also, his knowing he preferred Camilla when he married Diana. I doubt there would have been a Morton book had it not been the leaks by Charles' buddies. Diana did not know all about royal life--she went to childrens' parties where the much younger sons of the Queen's were there. It was a party with cake and ice cream but in a royal residence. She only got more acquainted when she started dating Charles. She felt that because Charles proposed to her he loved her and would forsake all others. She did not start out "cynical" as a teenager. Charles OTOH blamed his father for his marrying Diana even though the father just said if you don't love her break off with her, not you HAVE TO marry Diana, or else. I think Charles wanted the heir and spare with the suitable wife but also having a marriage on his terms. When Charles was criticized for his 1994 interview he blamed a courtier for it. An acquaintance was asked by Charles about the interview and she said she did not like it so he stopped talking to her. Diana knew about Camilla being an ex girlfriend but did not realize the hold she had over him. Charles apparently sweet talked Diana during the courtship.
Quote from: sandy on June 11, 2017, 10:07:14 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 11, 2017, 02:33:38 PM
@amabel. You must forgive me because I do not reference some of the information I read. But I remember I read that from one of the pro-Diana trolls on some forum who was effectively saying that he scored lower than other lovers in bed. You see in troll-land, you never know what is real and what is not. They do make these sweeping statements that sometimes begin to influence you. e.g. "he was cheating before, during and after the marriage". Of course that is a nonsensical sentence but they do say that a lot.
Diana fans are not trolls. I don't think it polite to call other posters trolls (here and elsewhere) no matter what their opinions might be.
Not all Diana fans are trolls. Not all trolls are Diana fans. There are a mix of both, however.
Lets remember this.. Our Guide To Forum Etiquette (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=69672.0), especially:
Quote from: Orchid on May 04, 2014, 12:45:40 PM
Most importantly: have a sense of humour and try not to take things too seriously. The forum should be enjoyable for everyone and even the most controversial and serious of topics can be explored with a light heart.
I need to reiterate this point:
"Not all Diana fans are trolls. Not all trolls are Diana fans. There are a mix of both, however. "
I sometimes use heated language whilst posting on the wing but it is nothing personal. We all have a place at the table like someone said. I apologize to anyone I unintentionally insulted or denigrated in my earlier post. No such insult or denigration was intended.
Double post auto-merged: June 13, 2017, 04:48:45 PM
Meanwhile we have another dreadful installment from Morton:
Diana's tapes reveal her first suicide bid while pregnant | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4597634/Diana-s-tapes-reveal-suicide-bid-pregnant.html#comments)
I am perplexed how this is supposed to celebrate Diana in any way. As you all know, I have critiqued Diana extensively but even I feel that this is just not right. There are so many positive things to explore about her life to remember her after 20 years. This Morton expose is just yet another prurient diversion into the "Diana the Disturbed" theme which has been done to death (no pun intended).
QuoteDiana's tapes reveal her first suicide bid while pregnant | Daily Mail Online
I am perplexed how this is supposed to celebrate Diana in any way. As you all know, I have critiqued Diana extensively but even I feel that this is just not right. There are so many positive things to explore about her life to remember her after 20 years. This Morton expose is just yet another prurient diversion into the "Diana the Disturbed" theme which has been done to death (no pun intended).
I agree
@royalanthropologist and because of the nature of the Morton articles I've chosen to not repost them here.
Actually when you put it like that, I think it is not helpful to post such links. They just feed the frenzy, so to speak. There comes a time when you have to stop taking the proverbial pound of flesh. None of use come off very well when we are upset. It is so sad that Diana was captured in a "rant phase" that all of us have experienced in our lives and then the material is systematically and manipulatively released at the 20th anniversary of her death. Morton thinks he is helping but he is definitely not.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 13, 2017, 06:21:06 PM
Actually when you put it like that, I think it is not helpful to post such links. They just feed the "rant phase" that all of us have experienced in our lives and then the material is systematically and manipulatively released at the 20th anniversary of her death. Morton thinks he is helping but he is definitely not.
Royal do you think that Morton "thinks he's helping?" Helping who? He doesnt care tuppence about Diana or her reputation... h e is just out for money. All this stuff isn't new, his "Diana tapes" were released years ago.. all he seems to be doing is releasing the info again and of course, Diana was in a very stressed and angry state then and wasn't necessarily telling the truth or making sense.
This has been out for years and years. Nothing new.
QuoteDiana was in a very stressed and angry state then and wasn't necessarily telling the truth or making sense.
Yes she was not in a good place and Morton's articles just take advantage of her again and again. :no:
well to be fair, she used hm ot put her story out, and he used her to make money. however she WAS very stressed, not really thinking straight, and striking out wildly.. But yu can't expect a journanlist to be a gentleman and say "Oh the poor woman's having a nervous breakdown, I'm not going to exploit her unhappiness."
Diana was recalling her entire life in flashbacks.
I believe the stuff she told Andrew Morton. It's a fact she had bulimia, episodes she described many people going through eating disoders can relate to as they acted the same way. Charles himself confirmed her self-harming but in less dramatic way, saying the cuts werent deep and bandaid was enough and she was just acting like a spoiled girl who wanted attention (source:Dimbleby book). Charles indeed bullied her, as many people around them confirmed. Charles always keep Camilla in his life as many people confirmed. He admitted he married Diana being in love with Camilla and admitted using her cuff links. He was disappoinnted that Harry wasnt a girl, the mother of Diana confirmed that. It's well known Johnnie was aggressive with Frances. And Diana and her bother were badly affected by the divorce. The Morton book wasnt/isnt a fantasy work. But a brave and courageous account of a woman without gift for hypocrisy. She wasnt ashamed of to be human. Good for her.
Diana was spot on about Camilla despite the attempts of Charles' PR to spin it differently. Charles also was known to lose his temper with people who disagreed with him. He even pulled out a sink at Highgrove in a state of rage.
@dianab . I rather suspect that people see these tapes rather differently. You call it "a brave and courageous account of a woman without gift for hypocrisy. She wasnt ashamed of to be human. Good for her."
The overall impression is someone with very serious problems that needed help and not a longstanding expose in the DM. I am surprised by the level of vitriol on the DM comments section, even by their rather low standards. This was someone ranting about her life and marriage. Such things need to be kept private because they can become a double-edged sword with which the individual is harmed.
As case in point is the falling down stairs whilst pregnant story which is problematic even for some very ardent Diana fans. It may not have occurred as she described it but either interpretation is not flattering on Diana in the least. She has the stark choice of being one or more of the following with regards to that incident: a liar, fantasist, selfish-mother or attention-seeker. I am quite certain Diana would not want to be spoken of in such terms but that is precisely what is happening as a consequence of this rehash.
It may serve some people to constantly review information that confirms their own biases and prejudices against Charles as a bad husband. However, the downside is that those accounts can also be used to paint a very damaging picture of the narrator (Diana). It is always wise to keep some things private, particularly when you are not in a happy place.
As for hypocrisy, every single human being has a knack for hypocrisy. Even Diana herself could be hypocritical about things such as marriage, fidelity and the press. It is unrealistic to claim that she was never hypocritical.
There are also pro Diana posts in the comments some very scathing about Charles and Camilla. I do believe that some Palace courtiers work the comments board, because some sound a lot alike to the point that the same sort of judgmental phrases are used. And there are several people who have always loathed Diana (the same names keep appearing) who get in spiteful comments.
Some accuse her of deliberately trying to "kill" William. I think these sorts of statements are disgusting and would cause even more hurt (these same people hypocritically say this will hurt William and Harry while calling their deceased mother names.
The odd thing is that some act surprised when these tapes have been out and about for about 20 years. Even a movie was made based on Morton and a TV special. Did these people live in caves.
I found Camilla's confessions more embarrassing when she moaned and groaned about poor little me when she caused the problems herself.
There are biases against Charles as a husband and he brought them on himself with his "confessions" and his biographers who spin his own not so nice behavior and blame Diana exclusively. I think hypocrite comes to mind.
Diana was still spot on about Camilla.
QuoteThe odd thing is that some act surprised when these tapes have been out and about for about 20 years. Even a movie was made based on Morton and a TV special. Did these people live in caves
I think we need to remember
@sandy is that nearly twenty years have passed since Diana's death and even longer now since the Morton book was published. I would say that it is very likely that there are people to whom this is all new information. For example: People who were not royal watchers, new residents/citizens in Western nations and young adults who are just becoming acquainted with this time in British history who were either infants, toddlers or very young children when Diana was killed in 1997.
Quote from: dianab on June 14, 2017, 01:23:51 AM
I believe the stuff she told Andrew Morton. It's a fact she had bulimia, episodes she described many people going through eating disoders can relate to as they acted the same way. Charles himself confirmed her self-harming but in less dramatic way, saying the cuts werent deep and bandaid was enough and she was just acting like a spoiled girl who wanted attention (source:Dimbleby book). Charles indeed bullied her, as many people around them confirmed. Charles always keep Camilla in his life as many people confirmed. He admitted he married Diana being in love with Camilla and admitted using her cuff links. He was disappoinnted that Harry wasnt a girl, the mother of Diana confirmed that. It's well known Johnnie was aggressive with Frances. And Diana and her bother were badly affected by the divorce. The Morton book wasnt/isnt a fantasy work. But a brave and courageous account of a woman without gift for hypocrisy. She wasnt ashamed of to be human. Good for her.
I think if Diana did not get he "side out" there would be no counter to the things appearing in books by Charles sympathizers like Junor and Smith. Junor wrote this glowing book about Diana in the early eighties (The Princess of Wales) but when the wind changed the knives came out. I would think hypocrisy describes Charles sympathizers to a tee.
Double post auto-merged: June 14, 2017, 08:19:22 PM
Quote from: TLLK on June 14, 2017, 08:06:22 PM
QuoteThe odd thing is that some act surprised when these tapes have been out and about for about 20 years. Even a movie was made based on Morton and a TV special. Did these people live in caves
Coverage of Diana did not end in 1997. Over the past twenty years there were more books, films, and documentaries. Morton had other books about Diana out accompanied by those by Bradford, Burrell, Wharfe, Jephson, Seward, Junor, Brown, Smith, and on and on. Morton was mentioned and used as a source in most of these books. Charles was a busy bee putting out his "side" with Diana no longer around to counter this. His sympathizers Junor and Smith and others wrote Diana bashing books, even his own cousins. Unfortunately some did buy into the spin without seeing the other side of the story. In some ways, this did not work because some have longer memories than others or don't like Charles in particular. Morton though has been mentioned even in the Diana bashing books.
Quote from: TLLK on June 14, 2017, 08:06:22 PM
QuoteThe odd thing is that some act surprised when these tapes have been out and about for about 20 years. Even a movie was made based on Morton and a TV special. Did these people live in caves
I think we need to remember @sandy is that nearly twenty years have passed since Diana's death and even longer now since the Morton book was published. I would say that it is very likely that there are people to whom this is all new information. For example: People who were not royal watchers, new residents/citizens in Western nations and young adults who are just becoming acquainted with this time in British history who were either infants, toddlers or very young children when Diana was killed in 1997.
true but do they really need to know the sort of stuff that Diana put out, when she was unhappy, angry and desperate?
The Settelen tapes were not all gloomy. She was laughing and joking with William and Harry in the tapes. Plus there was a book published about Diana and her charities which left out all the negative parts and just focused on the charity work. I think it would have been better to have excerpts of the charity book published in the DM. fortunately, the Morton book ended on a positive note. That too should have been published in the DM.
QuoteCoverage of Diana did not end in 1997. Over the past twenty years there were more books, films, and documentaries. Morton had other books about Diana out accompanied by those by Bradford, Burrell, Wharfe, Jephson, Seward, Junor, Brown, Smith, and on and on. Morton was mentioned and used as a source in most of these books. Charles was a busy bee putting out his "side" with Diana no longer around to counter this. His sympathizers Junor and Smith and others wrote Diana bashing books, even his own cousins. Unfortunately some did buy into the spin without seeing the other side of the story. In some ways, this did not work because some have longer memories than others or don't like Charles in particular. Morton though has been mentioned even in the Diana bashing books.
No it didn't but we're royal watchers who are truly interested in the activities and events of royalty. Most people have a passing interest in the lives of royals even if they live in a nation with a monarchy. I don't believe it's fair to generalize it as people "living under a rock." A whole generation has come of age in the years that she's been gone.
Yes but there have been books written since and even People Magazine and other popular magazines cover the royals. Quotes from DIana from Morton have often been repeated in articles and books. There was the tenth anniversary of her death which garnered her much attention and more books about her. It was not as if it all ended in 1997.
^^^What you are saying is true, but there are many more people who are not particularly interested in royals. Those of us who do follow them are rather unique.
And again remember that there are many people who are just learning about Diana who would have only been ten or even younger back in 2007.
Parents or older relatives of the children can share their memories. Just as probably those who lived at the time of the Abdication Crisis talked about it to their children and grandchildren.
Tina Brown's 2007 book about Diana was a best seller. And there is much interest in the Diana fashion exhibit at Kensington Palace.
People who did not live through the "Camelot" years of Jackie and JFK certainly have heard of it through best selling books, films, and documentaries. One did not have to be there or even be around at the time to know.
Yes they likely have a general overview of the late POTUS and FLOTUS through their history lessons and memories shared by their older relatives, but I would not expect them to have detailed knowledge of their marital issues, family life, health concerns etc...
There are always books..I've lost count of the books about JFK and Jackie.
Yes there are but they would have to have an interest in that episode in history. To a teenager, college student or working young adult in 2017 the books detailing the marital discord between the heir to the British throne and his first wife is old news. This is not required reading that most students will engage in for their course work. IMO the majority of people who have read the books are adults who were living in the 1980's and 1990's (Like most of us here) and can recall when the War of the Wales was a current events story or they're a relatively small group of young people with an interest in royalty.
I am not so sure that the exact numbers can be calculated or determined to be a "small group." Whenever there was coverage of George and Charlotte there have been photos of William and Harry with their mother. Sometimes this is learned when it is not a "requirement" for a course. Those who invest in US, People, and other popular magazines certainly have seen photos of the late Princess Diana. Tina Brown's book from 2007 was on best seller lists. Certainly some younger people also have watched the documentaries on the late Princess Diana.
Quote from: TLLK on June 15, 2017, 02:19:08 AM
^^^What you are saying is true, but there are many more people who are not particularly interested in royals. Those of us who do follow them are rather unique.
Frankly I don't think it is a good idea that new people finding out about the RF start off with these tapes of Diana's which are highly coloured, to say the least.
It is not the only book ever written about Diana nor the only primary source about Diana.
Quote from: amabel on June 15, 2017, 05:55:59 PM
Quote from: TLLK on June 15, 2017, 02:19:08 AM
^^^What you are saying is true, but there are many more people who are not particularly interested in royals. Those of us who do follow them are rather unique.
Frankly I don't think it is a good idea that new people finding out about the RF start off with these tapes of Diana's which are highly coloured, to say the least.
Good point
@amabel. Yes it wouldn't be the best introduction to the who, what, where an when of royal families. IMO.
first impressions tend to stick, and when I see bits of the story eappearingon the Net this week it horrifies me. Diana tyring to kill herself etc etc
Diana had said it was more a cry for help. She talked about the "filthy rows" she had with Charles over Camilla.
Morton's original book is still in print. I don't get the need for him to market the book again.
It's interesting how writers saw things back in 1981 about Charles and Diana. I found a book called Charles and Diana by Janice Dunlap and there is a particular passage:
The book talks about Dale Tryon as his friend and seeking her opinions on his girlfriends. "In London his favorite hostess has been bubbly blonde Lady Tryon.
Then the writer states: "The other woman to be consulted before proposing to Diana was Camilla Parker Bowles married to the Royal Household Cavalry Officer, Andrew Parker Bowles. CHarles and the Parker Bowleses used to hunt regularly together in Gloucestershire and this was one of the reasons why the Prince chose as his new home nearby Highgrove. Newlyweds Charles and Di will have Andrew and Camilla as their neighbors. It was Camilla who had always acted as the country version of Dale Tryon, a close friend able to act as a hostess for Charles and offer useful advice."
Yes it was a cry for help. But it was he wrong way to go about it. She only alienated Charles and the RF, and while she got public support for a time, that began to wane as people got fed up with the war of the waleses and bored iwwht the story. It made it impossible for her marriage to keep on working in any sense of the word. Morton didn't want to help her, he just wanted a book that would make him a fortune and he got it.
Well what is the "right way"? Charles apparently did not listen to her concerns about Camilla and went right on contacting her and seeing her at the hunts. Maybe the "right way" would have been for Charles to man up and work on his marriage without getting "comfort and advice" from the long time mistress. I disagree that public support for her seemed to wane. She was very popular with the public. Charles friends leaked stories about Diana pre Morton and what they got out of it was to curry favor with a future King.
Quote from: amabel on June 15, 2017, 09:59:38 PM
first impressions tend to stick, and when I see bits of the story eappearingon the Net this week it horrifies me. Diana tyring to kill herself etc etc
No it does not give a very good first impression.
I have not seen this edition of Morton book on sale in the US yet though AMazon says a large print edition will be out in September.
Quote from: sandy on June 16, 2017, 12:27:26 PM
. I disagree that public support for her seemed to wane. She was very popular with the public. Charles friends leaked stories about Diana pre Morton and what they got out of it was to curry favor with a future King.
well you're wrong there Sandy because she had a lot of support initially, in spite of the upper class disliking the way she made her marriage failure public. At first the papers and a lot of the public were on her side. however, within a few years of 1992, her stock went down, people got sick of the whole thing and the papers became more critical, publishing stories of her phone calls to Oliver Hoare, her flirtation with Will Carling etc. She was critcised by many for her affair with Dodi because M Al Fayed was so controversial. She was laughed at by many people for the story that she "visited sick people at night" when she was almost caught visiting Hasnat Khan. however I know you don't want to believe this.
There is no knowing specifically how many were pro or con so no I am not wrong. There are no definitive surveys so my take on it is just as valid as yours given there is no proof. WHo are the 'many'? There probably were also "many" who were pro Diana. I was in the UK ca 1995 and saw the papers and coverage and no, I did not see any derision of her. The coverage in the US about Dodi was not negative either. There was publicity since he was the first post divorce boyfriend (Khan did not want to go public with her) that went "public" as a couple. It was too soon to say how it all would have turned out. She could have stopped seeing him for all we know. I don't think there would have been any rushing into a second marriage for her. I don't recall reading about people "laughing at her." Maybe you and your co-workers did but I did not see or hear any "laughter." You don't want to believe that she was still popular and not "many" disliked or disapproved of her. People Magazine had a cover class vs. cash about that time. Fergie was "cash" Diana was "class." Al Fayed, Dodi's father was in the US promoting Harrod's on QVC and Raine Spencer appeared with him. I did not see any negativity about him in the least. People purchased the Harrod's items that were being promoted.
I don't believe there is such a thing as "group think" and "many" turned on Diana. Julia Carling did not name Diana as a co-respondent, Carling denied an affair. Carling moved on and remarried and I don't think she is bothered by this anymore.
Diane and Oliver Hoare are still together, neither commented on the DIana years. And I doubt they ever will.
Quotewell you're wrong there Sandy because she had a lot of support initially, in spite of the upper class disliking the way she made her marriage failure public. At first the papers and a lot of the public were on her side. however, within a few years of 1992, her stock went down, people got sick of the whole thing and the papers became more critical, publishing stories of her phone calls to Oliver Hoare, her flirtation with Will Carling etc. She was critcised by many for her affair with Dodi because M Al Fayed was so controversial. She was laughed at by many people for the story that she "visited sick people at night" when she was almost caught visiting Hasnat Khan. however I know you don't want to believe this.
I agree
@amabel that there was a definite change of how she was being featured in print media in the later years of the War of the Wales. Charles had been on the receiving end earlier by the public and press when he was airing his own side about the breakdown of their marriage, but I do believe that Diana was taken aback when it was her turn.
Charles was always on the receiving end. I did not see anything dramatic with people all of a sudden turning against Diana. At the time, Camilla was very unpopular. I disagree that people "laughed at her" re: hospital visit and Hasnet. Not many people knew about Hasnet because he did not want to go public with her. There were pictures of her in the hospital but no pictures of them going out on dates together. He would visit her at KP and she would cook meals for him. The hospital visit was a blip on the radar. I wish the word "many" was not used because it is not known how many or how few did this.
Quote from: sandy on June 16, 2017, 10:34:25 PM
Charles was always on the receiving end. I did not see anything dramatic with people all of a sudden turning against Diana. At the time, Camilla was very unpopular. I disagree that people "laughed at her" re: hospital visit and Hasnet. Not many people knew about Hasnet because he did not want to go public with her. .
it wasn't a sudden dramatic change but a gradual one over the few years after 1992.. the fact that Charles and Cam were unpopular does not mean that Dian didn't lose popularity.. to an extent. But the more she appeared In the papers with stories of the war of the wales, the more storeis that emerged of her relationships wthi men, the more she was liable to attract negative attention. there were rumours of an affair iwht Khan. some people didn't like the idea, he got hate mail. when she said that she visited the sick at night, some people jeered at what seemed like peculiar behaviour.. when she appeared in full make up, watching a heart operation, she was criticised. When the phone calls to Hoare came out, she was crtiicised. however, I know that you don't want to believe this..
Double post auto-merged: June 17, 2017, 06:49:07 AM
Quote from: TLLK on June 16, 2017, 09:54:26 PM
Quotewell you're wrong there Sandy because she had a lot of support initially, in spite of the upper class disliking the way she made her marriage failure public. At first the papers and a lot of the public were on her side. however, within a few years of 1992, her stock went down, people got sick of the whole thing and the papers became more critical, publishing stories of her phone calls to Oliver Hoare, her flirtation with Will Carling etc. She was critcised by many for her affair with Dodi because M Al Fayed was so controversial. She was laughed at by many people for the story that she "visited sick people at night" when she was almost caught visiting Hasnat Khan. however I know you don't want to believe this.
I agree @amabel that there was a definite change of how she was being featured in print media in the later years of the War of the Wales. Charles had been on the receiving end earlier by the public and press when he was airing his own side about the breakdown of their marriage, but I do believe that Diana was taken aback when it was her turn.
I think that it says a lot in a way that Di's stock did go down, because she had been very much seen as the victim in the break up of the marriage, and Charles had lost any popularity he had, at the time because he was the bad guy who cheated on the sweet lovely adored Diana. but when it began to emerge that Diana was doig her fair share of having affairs with married men, and stuff like chasing a married man who had left her, involved iwht WIll Carling whose wife claimed she was trying to take her man form her, etc etc. the press began to make fun of her and so did people n the public eye.
Gar Lineker said on tv that he had been invited to lunch with her but he was not goig because "the woman's trouble". People even other celebs began to diss her, seeing her as acting oddly and wildly. Celeb wives clearly felt that she was using her position to "invite their husbands to lunch" and not them..
The fact that she said she visited people in hospital at night prompted jeers and jokes, as if she was apparenlty delusionally believing that she had some magic touch.. her watching an op In make up, was criticised, because it is not usual practice at hospitals...
There was a lot of criticism creeping in and by the time she went public with her affair with Dodi, she got quite a bit of it. I think you're right that she was a bit taken aback, but the thing is that if you make yourself too public, the press is going to find out things that they mgith not find out, if you led a quiet life.
If she had not used the press to attack Charles, the press would have been less on the watch for more and more stories about her. they would have been more respectful in their coverage had she remained within the RF..and not outed the failure of her marriage.
And I think she was under a lot of stress and was not thinking clearly.. she was not doing full time royal work, the boys were at school.. she was unhappy and flailing around.. and the war with Charles escalated. But I think that before she died people were getting a bit sick of the whole thing and the story might have just run its course.. People were beginning to feel "well he's behaved badly, so has she.. I'm fed up of reading about their nonsense.." and the press might have moved on to other targets.
Well with Charles running around with Camilla, there was some sympathy for DIana when it was found out she was involved with Hewitt. Charles had rejected her.
What married men? Carling said there was no affair. Julia did not name her in a divorce petition. Hoare neither confirmed nor denied an affair and never said anything publicly. I doubt he ever will, he and his wife are still together. Why with the "married men" accusations it sounds like Diana had "many" she didn't.
I don't recall a "lot" of criticism about Dodi. The stories were that she was dating there was some interest because he was the first post divorce man she was going public with (not much was known about Hasnet since they never went public or were on holidays together so the media knew). Diana did not just "date Dodi" her last year, that was just a fraction of it. She called attention to the issue of Landmines, received an award in the US, and sold her iconic gowns and outfits at Sothebys for Charity. She was praised for that. I think the public was hoping she'd find happiness and settle down and she made it no secret she did want to eventually remarry. But I doubt she wanted this that same year! IT was not as if she and Dodi got engaged. They were just dating and it was "no strings" relationship thus far. Charles used the press and DImbleby to attack her. And it is not over yet, with Junor and Smith still at it.
She was not 'flailing around' if she were you would have seen her stumbling out of clubs with a series of playboys. ANd taking to drugs and drink. She was focused. I don't know why you accuse her of this when she clearly was regrouping and finding a role for herself. Her life was cut short.
Charles outed the failure of his marriage, blabbing that he was with married Camilla, forcing the PB divorce (maybe before both wanted it), and her father confronted Charles over his naming his daughter. Charles caused more of a mess IMO than Diana did.
Charles was increasingly cold and nasty to Diana, his friends were leaking stories, he had Camilla playing hostess in what was still Diana's home too. If she were made of steel maybe she could have put up with it, It is forgotten she spent ten years in the marriage and put up with the facade.
I never heard the jeers and jokes. Maybe the people in the hospital welcomed her visits. Hospital patients like this and it is pretty dreary for them with doctors coming in all the time taking blood and giving more tests.
I'm sure if she really was visiting people late at night, they would nto appreciate it.. people need to sleep...
and yes Sandy there were jokes. People joked about havng a card saying "In the event of my suffering in an accident I don not want to be visited by Diana Princess of wales.
I did not hear the jokes. Whatever it was it did not last long. I think small minded people made those jokes, or people with lots of time on their hands.
Hospital patients would welcome someone other than a doctor taking blood or taking scans or wiring them up to machines. Some hospital patient are up during the night. And some do not sleep well.
Yes they weren't nice jokes but there were plenty of them. And I'm sure that hostpital staff and paitients would not welcome "Diana coming to visit" in the middle of the night.. I mean come on...
@amabel I don't think it was so much that Diana was losing support or popularity as the media pretty much knew the divorce was coming and the media particularly those looking toward honors knew once Diana was no longer HRH or part of the inner circle had to start being more favorable to the RF. I had read back then that some hospital patients were indeed visited by Diana and were quite happy to meet and be cheered up by her.
I doubt if she realy visited late at night. She did have people she visited In hospital, but I don't think that any hospital would welcome someone turning up, to a locked for the night ward sayng she watned to comfort sick people, even if ti was the Princess Of wales.
And no, I think what happened was that Diana's behaviour became more "offbeat" and the press naturally grabbed at great stories like "she's a phone stalker" or "she's having an affair maybe with Will carling."
They mostly had not cared about Diana, as a person.. she was just a commodity to them, a story.. and they didn't care if it was a kindly story or a critical one so long as it got people to buy the paper. So when they had run the gambit of "she's a cheated on wife" and that got boring, they were on the lookout for new things to say and unfortunately Diana obliged them by her own "invading her own privacy" and briefing the press too much.. and the more they looked at her life, at the end of the marriage, there were stories that would sell, like "she's been stalking Ol Hoare" or "she's having an affair iwht an Indian doctor maybe"..
And it wasn't just the press who were more critical. it was jokes by comedians, people on TV like Gary Lineker.. She was mixing more with celebrity types and they are apt, if annoyed or if they have marital troubles, to go to the press and talk about it, not keep quiet.
Diana was under a lot of stress and she was not acting very sensibly. She was seen in a car, talking to Richard kay. She got rid of her PPOs, which made her open to more harassment from paparazzi who would chase her for a photo.
It was her own behaviour that got attention form the press and was realayed to the public. however by 1996, I think people were getting fed up of it all, and felt "OK it was interesting for a time but now Diana is In the papers all the time..the war is still going on. Its time they sorted out their differences, got a divorce and got on with normal life.. and just appear inthe papers now and again. but Diana then embarked on her relationship with Dodi and that whipped the tabloid inot more interest, mainly ciritical interest because MAF was so vulgar and awful..
She did take William and Harry on nights to visit and help the Homeless. This is a fact.
There are people who are up at night in hospitals, patients that is.
I did not get a sense at the time that people all believed Julia Carling. Carling denied an affair. She moved on.
At the time, the calls were blamed on pranksters not Diana. I have an old magazine from the time that says just that.
Diana did more in the way of charity work in her last year than some did in ten.
I don't watch Gary Linaker. I did not see any comedians here make fun of Diana. Joan Rivers used to make fun of Camilla but did an about face and trashed DIana (after Diana died) to score points with Prince Charles and Camilla.
You criticize DIana for sitting near Richard Kay but for ten years Camilla was phoning up Stuart Higgins to give 'her side.'
CHarles' PPOs reported Diana's every move. WHich is why she got rid of them.
I don't think amabel you speak for "all people" believe it or not not everybody thinks about Diana the same way you do. Who are these 'people' you refer to, you can't speak for everybody on the planet.
Jackie Onassis' every relationship got put under a microscope after JFK died. Diana had the same issues. Not everybody thinks MAF vulgar and awful. He was a friend of Diana's father, for many years. Not everybody thinks like you do. Diana could date and she was divorced. Give her a break, she did not marry the man, she died young.
For myself, and I lived in Britain for most of 1996 and 1997, I can remember jokes being cracked by comedians about Diana and journalists (especially female journos) going to town on her especially in that last summer with Dodi, where she exhibited some rather odd behavior.
Diana didn't seem to be able to make up her mind about whether she wanted the press and photographers near her on that yachting holiday or not. She did get criticised by Tory MPs for her work with Landmines and I remember one article in particular in which she was criticised for delving into politics and seemingly favouring one side (Labour.)
However, and this is a big caveat, journalists and comedians don't represent the British public. Parts of it yes, but not the whole. Just because journalists want to change the narrative because they're bored doesn't mean the British public immediately follows.
I remember whenever she appeared in a new dress or gown in those twelve months before her death, or appeared looking glamorous for one of her charities or the ballet, then Diana's photo would appear on newspapers' front pages. The glossy women's magazine stories on Diana still brought in customers. Newspapers and magazines in those days knew 'Diana sells'. She did throughout her life as a Royal and for the period afterwards.
I can remember people having a giggle over a photo of Diana in full makeup and hospital gown and mask observing an operation, presumably one of Khan's. However, she was still incredibly popular and loved. I can remember very few criticisms and jokes about her from ordinary people, the women who continued to buy magazines with her on the cover, people who turned up to see her when she appeared in public.
Yes, the public became less interested in the Wales saga and the stories about their quarrels had reached the end of their shelf life IMO. However, those years left the people that I mixed with and many of my family and friends with a much more jaundiced view of Charles and his mistress that of Diana and her lovers. Some changed their view of the royal family in view of what they'd read. As for Diana, many thought it was odd that she should be with a playboy like Dodi, but few took it seriously.
That wasn't the case with Charles and Camilla. I can honestly say that if I were able to time travel back to July 1996 and ask a large group of family, friends, workmates, who, out of Charles or Diana, they sympathised with the most, empathised with the most and who was more popular with them, it would have been about 90% Diana and the rest wouldn't have cared about royals enough to give an opinion.
well I can say that most people I mixed iwht, did not care for Charles or Camilla, but in general, they were equally jaundiced about Dana. And she was in the papers more, so she was commented on more. the fact that they might have felt that C and C hd beaved badly, didn't mean that tey had any time for Diana. Mostly, (while some were very saddened by her death -others weren't) mostly people in a large office I worked in, were sceptical about Di's claim to be something better and warmer and more in touch than the RF, that she was a not very bright, vain woman, who wanted costnant press attention, and who was no more "in touch" or useful in the world than her in laws.
Crtiicism of her "odd behaviour" by journalists and people in general, came about well before the summer of Dodi. There as the chasing Hoare with Phone calls. there was the Panorma interview, which many thought was just Diana acting stupidly, wanting to show off on TV.. the visits to hosptials etc etc...
There was once a program discussed Diana's side of the story. Apparently she was perplexed as to why Charles should prefer Camilla over her. Now that Camilla has given an interview of sorts about her life, I can see what happened. You just have to compare the two stories and you will can probably work out some of the reasons why he decided to go for the older less attractive woman. Camilla is optimistic, realistic and even humorous. Diana's tapes sound bitter, twisted and almost always complaining about some sleight committed against her. Nobody likes to live with a perpetual victim. Diana would have been better advised to put out a much more positive outlook to her life; even if it meant moving on from an unfulfilling marriage. The constant wronged wife routine can become old very quickly.
I was also amused that someone here suggested that the palace workers were working on the DM comments since their judgmental phrases sounded so similar. That is just projection. Most of the repetitive hateful phrases on that forum are written by about 20 pro Diana fans who use different aliases. You can tell by the fact that they use the same words and phrases. They then echo one another with phrases similar to these: "well said, too right" etc. One of them has wished Charles an early death (so that a 90+ plus mother has the displeasure of burying her own son) and Camilla to suffer from cancer (someone who thinks like that ought to be locked up for public safety reasons). I would not really classify such people as Diana fans. They are trolls.
If you are a young person (post 1997) and listen to the Morton tapes, what comes across is a woman who is very disturbed but with a tendency for victim hood. Every thing and every person is wicked for not paying enough attention to them. That is the real danger of exposing these private tapes. They will diminish Diana and make her out to be some bitter ex-wife type who is unable to let go of the problems in her past. I would hope that Diana was far too optimistic to wallow in self-pity for the rest of her life had she lived long.
Amabel, I think Charles and Camilla got the worst of it. I can't imagine though people "glad" Diana died or not even "sad." They would have to be made of rocks not to be sad that someone is dead. Your office is not the world. My office did not like Charles and Camilla and liked Diana. The slams at her not being bright, vain, and wanting press attention seems to fit Charles more. He got so so grades, he is vain, and he likes attention so much so he got jealous of his first wife. His vanity comes out when he gets mad at people who disagree with him. Charles Dimbleby interview, the year before Dianas, got heavily criticized and did a lot of damage, forcing the PBs to divorce probably before they had planned. Hoare chased her BTW. Diana was pursued by Hoare. Hoare had a roving eye and had made his wife uncomfortable in the early nineties when he had a mistress. He's no angel. I don't get why Diana is the only one trashed.
royalanthropologist, why wouldn't Camilla be optimistic, she's set for life and got what she worked for all those years. Charles cannot afford another divorce and even if they wanted one, they could not divorce. Camilla was playing victim and poor me in the interview if she had been humorous and optimistic she would not have. She should not have given that interview it made her look like she was blaming others for her own bad behavior.
No it is not projection--a few names pop up who make the same comments and cliche bashing of Diana. There is someone from India, and a few others that I won't name. IT is obvious.
You are expressing your opinion and trying to spread propaganda to "young people." Why not play the Camilla gate tape where Charles and Camilla are scheming about getting together when her husband is not home. And both not wanting an ambulance strike to end in London (where lives were being lost) so the pesky husband won't come home.Or Camilla calling Diana "that ridiculous creature" in a letter to Charles. Or her photos of her "befriending" Lady Diana. I think Camilla a big phony and very greedy and self entitled. She was said not to be very popular with her neighbors. I think Charles a foolish man who got involved with his so called best friends' wives.
The real danger for Charles and Camilla's spin is that not everybody buys into it. Some of it is laughable.
There are Camilla trolls who say Diana is better off dead, her sons think of Camilla as their mother and Camilla raised them, making fun of Diana's accident, and so on. They will diminish Camilla and Charles and make them look like a pair of losers.
BTW there are people who are Diana fans who don't wish Camilla dead but do call her out on her role in breaking up the marriage.
Camilla trolls are rampant on the DM comments board and get over 100 red arrows from others.
How can DIana be condemned as anything when she died at age 36. She did not live to 90 so there is no clue how things would have ended up for her. Charles controls the PR and some believe the ridiculous spin he puts out with Penny Junor having the power to diagnose Diana. So stupid.
Diana's life and character are not encompassed by one set of tapes or one interview. She had many many friends who described her as fun, funny, humorous and witty. They remembered her full-throated laugh, throwing her head right back, and her love of life.
Harry at the 10 year memorial specifically spoke of her sense of fun. There are many anecdotes about her joking and teasing with others. Otoh, not many people could work out why Charles preferred Camilla. One journalist I remember said that the French categorised Charles at the time of the War of the Wales's as 'that Prince with a beautiful wife and an ugly mistress'.
Philip wrote to Diana stating that he couldn't understand how Charles could 'prefer Camilla over you' and he wasn't just talking about her looks.
I think it was unfortunate that Charles somehow got the idea he was "above" common decency. He felt it OK for him to be involved with his friends' wives. It caused much damage to him and to others.
Journalists and comedians may have criticised and joked about her in the twelve months or so before she died. Some of your friends, amabel, may not have liked her. However, she did change the way the royal family does things, she left a long legacy behind, people still bought books and magazines about her, the piles of flowers to mourn her were unprecedented, and two and a half billion people world wide watched her funeral. Two and a half billion who didn't think she was vain, self centred or a publicity hound.
How many for Charles's funeral, a million or so? How many for Camilla? About five thousand onlookers on the streets, if she's lucky! Twenty years after Camilla's death will people on forums, on Tumblrs, on the Internet be discussing her or Charles? No! Documentaries, tributes to Camilla on the twentieth anniversary? I think the answer's No!
Diana was loved and adored in life by people all over the world and remembered fondly by those who met her, after she died. The facts about how people reacted to her death speak for themselves, as do Charles (and his ex mistress's) poll numbers, even today. Low, low, low, and this is a future King, if he survives his mother.
Quote from: sandy on June 18, 2017, 11:00:42 AM
Amabel, I think Charles and Camilla got the worst of it. I can't imagine though people "glad" Diana died or not even "sad." They would have to be made of rocks not to be sad that someone is dead. Your office is not the world. My office did not like Charles and Camilla and liked Diana. The slams at her not being bright, vain, and wanting press attention seems to fit
For Gods sake Sandy I didn't say that anyone said that they were glad Di was dead. nor did I say that my office was te whole world.. but it was large number of people, and just as valid for taking sounding for. if it comes to thtat, in my present workplace Noone ever mentions the RF or Di except one person...
And while no one was glad, many people were not particularly sad, any more than most of us are sad to hear of the death of someone we don't know. Of course we feel a little pity but it is not a deep sadness.
Double post auto-merged: June 18, 2017, 12:58:43 PM
Quote from: Curryong on June 18, 2017, 12:22:10 PM
Journalists and comedians may have criticised and joked about her in the twelve months or so before she died. Some of your friends, amabel, may not have liked her. However, she did change the way the royal family does things, she left a long legacy behind, people still bought books and magazines about her, the piles of flowers to mourn her were unprecedented, and two and a half billion people world wide watched her funeral. Two and a half billion who didn't think she was vain, self centred or a publicity hound.
How many for Charles's funeral, a million or so? How many for Camilla? About five thousand onlookers on the streets, if she's lucky! Twenty years after Camilla's death will people on forums, on Tumblrs, on the Internet be discussing her or Charles? No! Documentaries, tributes to Camilla on the twentieth anniversary? I think the answer's No!
.
I didn't say they were my friends. But I'd say they were fairly typical of people. mostly they didn't take any notice of the RF but in the early 90s the Waleses war was so out there that one could hardly totally ignore it, so it was coffee break conversation. And generaly I'd say that I was one of the very few that sympathised iwht Diana. Mostly the others DID think she was vain, brainless and tiresome. They didn't think highly of Charles Cam or te rest of the RF either, so it is not a case as you seem to think that everyone who "hates Diana" loves Charles and Camilla.
Yes Diana had worldwide popularity.. but within a few years, while she still had a lot of fans, and is still remembered, the numbers going to KP and laying flowers etc went down every year. within less than a year, a charity walk in her honour had to be cancelled because ofa low take up rate. she's not forgotten, she never will be, by her own family and friends and her fans, but I think that her massive populiarty has faded now.
As For Charles and Camilla, maybe they are never goig to be as popular as she was in her heyday, but we don't know what will happen when they pass away. They will be King and Queen and they will be elderly so they wotn get the rush of sympathy that one may get if one dies young and tragically. And realy does it matter? Its nice to be mourned but I'm sure anyone would rathter have a longer life and more happiness in that life...
You don't know how many people felt that way. There have never been definitive surveys. Sadness was felt with many I think it safe to say. How deep the feeling was known only by the individual so that cannot be measured. And feeling sorry for the boys and those who lost a parent identified with what happened to them.
I know typical people who like Diana to this day and loathe Camilla and Charles. I would say Charles was the brainless and vain one. He lacked common sense which got him in the trouble he had. Any man with half a brain would have walked away when the women he dated married elsewhere. He thought it OK to get involved with his friends' wives. I am not so sure how"happy" Charles is, he is a chronic complainer. Camilla whined about her "lot" in the unfortunate interview. So I think the two are big on self pity and self justification.
I understand the flowers left were taken up quickly and not left to sit. If the massive popularity has diminished then why are lines forming to see the exhibit at Kensington Palace, about her iconic fashions.
I disagree with curryong about dead people and crowds. Dead people do not mind if they are buried by billions or a single person, it is simply not in their realm. That is the realm of the living. I seriously doubt that Charles and Camilla are quaking in their boots at the possibility that few people will attend their respective funerals. That would be very strange behavior indeed if it happened. Nobody normal worries about how many people will attend their funeral.
I also question the assumption that Charles and Camilla do not have friends and fans. You may get a very big surprise at their coronation and realize that Britain and the commonwealth are not always well represented in internet forums. In any case I doubt that either party is worried about crowd numbers at their public events. They have shown a distinct lack of interest in courting fan clubs so I doubt they are going to start now.
I can tell you people that the Diana tapes were very badly received by the young people I know when they were republished in 2017. They felt that she was whining too much and not appreciating the advantages the life gave her. Others asserted that Diana's problems appeared to have been there long, long before she ever set eyes on Charles. The behavior towards Raine Spencer and the governesses is particularly alarming. Diana herself admitted that she and Charles were very messed up. It was only the older girls that appeared well-adjusted.
The pro-Diana group on DM was overwhelmed by the negative response and some of them resorted to complaining about how people were being too judgmental. Huh...that is rich coming from people that have been judging C&C for decades :lol:
Double post auto-merged: June 18, 2017, 02:50:54 PM
"'that Prince with a beautiful wife and an ugly mistress"
Very unfortunate remark. Looks neither make a marriage nor relationship as Diana's story has shown us this fact time and time again. There is absolutely no doubt that Diana was an aesthetically stunning woman but that did not help her to find a long lasting satisfying romantic relationship. By contrast: the ugly duckling does not seem to be doing too badly in the love stakes. She married amazingly well and she has a husband who is devoted to her. No amount of money, looks or public adoration can buy that.
^ I shan't be taking any interest in Charles's Coronation (and of course people come out for a Royal event of any kind. I've been in such crowds myself and I know.)
However, as I loathe Charles, have the utmost contempt for Camilla and have always been underwhelmed by the Cambridges my loyalty to the Crown as a monarchist will end when the Queen dies. I'll still take an interest in Harry and his doings as I like him very much, but that will be it for me.
I'm a life long monarchist and come from a family of devout monarchists. However, after the Queen dies Australia will probably go for a referendum fairly quickly and become a republic. It won't come quickly enough for me.
A pompous vain prat who can't take criticism, who is self pitying and who believes he is in the right on every question, a man who didn't have the intestinal fortitude to not marry a very young woman when he was in love with his mistress,--that's not the sort of man I want as my King. I'll prefer the histories of King George VI and this Queen Elizabeth, and honour them instead.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 18, 2017, 02:46:08 PM
I disagree with curryong about dead people and crowds. Dead people do not mind if they are buried by billions or a single person, it is simply not in their realm. That is the realm of the living. I seriously doubt that Charles and Camilla are quaking in their boots at the possibility that few people will attend their respective funerals. That would be very strange behavior indeed if it happened. Nobody normal worries about how many people will attend their funeral.
I also question the assumption that Charles and Camilla do not have friends and fans. You may get a very big surprise at their coronation and realize that Britain and the commonwealth are not always well represented in internet forums. In any case I doubt that either party is worried about crowd numbers at their public events. They have shown a distinct lack of interest in courting fan clubs so I doubt they are going to start now.
I can tell you people that the Diana tapes were very badly received by the young people I know when they were republished in 2017. They felt that she was whining too much and not appreciating the advantages the life gave her. Others asserted that Diana's problems appeared to have been there long, long before she ever set eyes on Charles. The behavior towards Raine Spencer and the governesses is particularly alarming. Diana herself admitted that she and Charles were very messed up. It was only the older girls that appeared well-adjusted.
The pro-Diana group on DM was overwhelmed by the negative response and some of them resorted to complaining about how people were being too judgmental. Huh...that is rich coming from people that have been judging C&C for decades :lol:
Double post auto-merged: June 18, 2017, 02:50:54 PM
"'that Prince with a beautiful wife and an ugly mistress"
Very unfortunate remark. Looks neither make a marriage nor relationship as Diana's story has shown us this fact time and time again. There is absolutely no doubt that Diana was an aesthetically stunning woman but that did not help her to find a long lasting satisfying romantic relationship. By contrast: the ugly duckling does not seem to be doing too badly in the love stakes. She married amazingly well and she has a husband who is devoted to her. No amount of money, looks or public adoration can buy that.
It depends what young people are told.
DIana should have had a long standing romantic relationship with her husband but Camilla butted in and Charles was too wishy washy--he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
Camilla saw off the wife to get her rewards and kindness had nothing to do with it.
Quote from: sandy on June 18, 2017, 01:57:30 PM
You don't know how many people felt that way. There have never been definitive surveys. Sadness was felt with many I think it safe to say. How deep the feeling was known only by the individual so that cannot be measured. And feeling sorry for the boys and those who lost a parent identified with what happened to them.
I know typical people who like Diana to this day and loathe Camilla and Charles. I would say . If the massive popularity has diminished then why are lines forming to see the exhibit at Kensington Palace, about her iconic fashions.
as ther are no "definitive surveys" then the people I have met, who were not Di fans, are just as valid as your idea that almost everyone mourned her deeply.. and that the only ones who didn't were somehow "got at" by Charles .
People are going to see her dresses because they are fashion items, not necessarily because they were worn by Diana. There were shows of Margaret's dresses too.. I'm sure they got a lot of people going to them.
Double post auto-merged: June 18, 2017, 07:32:33 PM
Quote from: Curryong on June 18, 2017, 03:26:11 PM
^ I shan't be taking any interest in Charles's Coronation (and of course people come out for a Royal event of any kind. I've been in such crowds myself and I know.)
However, as I loathe Charles, have the utmost contempt for Camilla and have always been underwhelmed by the Cambridges my loyalty to the Crown as a monarchist will end when the Queen dies. I'll still take an interest in Harry and his doings as I like him very much, but that will be it for me.
I'm a life long monarchist and come from a family of devout monarchists. However, after the Queen dies Australia will probably go for a referendum fairly quickly and become a republic. It won't come quickly enough for me.
A
well not everyone feels like that. Most people are essentially indifferent and as Long as Charles is doing a decent job, is not involved any scandals, he is the heir and he'll be crowned. And I'm sure he'll be Ok with that.
Double post auto-merged: June 18, 2017, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 18, 2017, 02:46:08 PM
that Charles and Camilla are quaking in their boots at the possibility that few people will attend their respective funerals. That would be very strange behavior indeed if it happened. Nobody normal worries about how many people will attend their funeral.
I also question the assumption that Charles and Camilla do not have friends and fans. You may get a very big surprise at their coronation and realize that Britain and the commonwealth are not always well represented in internet forums. In any case I doubt that either party is worried about crowd numbers at their public events. They have shown a distinct lack of interest in courting fan clubs so I doubt they are going to start now.
The
Double post auto-merged: June 18, 2017, 02:50:54 PM
"'that Prince with a beautiful wife and an ugly mistress"
Very unfortunate remark. Looks neither make a marriage nor relationship as Diana's story has shown
I would say that most of us hoped to be mourned - but by our loved ones.. not by the general public.. and I agree that Charles and Cam are harldly fusisng around wondering if there will be thousands or whatever watching their funerals on TV. They will get a decent turn out anyway because of their position. Diana had a lot of people mourning her because of her position, her beauty and her early tragic death.. as well as because of her good qualities.
There will always be those who disapprove of Charles because he behaved stupidly, and these people must also disapprove of Diana, because she too behaved stupidly.
I agree tat it seems pretty shallow to denigrate Camilla because of her looks..
I did not say "almost everyone." My point is there were no surveys. You say "most" and I question on how that can be definitively known. Some may not even care.
they will see the dresses because they worn by Diana. If they just wanted to see dresses they can go to a Department Store and save the wait in line. The subject of the thread is Diana not Margaret.
I think Camilla's looks are irrelevant. I don't think her a nice person regardless of her looks.
Charles was involved in scandals of his own making. He was fortunate that in his younger years the bad stuff did not show to the unaware public. I read a 1981 book about C and D and it goes on about how Kanga and Camilla were "just friends" and played hostess for him because he did not have a wife. Oh and Camilla helped select Diana.
Quote from: sandy on June 18, 2017, 08:45:42 PM
I did not say "almost everyone." My point is there were no surveys. You say "most" and I question on how that can be definitively known. Some may not even care.
they will see the dresses because they worn by Diana. If they just wanted to see dresses they can go to a Department Store and save the wait in line. The subject of the thread is Diana not Margaret.
I think Camilla's looks are irrelevant. I don't think her a nice person regardless of her looks.
I didn't say "most". I said most of the people that I knew through various places I worked. And yes it is very likely true that a large secton of people were not bothered by Diana's death.. ie they were vaguely sorry but it didn't greatly affect them. that's normal for public reaction to the RF.
As for the dresses we are not talking about "dresses In a shop".. as you know very well. We are talking about "high fashion dresses" worn by a histrorical figure. Of course many go because they liked Diana.. others may go just because it is an exhibition and they want entertainment.. or because they like to see fashionable dresses.. esp when worn by some historical figure. The Royal palaces have run exhibitons on other royals' clothes... besides hers.
But that does not reflect the entire population. Diana wore the dresses, that's why they went. They could go to other places to see high fashion dresses.
Quote from: Curryong on June 18, 2017, 03:26:11 PM
^ I shan't be taking any interest in Charles's Coronation (and of course people come out for a Royal event of any kind. I've been in such crowds myself and I know.)
However, as I loathe Charles, have the utmost contempt for Camilla and have always been underwhelmed by the Cambridges my loyalty to the Crown as a monarchist will end when the Queen dies. I'll still take an interest in Harry and his doings as I like him very much, but that will be it for me.
I'm a life long monarchist and come from a family of devout monarchists. However, after the Queen dies Australia will probably go for a referendum fairly quickly and become a republic. It won't come quickly enough for me.
A pompous vain prat who can't take criticism, who is self pitying and who believes he is in the right on every question, a man who didn't have the intestinal fortitude to not marry a very young woman when he was in love with his mistress,--that's not the sort of man I want as my King. I'll prefer the histories of King George VI and this Queen Elizabeth, and honour them instead.
That there is the manifesto of republicanism (or more precisely situational monarchism). In a monarchy you do not choose the monarch. Whether you like them, respect them or not does not really figure. What matters is that they are the eldest legitimate heir of the previous monarch. Unless they have a mental defect or some serious cognitive disability, a lack of popularity or respect does not figure into the ascension of a British monarchy. Republicanism works differently. You get to select the latest flavor of the cycle (depending on how much campaign finance they can raise and how good they are at hiding their real self).
I wish Australia all the best, whatever system they choose. The monarchy is no longer particularly relevant there and maybe they have to chart their own path. That is a process that has been brewing for a long time and in the end the final break will not really be about Charles but a former colony that wants to chart its own new course. I am also certain that Charles would not want to be a king based on x-factor polling trends. Even democratically elected officials do not like to play that game. Ultimately it is Australia's choice and good luck to them.
Also allow me to butcher one of your specific quotes Curryong, just to show that insults are easy to throw and less easy to justify:
"A pompous vain prat who can't take criticism, who is self pitying and who believes she is in the right on every question, a woman who didn't have the intestinal fortitude to not marry an older man who clearly did not love her. --that's not the sort of woman I want as my queen. "
Not very nice, is it?
^ The Queen is loved and respected in Australia. It is that love and respect that kept the numbers at bay during the referendum on the monarchy here in 1999. People acknowledge her decades of service as head of the Commonwealth. It is why when the republican movement here talks of the next referendum they speak of one happening 'after the Queen dies'.
Yes, republicanism has a long history in Australia. However, the last referenda was won for the monarchy, at least in great part because of Australia's feelings about our Head of State, Elizabeth II.
There are just not the same feelings for Charles or the respect, which is why he is regarded here as the great gift for republicanism.
Camilla is even less well regarded. You would think it would be different as Charles spent at least part of his education in Victoria and feels in consequence that he has a special link to Australia, as per some of his speeches.
You may feel that he wouldn't regard the loss of the realm he has always praised and has a fondness for. I think that although Charles will recognise that Australia has a right to decide its own destiny, that he will regard it as a wrench, and I would say that I know far more about Charles's links to this country than you do.
He will also regard it as a shame when New Zealand follows suit in a short period after Elizabeth's death. These are two realms where his mother has been HOS for over 60 years, and Australia and Canada are the two biggest realms in the Commonwealth.
Please DO NOT lecture me, by the way, on the rules and process of succession to the throne within the BRF. I KNOW them extremely well and have done all my adult life. I was born and was brought up in Britain, I've been a history buff for decades and read modern European history at university. I don't need lessons thank you!
You obviously don't believe that popularity matters where royalty is concerned. However, a popular royal couple always give a huge boost to the esteem in which a monarchy is held. Diana was wildly popular here. She brought people out in their millions on the first tour of Australia the Wales's did together, masdive crowds in capital cities and in bush towns, and they weren't coming out to see Charles. She was popular on visits afterwards as well. People loved Diana and the kind of enthusiasm for her that I saw on those tours can't be faked. Who knows, Diana may have helped stay for some more years a process which now seems almost inevitable here.
Thank you for twisting my feelings about Charles back to yours about Diana.
However, Diana stood at that altar with love in her heart for her groom and she had feelings for no-one else. That can't be said about Charles. She didn't complain to friends that her father had written to her obliging her to marry Charles or else. He did, completely over-reacting to a reasonable request. She was 19 when she became engaged, he was 32, but who was the bigger baby in terms of maturity?
As for vanity, it wasn't Diana who became extremely jealous of her spouse's popularity and the love people had for him, and, in a fit of spite and self pity, said to a friend 'All he ever did was say Yes to me'! That remark of Charles's shows his character in which vanity, resentment and self pity rule!
I have written before of King Willem Alexander's very different response to the Dutch people's delight in his wife Queen Maxima. But then, Willem Alexander is secure in himself in a way that Charles will never be. Yes, Diana had faults. However so does Charles, and IMO these loom larger in a future monarch.
Your entire comment
@Curryong confirms to me what I have always suspected. That many of Diana fans were not really about the institution but an individual. Once Diana was no longer part of the package, they moved on to other institutions (Willhelm etc.). That works very well for European monarchies and fair play to them. If New Zealand wants to follow Australia, good luck to them too. Charles cannot and should not try to stop them.
No, I will not stop pointing out the contradictions of supporting a monarchical system and then turning around asking to effectively do a popularity contest for who is the best monarch. As you know; I resist any attempt to tell me what to do, how to think or even to join popular fan clubs. That is just me and that is why one of the reasons I defend Camilla. Thanks, but no thanks to the echo chamber.
I think the British monarchy is better off without situational support. The Diana fan club does not and should not choose the next British monarch. They can and should organize memorials for her but they should never be allowed to influence the ascension of the monarch. They do not represent Britain or the commonwealth. They are certainly not objective in their criticism of Charles so I would not trust them to come to a reasonable conclusion as to whether he will be a good or bad king. I am glad that the British establishment resisted that premise.
By her indiscretions and media forays; Diana did much to destroy the reputation of not only the monarchy but also of her husband. Many, many people have marital problems but not all of them splash them on national papers or try to get their husband/his family out of a job in revenge. Queen Sophia of Spain and Queen Sylvia of Sweden come to mind. Responsible people do not invite their fan club into their marital problems and then simultaneously expect it to survive the resultant pressure. It is a testament to Diana's lack of insight that she did not consider that Morton, Bashir, DM writers, Express writers, Tony Blair etc revealed nothing about their own private lives but were given unfettered access to Diana's problems.
Diana was no fan of queen Elizabeth II. Indeed her "queen of people's hearts" plea was a direct challenge to the monarch who soon showed her in subtle but firm ways that she was not in charge. Diana was used by secret Republicans without even realizing what she was doing. The reactions of many of her fans to Diana's death showed that they too were never really fans of Elizabeth II or the monarchy per say. That is why I never trust their motives when they give advice on how the monarchy must adapt and survive. What they really want is for the monarchy to be punished for failing to join the Diana fan club. They had their star and wanted her there; institution or no institution.
When the exasperated monarchy finally pushed Diana out (at the time she was acting like a 5th columnist in the institution); the Diana fan club bayed for blood. They still do today but the rest of the population is having none of it. That is why Charles remains Prince of Wales and will in due course be King. That is why the jubilee celebrations were a success despite hardly mentioning Diana. People came and they will come to Charles' coronation. Hopefully those who snipe, insult and threaten will stay right at home so that those that still support the institution can enjoy the occasion. It is a testament to the strength of the monarchy that they survived the Diana-inspired media attacks on the institutions and members of the institution.
I have never stated that I believe that the monarchy should be a popularity contest. The Queen has been my monarch my entire life, and I respect and revere her. I do not respect and revere Charles as a man or as a future monarch. That is entirely my preference and I am entitled to it. I have expressed why I feel that way many times on this forum. However, that isn't bringing the monarchical system down to any level.
As a Commonwealth citizen of Australia I am entitled to express my views about my Head of State and the future Head of State of Australia.
You are extremely dismissive about Diana fans and attempt to make a case for those who esteem Charles, by referring to people who like Diana as operating 'in an echo chamber'. You can believe that Charles, a future monarch, is not vain, self-pitying, convinced he is in the right and unwilling to listen to criticism if you like. However, Charles's biographies are replete with examples of him exhibiting just those characteristics.
I suppose his co-operation with books by Dimbleby and Junor are evidences of Charles's high mindedness and care for the monarchy. Certainly the monarch, his mother, no doubt felt that he had raised the institution to another level when he criticised her failings as a mother. Similarly he certainly elevated the position of Prince of Wales and heir to the throne when he outed his married mistress in front of millions to Jonathon Dimbleby.
It seems to me that you are perfectly fine with attributing all sorts of sins and failings to Diana but you refuse to admit that your idols ever have feet of clay, something you perpetually accuse Diana fans of doing.
By the way, what does 'moving on to other institutions' mean? I do think that Willem Alexander behaves perfectly with regard to Maxima, his wife, certainly in a more mature fashion than Charles ever did. That doesn't mean that I have moved my allegiance to the Netherlands royal house. That is a preposterous suggestion. I have in fact maintained an interest in the history and affairs of monarchies of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands in particular since I was a little girl, which was a long time before Diana came on to the scene.
It's Willem Alexander not 'Wilhelm', by the way though as a matter of fact I have had an interest for years in the history of the Hohenzollen Royal House and the Austrian Habsburgs as well. Before Diana, as well, with those.
Of course people can choose to like or "loathe" Charles. They can even choose to become republicans when a particular heir is not to their liking. What I object to is Charles being castigated and attempts made to suggest that he cannot do his job, simply because he chose the wrong woman to marry. People divorce and fall out. It does not mean that they are denied their birthright or that they are the devil incarnate.
The most powerful person on earth at the moment is a multiple divorcee and multiple adulterer. The former King of Spain and the current King of Sweden have been accused of adultery. That tells me that the sins Charles is meant to have committed do not preclude him from being a head of state. He is not a priest and has not aspired to be a priest. He is a prince, with all the failings and weaknesses of a prince. If he as bad as some Diana fans tell us; Diana would not have fought for so long and so hard to remain married to him.
I also refuse to accept the notion that Diana's wild popularity was somehow a plus for Charles. It was not and her fans made it clear they preferred her to him (you yourself said that they came to see Charles and not Diana in Australia). That would have been fine, if they were not been aggressively rude to him on the walkabouts. As far as I am concerned, the Diana fan club should not be surprised if someone they treat as an enemy walks away.
The Diana fan club treated Charles as an enemy right from the beginning of the marriage, throughout the marriage and after the marriage. He can and should ignore their sniping because they demonstrably do not wish him well or to succeed in his work. Better to focus on those who still value him as a human being and as a prince. Like I said before, it is not worth the effort to try and convince a committed anti-Charles fan that he is anything other than a wicked man.
Diana's popularity was used as an instrument to denigrate Charles' work and later to denigrate the work of the monarchy. Diana's popularity was personal to her and when she was pushed out of the monarchy; some of her fans went with her. The monarchy survived (despite all the dire predictions by gleeful republicans) and will continue to survive. Charles has every chance of being a good and effective King (despite the gleeful predictions to the contrary of the Diana fan club).
I am old enough to remember when some Diana fans were predicting that they would "skip a generation", that he would never marry Camilla and that she would never be accepted. I think the last 17 years have shown the dangers of writing off the monarchy too soon.
As for Willem, it was a typo. Maxima is a great girl and a great queen. She supports her husband and tries to bring out the best in him. Maxima never deliberately tries to upstage or ridicule any member of the royal household. She gets on well with her in-laws and does her best to ensure that the institution within which she married is popular and successful. Maxima does not conspire with the press, republicans and her fans to bring down the monarchy. That is why I think her situation is rather different from that of Diana. Of course Maxima also has the advantage that her husband is demonstrably in love with her. Diana's husband was not and she knew it right from the beginning; even if she tried to convince herself otherwise.
As for Dimbley. Charles' book was mainly about his work as prince of wales and his childhood. There were a few lines which the Murdoch press and Diana fan club chose to highlight in order to make it all about their star. The book and interview are very substantial biographical pieces in which Diana features very little. By contrast, Diana's two autobiographical media forays were almost entirely composed of attacks on Charles, his family and her own family.
Charles did complain about a cold and distant mother as well as a hectoring father (all facts supported by secondary sources). He also said he did not love his first wife and felt that he had been pressurized to marry her when he was not ready (a statement of fact, if Diana's own words are to be believed). This is nothing compared to the deliberate acts of betrayal, fantasy, slander, exaggeration, sentimentalization, hypocrisy and outright treason that were Morton and Panorama. Charles never ever questioned Diana's ability to do her job and he certainly never attacked her family. She did all those things to him and his family. Dimbleby is child's play by comparison to what Diana and her co-conspirators did.
Again we have the characterisations by you of all who liked and admired Diana as 'members of the Diana fan club', a demeaning sort of compartmentalisation. What about members of the Charles fan club including several of Charles's friends who, in spite of no medical background tried to put across the idea that Diana was as mad as a hatter?
The fact that adulterers can do their job doesn't excuse their actions in committing infidelity. Nor does the fact that other royals and Heads of State have committed adultery. I don't care that the Kings of Spain and Sweden were adulterers. I do care, and care very much, that the future Head of State of the land of my birth is one. I can remember a time when the BRF were looked up to as aspirational models on how to behave. That time has passed but in any case I find it impossible to have the same sort of feelings for Charles as I have for his mother, and that is entirely due to his behaviour before and during his marriage.
By the way, the people who loved and admired Diana weren't against Charles 'from the beginning of the marriage' as you assert. It was regarded as a fairytale union by the public at the beginning, certainly up to and after the birth of William, and to a certain extent, Harry. It was only later, after some journalists questioned the narrative and it was seen that the couple spent a great deal of time apart that battle lines really began to be drawn.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 19, 2017, 10:46:51 AM
Your entire comment @Curryong confirms to me what I have always suspected. That many of Diana fans were not really about the institution but an individual. Once Diana was no longer part of the package, they moved on to other institutions (Willhelm etc.). That works very well for European monarchies and fair play to them. If New Zealand wants to follow Australia, good luck to them too. Charles cannot and should not try to stop them.
No, I will not stop pointing out the contradictions of supporting a monarchical system and then turning around asking to effectively do a popularity contest for who is the best monarch. As you know; I resist any attempt to tell me what to do, how to think or even to join popular fan clubs. That is just me and that is why one of the reasons I defend Camilla. Thanks, but no thanks to the echo chamber.
I think the British monarchy is better off without situational support. The Diana fan club does not and should not choose the next British monarch. They can and should organize memorials for her but they should never be allowed to influence the ascension of the monarch. They do not represent Britain or the commonwealth. They are certainly not objective in their criticism of Charles so I would not trust them to come to a reasonable conclusion as to whether he will be a good or bad king. I am glad that the British establishment resisted that premise.
By her indiscretions and media forays; Diana did much to destroy the reputation of not only the monarchy but also of her husband. Many, many people have marital problems but not all of them splash them on national papers or try to get their husband/his family out of a job in revenge. Queen Sophia of Spain and Queen Sylvia of Sweden come to mind. Responsible people do not invite their fan club into their marital problems and then simultaneously expect it to survive the resultant pressure. It is a testament to Diana's lack of insight that she did not consider that Morton, Bashir, DM writers, Express writers, Tony Blair etc revealed nothing about their own private lives but were given unfettered access to Diana's problems.
Diana was no fan of queen Elizabeth II. Indeed her "queen of people's hearts" plea was a direct challenge to the monarch who soon showed her in subtle but firm ways that she was not in charge. Diana was used by secret Republicans without even realizing what she was doing. The reactions of many of her fans to Diana's death showed that they too were never really fans of Elizabeth II or the monarchy per say. That is why I never trust their motives when they give advice on how the monarchy must adapt and survive. What they really want is for the monarchy to be punished for failing to join the Diana fan club. They had their star and wanted her there; institution or no institution.
When the exasperated monarchy finally pushed Diana out (at the time she was acting like a 5th columnist in the institution); the Diana fan club bayed for blood. They still do today but the rest of the population is having none of it. That is why Charles remains Prince of Wales and will in due course be King. That is why the jubilee celebrations were a success despite hardly mentioning Diana. People came and they will come to Charles' coronation. Hopefully those who snipe, insult and threaten will stay right at home so that those that still support the institution can enjoy the occasion. It is a testament to the strength of the monarchy that they survived the Diana-inspired media attacks on the institutions and members of the institution.
Diana never spoke out publicly against the Queen. Charles did via his talks with Dimbleby who was researching the Life oF Charles and had full access to Charles, his friends, relatives, and correspondence. It got so bad his siblings spoke out to defend their parents.
Diana was not "pushed out" she would have had a role to play as the mother of a future King and be invited to events involving the sons she had with Prince Charles. She already appeared with Charles at a school event for Prince William. She would have been at Christenings, Weddings, Graduations front and center. She was not "cast out" since she was able to keep her royal apartments.
What about the Charles fan clubs that constantly deride and mock Diana?
Diana was for the monarchy, she spoke of how she envisioned William's future role and how Harry would be of help to him. She encouraged the boys to get interested in charities.
Double post auto-merged: June 19, 2017, 01:07:06 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 19, 2017, 12:02:34 PM
Of course people can choose to like or "loathe" Charles. They can even choose to become republicans when a particular heir is not to their liking. What I object to is Charles being castigated and attempts made to suggest that he cannot do his job, simply because he chose the wrong woman to marry. People divorce and fall out. It does not mean that they are denied their birthright or that they are the devil incarnate.
The most powerful person on earth at the moment is a multiple divorcee and multiple adulterer. The former King of Spain and the current King of Sweden have been accused of adultery. That tells me that the sins Charles is meant to have committed do not preclude him from being a head of state. He is not a priest and has not aspired to be a priest. He is a prince, with all the failings and weaknesses of a prince. If he as bad as some Diana fans tell us; Diana would not have fought for so long and so hard to remain married to him.
I also refuse to accept the notion that Diana's wild popularity was somehow a plus for Charles. It was not and her fans made it clear they preferred her to him (you yourself said that they came to see Charles and not Diana in Australia). That would have been fine, if they were not been aggressively rude to him on the walkabouts. As far as I am concerned, the Diana fan club should not be surprised if someone they treat as an enemy walks away.
The Diana fan club treated Charles as an enemy right from the beginning of the marriage, throughout the marriage and after the marriage. He can and should ignore their sniping because they demonstrably do not wish him well or to succeed in his work. Better to focus on those who still value him as a human being and as a prince. Like I said before, it is not worth the effort to try and convince a committed anti-Charles fan that he is anything other than a wicked man.
Diana's popularity was used as an instrument to denigrate Charles' work and later to denigrate the work of the monarchy. Diana's popularity was personal to her and when she was pushed out of the monarchy; some of her fans went with her. The monarchy survived (despite all the dire predictions by gleeful republicans) and will continue to survive. Charles has every chance of being a good and effective King (despite the gleeful predictions to the contrary of the Diana fan club).
I am old enough to remember when some Diana fans were predicting that they would "skip a generation", that he would never marry Camilla and that she would never be accepted. I think the last 17 years have shown the dangers of writing off the monarchy too soon.
As for Willem, it was a typo. Maxima is a great girl and a great queen. She supports her husband and tries to bring out the best in him. Maxima never deliberately tries to upstage or ridicule any member of the royal household. She gets on well with her in-laws and does her best to ensure that the institution within which she married is popular and successful. Maxima does not conspire with the press, republicans and her fans to bring down the monarchy. That is why I think her situation is rather different from that of Diana. Of course Maxima also has the advantage that her husband is demonstrably in love with her. Diana's husband was not and she knew it right from the beginning; even if she tried to convince herself otherwise.
As for Dimbley. Charles' book was mainly about his work as prince of wales and his childhood. There were a few lines which the Murdoch press and Diana fan club chose to highlight in order to make it all about their star. The book and interview are very substantial biographical pieces in which Diana features very little. By contrast, Diana's two autobiographical media forays were almost entirely composed of attacks on Charles, his family and her own family.
Charles did complain about a cold and distant mother as well as a hectoring father (all facts supported by secondary sources). He also said he did not love his first wife and felt that he had been pressurized to marry her when he was not ready (a statement of fact, if Diana's own words are to be believed). This is nothing compared to the deliberate acts of betrayal, fantasy, slander, exaggeration, sentimentalization, hypocrisy and outright treason that were Morton and Panorama. Charles never ever questioned Diana's ability to do her job and he certainly never attacked her family. She did all those things to him and his family. Dimbleby is child's play by comparison to what Diana and her co-conspirators did.
The mistresses of the King of Spain did not see off the wife. In any case two wrongs do not make a right.
Charles buddies questioned Diana's sanity and had no business doing so, they also did this after she died.. Remember Nicholas Soames and the Mountbatten sisters? Charles friends Junor, Smith and Seward derided Diana. I expect Charles will reward them well.
Sorry but I find it patronizing to refer to "Diana fan clubs." People can think what they want without being put in a category like that.
Charles and Diana put up appearances for about 10 years. Charles jealousy was the problem early on of his wife's popularity. Charles should have gotten help for his jealousy issues.
Smith went full blast on trashing Diana. Dimbleby had to use some restraint because Diana was still alive and he could be sued.
Charles' own behavior caused the question of skipping a generation. Charles admitted he slept with his friend's wife and told his biographer (printed in the book) he would continue to see her. APB then got a divorce from her. Charles was not treated as an enemy from the beginning. They were the golden couple back then.
@ Royalanthropoligist I have been reading all this back and forth and must ask you why is it that for the most part anyone commenting favorably on Diana is either a troll or a member of her fan club treating Charles as an enemy?. First of you are totally misinformed if you believe Charles was treated as an enemy from day one. Charles and Diana announced their engagement everyone was delighted that Charles had found love and were excited for him and he was cheered the moment he stepped out of his carriage at St Paul's. Everyone followed Charles and Diana buying into the love story and fairytale that Charles was in love with his wife. Well as we all know the fairytale was just that and it was Charles by his own admissions Daddy was to blame for pushing him into the marriage.
You love to sit here and portray Diana as playing the victim well news flash Charles has played the victim his entire life not once taking responsibility for his choices. Diana in panorama owned her part in the marriage breakdown not once blaming her parents for bullying her into the marriage as Charles did, she never publicly blamed her parents as remote uncaring people as Charles did and his siblings felt they had to defend. Yes there are on both sides extreme head cases either for or against but ultimately and lets be clear as far as the marriage went neither behaved well in their tit for tat however Diana in the 80's no one from Diana's circle briefed the press on her unhappiness unlike Charles Highgrove set who made it their mission to speak about how unhappy poor Charles was after years of that yes it was time Diana put out her side and if one listened closely to Panorama Diana did endorse Morton for the most part.
Ultimately the Crown will sit on Charles head. I believe Charles does care deeply for the citizens and will be a good King as Pow he has done a stellar job and unlike his predecessors has expanded the role with his work ethic unlike the previous Edwards VII and VIII who were more interested in their entertainment. As with any new reign I have read that with each change republicanism always rears itself but in the end the monarchy does survive.
@Trudie. Let me reiterate my position as follows:
1. By the Diana fan club, I mean those who believe in and support Diana/her perceived causes in a very intense channel-vision sort of way. If you are not part of that group then no need to worry about the term. Celebrities have fan clubs all the time. I have to say that some Diana fan club members do display cult-like behavior sometimes. Any mention of Charles or Camilla sends them into a frenzy of weird commentary, but again that is another topic.
2. No they do not just say nice things about Diana. I have never criticized anyone for saying nice things about Diana. It is the dichotomy of good versus evil that I continuously challenge and will continue to challenge. People are not evenly good or evenly bad. Some members of the fan club cannot resist praising or remembering their hero without resorting to a barb about C&C. Everything to them is black and white. C&C very bad, Diana good. It is a very childish way of thinking but there you have it. I am trying to cut through the child-like bubble of the fairy princess and the evil prince/mistress. It is very hard but I do my best.
3. No. The members of the Diana fan club who behave like cult-members have never ever respected Charles or given him any consideration. They have never wished him well. All they wanted was for him to be the willing partner in their fantasy fairy tale. When he fell short of their unrealistic expectations, they started to relentlessly attack him. They picked sides in a marriage without really knowing what happened and selected the version of one party to believe. They deny the reality of any alternative versions. They tried unsuccessfully to pressurize Charles into giving up his birthright, all because he was not part of the fan club. Of course it is becoming increasingly clear that their hero was far from being a saint. That is to be expected. Diana was a human being, not some kind of heavenly creature.
4. Diana had good and bad qualities. When she was fighting about her husband, she lied about him to secure her position. She exaggerated things in order to make him look bad. People who are divorcing sometimes do that. The difference here is that the fan club believes that the complaints of an embittered estranged wife are the true and only true version of events. I disagree and will continue to disagree with them. They claim that it is the palace that is destroying Diana's reputation, even where the words that are used against Diana were written and uttered by Diana herself. It is the "yadda, yadda, I'm not listening" response of a child.
As for
@Curryong. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's else. I happen to disagree that sexual fidelity has ever been a criteria for inheriting the British crown. If it had been, the list of kings would be very different from what it is. Monarchy is not puritanism or some kind of religious order. The monarchy was not set up to set an example of marital bliss to its populace. That was just the style of Queen Victoria and some of her descendants. Charles has a more Edwardian outlook. Neither style is a barrier or requirement to inheriting the crown. Charles not loving and cheating on his wife in no way affects his constitutional position. The events of the last 30 years should prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Having said all that: I wish Australia nothing but success if and when they decide to become a Republic. It is their natural right to choose how they are going to be governed and Charles should not attempt to influence them in that decision-making. People may have varying reasons for voting yes to the republic, some of which may relate to their angst against certain members of the royal family such as Charles. That is to be expected. Tastes and preferences are in effect a human right. Charles can do nothing about people who intensely dislike and disrespect him. He just has to let them be and make their own decisions, just like he has made his without reference to them.
Princes are allowed to make mistakes. Charles made his mistakes by marrying a woman who he did not love and who was totally unsuited to being his wife. He was cowardly and indecisive on that score. he should have told his father to butt out of his affairs. I only wish the royal household had not created that silly notion of virgin high born protestant ladies as being the only suitable brides for a prince.
As Diana tragically showed, you can be all that and yet remain an unsuitable wife to a prince. It caused so much hurt and distress to all parties that they were pressurized into getting married to the wrong person too quickly. Diana was the wrong wife for Charles and he was a fool to ever propose to her. Boy...has he paid for that mistake. Listening to some of the commentary, you would be forgiven for believing that Charles had committed the worst sins on earth. The fan club will not let it go, they want him punished and disinherited for that mistake. Thankfully they have no role to play in his ascension.
I believe Charles did try to correct his mistakes by divorcing a wife he never loved. Later on he married the woman he should have married in the first place. Despite the best efforts and fervent wishes of the Diana fan club, the marriage seems to have lasted and works well for both parties. The sky did not fall in when the couple visited Australia, Canada or any other place. Certainly there were no rude fan club members telling a guest that they did not want him on their side of the walkabout. Instead we had small crowds of polite and friendly people. That in my opinion is better than the cult-like behavior of the past.
It is a pity that Diana never got a chance to correct her own mistakes since her life was cut short. I would hope that she would have realized that revenge is a dish best served cold. You try to destroy your estranged husband and you end up destroying yourself in the process. Far better to seek happiness elsewhere with someone that really loves and cares for you.
^ Let me just say that people shouldn't be characterised and compartmentalised into 'fan clubs' and 'cult followers' or be accused of 'operating in an echo chamber' simply because they stand up for a woman they like and admire. Those who love, like, admire, respect Diana aren't some homogenous lump, to be disparaged in this way. I refused to be classified.
What's more, as much as I care for Diana I never wished for a republic in Britain as a result of Diana's actions. I never met anyone at the time who thought that any such movement was being fermented by Diana. Nor do I believe that she wished for one, as it would destroy her son's birthright. I never wished for Charles to be removed as a future King, nor did I ever meet anyone who seriously entertained that notion either.
No doubt republican writers like Anthony Holden did seize hold of the War of the Wales years in order to press that agenda. However, republicanism has never gained huge footholds in British life in a sense of actually moving to change things. Most in Britain are indifferent to the monarchy. There are more closet republicans now in Britain than there ever were in Diana's lifetime, but that can be ascribed to many reasons, not to her. Similarly, those who want to see William on the throne, skip Charles, tend to be the young, not Diana adherents. They ignore the constitutional realities and just want a young monarch.
People who are firmly in the Charles camp tend to focus almost entirely on Diana's Panorama interview and upon the last years of the marriage. They ignore the small sarcasms, the put downs by Charles in the early years of the marriage, 'Just going shopping, aren't you, dear' in front of middle eastern princes when she began to explain about Childcare centres she intended to visit.
There is no credit given ever for Diana seeing his point of view about walkabouts and people preferring to see her. Diana wasn't egotistical about this at all and felt sorry. Instead Charles became self-pitying and cast in gloom. She went about with him on some shoots. He went hunting and sought out Camilla PB.
Diana had many faults that made her difficult to live with. But so did Charles. He has been over-privileged all his life, has surrounded himself with sycophants who flatter his overblown sense of himself, intellectually and every other way, and in fact never regarded the young woman he married as worthy of him.
Charles was just as responsible in his own way for the disintegration of the marriage that ended with the debacle of Panorama, as Diana was. But get any member of the Charles fan club to admit that, apart from the irrefutable fact that he married her without loving her, and it's like trying to find water in a stony desert!
Now the last post by
@Curryong has nothing that I can disagree with. I have never been blind to Charles' faults. I do have a soft spot for Camilla so I probably instinctively try to diminish her bad qualities. That does not mean that they are not there.
Anthony Holden is an interesting prospect. The guy started off as a friend of Charles but then turned on him with a vendetta-like fervor I have never really understood. It almost seems like there is more going on than what he is letting on.
He wasn't a friend. he wrote a biography..initialy in a sympathetic spirit. I think that he did (holden) grow fond of Diana and felt that her more modern way of doing things and thinking was a better way for the MOnarchy to go and he praised her and became more hostile to the old fashioned Charles
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 20, 2017, 03:26:34 AM
@Trudie. Let me reiterate my position as follows:
1. By the Diana fan club, I mean those who believe in and support Diana/her perceived causes in a very intense channel-vision sort of way. If you are not part of that group then no need to worry about the term. Celebrities have fan clubs all the time. I have to say that some Diana fan club members do display cult-like behavior sometimes. Any mention of Charles or Camilla sends them into a frenzy of weird commentary, but again that is another topic.
2. No they do not just say nice things about Diana. I have never criticized anyone for saying nice things about Diana. It is the dichotomy of good versus evil that I continuously challenge and will continue to challenge. People are not evenly good or evenly bad. Some members of the fan club cannot resist praising or remembering their hero without resorting to a barb about C&C. Everything to them is black and white. C&C very bad, Diana good. It is a very childish way of thinking but there you have it. I am trying to cut through the child-like bubble of the fairy princess and the evil prince/mistress. It is very hard but I do my best.
3. No. The members of the Diana fan club who behave like cult-members have never ever respected Charles or given him any consideration. They have never wished him well. All they wanted was for him to be the willing partner in their fantasy fairy tale. When he fell short of their unrealistic expectations, they started to relentlessly attack him. They picked sides in a marriage without really knowing what happened and selected the version of one party to believe. They deny the reality of any alternative versions. They tried unsuccessfully to pressurize Charles into giving up his birthright, all because he was not part of the fan club. Of course it is becoming increasingly clear that their hero was far from being a saint. That is to be expected. Diana was a human being, not some kind of heavenly creature.
4. Diana had good and bad qualities. When she was fighting about her husband, she lied about him to secure her position. She exaggerated things in order to make him look bad. People who are divorcing sometimes do that. The difference here is that the fan club believes that the complaints of an embittered estranged wife are the true and only true version of events. I disagree and will continue to disagree with them. They claim that it is the palace that is destroying Diana's reputation, even where the words that are used against Diana were written and uttered by Diana herself. It is the "yadda, yadda, I'm not listening" response of a child.
As for @Curryong. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's else. I happen to disagree that sexual fidelity has ever been a criteria for inheriting the British crown. If it had been, the list of kings would be very different from what it is. Monarchy is not puritanism or some kind of religious order. The monarchy was not set up to set an example of marital bliss to its populace. That was just the style of Queen Victoria and some of her descendants. Charles has a more Edwardian outlook. Neither style is a barrier or requirement to inheriting the crown. Charles not loving and cheating on his wife in no way affects his constitutional position. The events of the last 30 years should prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Having said all that: I wish Australia nothing but success if and when they decide to become a Republic. It is their natural right to choose how they are going to be governed and Charles should not attempt to influence them in that decision-making. People may have varying reasons for voting yes to the republic, some of which may relate to their angst against certain members of the royal family such as Charles. That is to be expected. Tastes and preferences are in effect a human right. Charles can do nothing about people who intensely dislike and disrespect him. He just has to let them be and make their own decisions, just like he has made his without reference to them.
Princes are allowed to make mistakes. Charles made his mistakes by marrying a woman who he did not love and who was totally unsuited to being his wife. He was cowardly and indecisive on that score. he should have told his father to butt out of his affairs. I only wish the royal household had not created that silly notion of virgin high born protestant ladies as being the only suitable brides for a prince.
As Diana tragically showed, you can be all that and yet remain an unsuitable wife to a prince. It caused so much hurt and distress to all parties that they were pressurized into getting married to the wrong person too quickly. Diana was the wrong wife for Charles and he was a fool to ever propose to her. Boy...has he paid for that mistake. Listening to some of the commentary, you would be forgiven for believing that Charles had committed the worst sins on earth. The fan club will not let it go, they want him punished and disinherited for that mistake. Thankfully they have no role to play in his ascension.
I believe Charles did try to correct his mistakes by divorcing a wife he never loved. Later on he married the woman he should have married in the first place. Despite the best efforts and fervent wishes of the Diana fan club, the marriage seems to have lasted and works well for both parties. The sky did not fall in when the couple visited Australia, Canada or any other place. Certainly there were no rude fan club members telling a guest that they did not want him on their side of the walkabout. Instead we had small crowds of polite and friendly people. That in my opinion is better than the cult-like behavior of the past.
It is a pity that Diana never got a chance to correct her own mistakes since her life was cut short. I would hope that she would have realized that revenge is a dish best served cold. You try to destroy your estranged husband and you end up destroying yourself in the process. Far better to seek happiness elsewhere with someone that really loves and cares for you.
Charles then should have explained to Diana that he was the sort of royal who needed a mistress. If he proposed to her and she said yes, she would be expected to be polite to Camilla and other ladies he might want to associate with. After all he was the royal who wanted the mistress and not be part of a fantasy where the husband was faithful to his wife (heaven forbid). I should also like to point out that Charles was the one who proposed and it was a courtship where he invited Diana on dates, going to the country to meet the parents, talk about the future together and so on. If he wanted the clinical (I need a mistress) courtship then he should have discussed it with Diana. Camilla was going to be part of the picture and so on. He made it seem that Camilla was married to his best friend and in the future they could all spend cozy weekends together, share tips on raising children and Camilla sharing her favorite recipes with Diana and offering "helpful hints" on how to be a good wife and mother.
I think referring to cults and fan clubs is pigeon holing people unfairly.
All Charles' father did was say if he did not want to marry Diana to drop her. CHarles was not a baby he was a grown man and if he did not love DIana he should have let her go and not been wishy washy about his "maybe" he could "learn" to love her.
Diana would have been suitable had Charles met her half way and at least stopped contacting Camilla as some sort of "security" blanket who could "mother him" and cater to his every need. She should have butted out.
I do agree with
@sandy to the extent that Charles should have manned up and explained to Diana that he was not really in love with her. She would then make a decision based on facts. Weakness and indecision are Charles' Achilles heel and I hope that by 70 he has worked on his back bone. The Windsors are notorious for indecision and ostriching. It never served them well in this saga.
Yes Christian marriage has no room for adultery, let alone open adultery. Diana was quite right to expect that her husband would be faithful to her. He says he was faithful until the marriage "irretrievably broke down". She never disputed that version. My own view is that he was faithful until about 1984-1986 when he decided to move on.
Incidentally that coincided with the 5-year mark which his father had allegedly given him, after which he was free to find a mistress. That may offend middle class values but the upper classes are known to behave like that, as Diana herself must have known. She was poorly educated and under-cooked in terms of exposure so perhaps she did not really think about what a marriage to Charles really meant.
For the record, my main criticism of Diana is mainly from 1992 when she was a grown woman with about 8 years of experience in public life; who should have known much better than to consort with a voracious media. Prior to that she was merely a pawn in a bigger game. After that she actively got involved in the PR missives with her husband.
What marriage might mean comes from an honest discussion between the couple. No outside parties should be involved in this discussion except perhaps a counselor who dispenses advice to couples wanting to get married. Charles had already consorted with the media==his friends leaked stories and Camilla went to the Sun. If he did not want them to they would not have. The response to his letters complaining about Diana's popularity should have been to advise him to work on the marriage. But they trashed the wife instead. Diana put up with the marriage for ten years. I don't think it is middle class values that people are faithful. It is values for all including those who think they are "better" because they have a title, wealth, and privileges.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 20, 2017, 12:20:51 PM
I do agree with @sandy to the extent that Charles should have manned up and explained to Diana that he was not really in love with her. She would then make a decision based on facts. Weakness and indecision are Charles' Achilles heel and I hope that by 70 he has worked on his back bone. The Windsors are notorious for indecision and ostriching. It never served them well in this saga.
Yes Christian marriage has no room for adultery, let alone open adultery. Diana was quite right to expect that her husband would be faithful to her. He says he was faithful until the marriage "irretrievably broke down". She never disputed that version. My own view is that he was faithful until about 1984-1986 when he decided to move on.
Incidentally that coincided with the 5-year mark which his father had allegedly given him, after which he was free to find a mistress. That may offend middle class values but the upper classes are known to behave like that, as Diana herself must have known. She was poorly educated and under-cooked in terms of exposure so perhaps she did not really think about what a marriage to Charles really meant.
For the record, my main criticism of Diana is mainly from 1992 when she was a grown woman with about 8 years of experience in public life; who should have known much better than to consort with a voracious media. Prior to that she was merely a pawn in a bigger game. After that she actively got involved in the PR missives with her husband.
There is a lot of criticism leveled at Diana from 1992 more so then on Charles for the simple reason Charles had his friends do his dirty work consorting with the media while Diana as in her courtship was alone to wander that minefield. I for one still applaud Diana for defending herself as the stories were put out there that she was unstable, a shrew, etc all because poor Charles was so desperately unhappy Diana didn't want to entertain his mistress. For the record Diana lived a very sheltered life and there has never been any talk of multiple affairs in her parents marriage that marriage broke down when Frances had the affair with Peter whom she later married and Johnnie didn't have anyone until after the divorce in '69 when he started seeing Raine in '73. How was Diana able to know that was how the upper classes behaved if it wasn't in her own home growing up seeing all these so called civilized people Johnnie and Francis didn't have an open marriage.
What do you think Mrs Parker Bowles's role was in the run up to Charles and Diana's engagement. No-one ever examines the shadowy motives and actions of this third person in the Summer and autumn of 1980. And what of the years before 1984-86, depending when you believe the Charles-Camilla affair began once more.
Camilla knew of Charles's feelings for herself. Do any of you think she took an active role in picking out Diana for Charles, apart from what we know, ie the friendly lunch, the questions about whether Diana hunted, the fact that she knew so many of Charles's likes and dislikes and didn't seem to care that Diana knew as she gave her advice about it? Then there were the occasions when she housed Diana as a guest when she was engaged to Charles.
What were her feelings, do you think? Did she regard Diana as 'mouse-like' and someone who could be manipulated? Was she quite willing to sink back into 'good old friends' mode, and/or did she believe that after a few years Diana would be quite amenable to an arrangement?
Was Camilla willing to give Charles up for ever and be on the sidelines of his life (the Dimbleby version 'although their feelings for each other had never changed etc etc' ) or did she believe that Diana wasn't his type, was boring and too unsophisticated, and that therefore sooner or later Charles would be back in her bed? Or was Camilla in fact proactive, a woman determined to never give Charles up and therefore she never lost contact with him
Quote from: Trudie on June 20, 2017, 02:39:52 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 20, 2017, 12:20:51 PM
I do agree with @sandy to the extent that Charles should have manned up and explained to Diana that he was not really in love with her. She would then make a decision based on facts. Weakness and indecision are Charles' Achilles heel and I hope that by 70 he has worked on his back bone. The Windsors are notorious for indecision and ostriching. It never served them well in this saga.
Yes Christian marriage has no room for adultery, let alone open adultery. Diana was quite right to expect that her husband would be faithful to her. He says he was faithful until the marriage "irretrievably broke down". She never disputed that version. My own view is that he was faithful until about 1984-1986 when he decided to move on.
Incidentally that coincided with the 5-year mark which his father had allegedly given him, after which he was free to find a mistress. That may offend middle class values but the upper classes are known to behave like that, as Diana herself must have known. She was poorly educated and under-cooked in terms of exposure so perhaps she did not really think about what a marriage to Charles really meant.
For the record, my main criticism of Diana is mainly from 1992 when she was a grown woman with about 8 years of experience in public life; who should have known much better than to consort with a voracious media. Prior to that she was merely a pawn in a bigger game. After that she actively got involved in the PR missives with her husband.
There is a lot of criticism leveled at Diana from 1992 more so then on Charles for the simple reason Charles had his friends do his dirty work consorting with the media while Diana as in her courtship was alone to wander that minefield. I for one still applaud Diana for defending herself as the stories were put out there that she was unstable, a shrew, etc all because poor Charles was so desperately unhappy Diana didn't want to entertain his mistress. For the record Diana lived a very sheltered life and there has never been any talk of multiple affairs in her parents marriage that marriage broke down when Frances had the affair with Peter whom she later married and Johnnie didn't have anyone until after the divorce in '69 when he started seeing Raine in '73. How was Diana able to know that was how the upper classes behaved if it wasn't in her own home growing up seeing all these so called civilized people Johnnie and Francis didn't have an open marriage.
Diana's sisters also were happily married at the time of the courtship. They had no "arrangements" with their spouses. Also, Diana's brother did not start having marital issues until some years after Diana married Charles so she did not see what happened when couples strayed. Diana was a child when her mother left and did not know all the ramifications of the relationship Frances had with her second husband to be. Charles and his family were on the surface "respectable" since the Queen and Philip were married for years, the Queen Mum had a happy marriage, Charles's relationships with married women were not known by the public--just that these women and their husbands were his "good friends," so Diana did not get any "dirt" about how royals misbehaved. She also was not in Charles' circle since she was a dozen years younger. That is until they dated.
I think Diana expected fidelity in a marriage. Charles should have spelled out what he wanted before proposing to Diana. And no man should marry someone he does not love nor expect to "learn to love" the wife (that sounds so wishy washy of Charles)
Huh. Those are tough questions for me as a Camilla fun but I must address them lest I become a hypocrite by doing what I accuse others of doing.
Camilla's lowest moments were in the run up to the engagement. I do not believe that Camilla ever had the intention of giving up Charles. She had been his mistress for years and felt that he was "hers" regardless of any wedding vows he might have made. It takes a particularly insensitive and weak man to ask a former lover to guide his new finance. The fact that Camilla knew about the proposal before it happened speaks for itself.
Camilla's with regards to Diana's engagement (in my view as I have no evidence otherwise) was that this was a silly unsophisticated girl who would take on the mold of Queen Alexandra...suffer in silence and find something else to do. Camilla is very much aware of her connections to Alice Keppell and reveled in the notoriety that it brought. Therefore she knew that a life of a mistress to the Prince of Wales could be very lucrative, particularly if he had a silly girl for a wife who would not interfere with the arrangements. That is bad, bad, bad, bad. I am on record as saying that Camilla ought to have apologized (at least to Diana in person) for that set up.
Of course as it happened Diana surprised them all. She fought for her position with a passion and determination that they had not reckoned with. I think as the war of the Waleses raged on; Camilla began to conceive the idea if she was going to be crucified then it must be for the big prize. Prior to that she was happy to be a powerful mistress. Now she was playing for higher stakes. She then decided that she was going to be the Princess of Wales. Diana helped that cause by her continuous revenge agenda.
The first strand was to encourage the unraveling of Diana. Sitting at Highgrove, the jibes about mad sad Diana were all calculated to make her very mad. Meanwhile Camilla would appear to be an uncomplicated placid mother figure, very different from the angry wife who threw things and screamed. Morton and Panorama were the final death nails in the marriage and I presume Camilla actually uncorked the champagne when they happened. Diana had talked her way out of her own marriage and Camilla was to remain the comforting figure for a betrayed prince. Once the divorce was done, it was only a matter of time before the Prince of Wales would want to marry again. This time Camilla would be ready and armed. The palace's criteria for virginity had been comprehensively and permanently defeated. Charles helped by telling everyone (including the queen) that Camilla was non-negotiable. The queen had to choose between complete estrangement from her son and having to countenance his mistress as the Prince of Wales.
When Diana died, there was a set back in the public machinations but privately Charles was still seeing Camilla. She then designed a scheme were she would appear so poor that Charles would be shamed into providing for her. Once that happened, Parliament started asking questions. Then you had the drama of the sitting arrangements at weddings. Camilla pulled out and Charles was incensed. Friends were soon learning that any sleight to Camilla would mean banishment. Loh behold Charles decided enough was enough and he proposed. The rest is history. I suspect that Camilla is a tad regretful about Diana's sad end (dying so young) but I am sure she secretly revels in the fact that she managed to supplant someone who on paper appeared to be a winner on all points. She who many considered to be too old, too ugly and too immoral had smashed the fallacy of the fairy tale princess. She had defeated Diana in one of the most painful ways a woman can be defeated.
Camilla was never a friend to Diana. She despised and pitied her at first then later came to hate her. if you see the color of the dress that Camilla is wearing on Diana's wedding, it has a message that could not have escaped Diana. Camilla wore her own second wedding dress at the trooping of the color to ensure that she would appear at that balcony, triumphant and defiant. She had gotten one over Wallis Simpson and had forced the queen to eat her own words about that woman "never crossing the threshold". This was no meek elderly woman and I am sure behind the smile are nerves of steel.
Now I need a stiff drink after that :nod: :hehe: :lol:
Well done, Royal! :P I've never really been able to make up my mind as to whether all along, regardless of the courtship of Diana, the engagement and the wedding, Camilla was just sitting, waiting, for the ripe plum, (Charles) to fall back into her hands, or whether she was more proactive (meetings at the Beaufort Hunt, secret phone calls etc.) Princess Margaret believed she'd never let him go.
If only Princess Margaret had tipped off Diana.
Double post auto-merged: June 20, 2017, 04:36:27 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 20, 2017, 03:52:56 PM
Huh. Those are tough questions for me as a Camilla fun but I must address them lest I become a hypocrite by doing what I accuse others of doing.
Camilla's lowest moments were in the run up to the engagement. I do not believe that Camilla ever had the intention of giving up Charles. She had been his mistress for years and felt that he was "hers" regardless of any wedding vows he might have made. It takes a particularly insensitive and weak man to ask a former lover to guide his new finance. The fact that Camilla knew about the proposal before it happened speaks for itself.
Camilla's with regards to Diana's engagement (in my view as I have no evidence otherwise) was that this was a silly unsophisticated girl who would take on the mold of Queen Alexandra...suffer in silence and find something else to do. Camilla is very much aware of her connections to Alice Keppell and reveled in the notoriety that it brought. Therefore she knew that a life of a mistress to the Prince of Wales could be very lucrative, particularly if he had a silly girl for a wife who would not interfere with the arrangements. That is bad, bad, bad, bad. I am on record as saying that Camilla ought to have apologized (at least to Diana in person) for that set up.
Of course as it happened Diana surprised them all. She fought for her position with a passion and determination that they had not reckoned with. I think as the war of the Waleses raged on; Camilla began to conceive the idea if she was going to be crucified then it must be for the big prize. Prior to that she was happy to be a powerful mistress. Now she was playing for higher stakes. She then decided that she was going to be the Princess of Wales. Diana helped that cause by her continuous revenge agenda.
The first strand was to encourage the unraveling of Diana. Sitting at Highgrove, the jibes about mad sad Diana were all calculated to make her very mad. Meanwhile Camilla would appear to be an uncomplicated placid mother figure, very different from the angry wife who threw things and screamed. Morton and Panorama were the final death nails in the marriage and I presume Camilla actually uncorked the champagne when they happened. Diana had talked her way out of her own marriage and Camilla was to remain the comforting figure for a betrayed prince. Once the divorce was done, it was only a matter of time before the Prince of Wales would want to marry again. This time Camilla would be ready and armed. The palace's criteria for virginity had been comprehensively and permanently defeated. Charles helped by telling everyone (including the queen) that Camilla was non-negotiable. The queen had to choose between complete estrangement from her son and having to countenance his mistress as the Prince of Wales.
When Diana died, there was a set back in the public machinations but privately Charles was still seeing Camilla. She then designed a scheme were she would appear so poor that Charles would be shamed into providing for her. Once that happened, Parliament started asking questions. Then you had the drama of the sitting arrangements at weddings. Camilla pulled out and Charles was incensed. Friends were soon learning that any sleight to Camilla would mean banishment. Loh behold Charles decided enough was enough and he proposed. The rest is history. I suspect that Camilla is a tad regretful about Diana's sad end (dying so young) but I am sure she secretly revels in the fact that she managed to supplant someone who on paper appeared to be a winner on all points. She who many considered to be too old, too ugly and too immoral had smashed the fallacy of the fairy tale princess. She had defeated Diana in one of the most painful ways a woman can be defeated.
Camilla was never a friend to Diana. She despised and pitied her at first then later came to hate her. if you see the color of the dress that Camilla is wearing on Diana's wedding, it has a message that could not have escaped Diana. Camilla wore her own second wedding dress at the trooping of the color to ensure that she would appear at that balcony, triumphant and defiant. She had gotten one over Wallis Simpson and had forced the queen to eat her own words about that woman "never crossing the threshold". This was no meek elderly woman and I am sure behind the smile are nerves of steel.
Now I need a stiff drink after that :nod: :hehe: :lol:
I think Camilla "won" with the Dimbleby interview. Charles let the cat out of the bag and forced the PBs to divorce, her father asked "what are you going to do about her now?" and Charles IMO became obligated. He maintained via his biographer he would "keep on seeing her" in the book, confessed that the two committed adultery and even in a separate interview with Dimbleby pinpointed the times. Soon after that he got a PR person to work with Camilla and I don't think that was to keep her as mistress.
Charles had to wait though because a negative thing was his Grandmother not wanting them to marry in her lifetime.
I don't think Camilla was all that popular after the Panorama interview. But she already was now "available" and not the "safe married" friend. The cat was let out of the bag the year before when Charles blabbed.
The thing is I think Charles wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 20, 2017, 03:52:56 PM
Huh. Those are tough questions for me as a Camilla fun but I must address them lest I become a hypocrite by doing what I accuse others of doing.
Camilla's lowest moments were in the run up to the engagement. I do not believe that Camilla ever had the intention of giving up Charles. She had been his mistress for years and felt that he was "hers" regardless of any wedding vows he might have made. It takes a particularly insensitive and weak man to ask a former lover to guide his new finance. The fact that Camilla knew about the proposal before it happened speaks for itself.
Camilla's with regards to Diana's engagement (in my view as I have no evidence otherwise) was that this was a silly unsophisticated girl who would take on the mold of Queen Alexandra...suffer in silence and find something else to do. Camilla is very much aware of her connections to Alice Keppell and reveled in the notoriety that it brought. Therefore she knew that a life of a mistress to the Prince of Wales could be very lucrative, particularly if he had a silly girl for a wife who would not interfere with the arrangements. That is bad, bad, bad, bad. I am on record as saying that Camilla ought to have apologized (at least to Diana in person) for that set up.
Of course as it happened Diana surprised them all. She fought for her position with a passion and determination that they had not reckoned with. I think as the war of the Waleses raged on; Camilla began to conceive the idea if she was going to be crucified then it must be for the big prize. Prior to that she was happy to be a powerful mistress. Now she was playing for higher stakes. She then decided that she was going to be the Princess of Wales. Diana helped that cause by her continuous revenge agenda.
The first strand was to encourage the unraveling of Diana. Sitting at Highgrove, the jibes about mad sad Diana were all calculated to make her very mad. Meanwhile Camilla would appear to be an uncomplicated placid mother figure, very different from the angry wife who threw things and screamed. Morton and Panorama were the final death nails in the marriage and I presume Camilla actually uncorked the champagne when they happened. Diana had talked her way out of her own marriage and Camilla was to remain the comforting figure for a betrayed prince. Once the divorce was done, it was only a matter of time before the Prince of Wales would want to marry again. This time Camilla would be ready and armed. The palace's criteria for virginity had been comprehensively and permanently defeated. Charles helped by telling everyone (including the queen) that Camilla was non-negotiable. The queen had to choose between complete estrangement from her son and having to countenance his mistress as the Prince of Wales.
When Diana died, there was a set back in the public machinations but privately Charles was still seeing Camilla. She then designed a scheme were she would appear so poor that Charles would be shamed into providing for her. Once that happened, Parliament started asking questions. Then you had the drama of the sitting arrangements at weddings. Camilla pulled out and Charles was incensed. Friends were soon learning that any sleight to Camilla would mean banishment. Loh behold Charles decided enough was enough and he proposed. The rest is history. I suspect that Camilla is a tad regretful about Diana's sad end (dying so young) but I am sure she secretly revels in the fact that she managed to supplant someone who on paper appeared to be a winner on all points. She who many considered to be too old, too ugly and too immoral had smashed the fallacy of the fairy tale princess. She had defeated Diana in one of the most painful ways a woman can be defeated.
Camilla was never a friend to Diana. She despised and pitied her at first then later came to hate her. if you see the color of the dress that Camilla is wearing on Diana's wedding, it has a message that could not have escaped Diana. Camilla wore her own second wedding dress at the trooping of the color to ensure that she would appear at that balcony, triumphant and defiant. She had gotten one over Wallis Simpson and had forced the queen to eat her own words about that woman "never crossing the threshold". This was no meek elderly woman and I am sure behind the smile are nerves of steel.
Now I need a stiff drink after that :nod: :hehe: :lol:
Now that you may have had that stiff drink it is refreshing to see a somewhat sympathizer of Camilla having a light bulb moment :eureka!: as to how most of her detractors see her. Camilla IMO has support due to those magical HRH letters by those wanting to bask in the royal orbit it is in the real world that her popularity is not that high.
I know about that stiff drink. I suppose my support for Camilla is one for the ugly old ducklings. The thing surprises me most is why nobody ever advised Diana on strategy. You do not see off a mistress by fighting the husband. You see off the mistress by fighting the mistress. Had Diana not been so involved in the war of waleses, she could quickly work out what hold Camilla had on Charles. The Camillagate tape is too traumatizing for me to listen in full (to this day I can never listen to the recording in full because it makes me cringe too much) but I can see exactly what Camilla was doing. She was almost going through a tick box exercise...massage ego here, there etc.
To answer the question, I think that Camilla did not select Diana per say. Charles brought her to his mistresses to see (just like a man who is not in love and insensitive). Camilla was like...."Oh, she will do. Very young and pretty. Painfully shy and incredibly naive. I will run rings around this one". Diana instinctively knew that this was not her friend but she was powerless to stop it, lest Charles exploded. If you see the two photos of them together, it is clear that Diana is uneasy. She is being forced to go out with her mortal enemy and pretend all is well.
The biggest injustice is that Diana did not find a man who could love and care for her in the normal way. That is the reason why some of us cried when she died (I know people here find it incredible to believe but I did cry on that day). It seemed such a waste that someone who had lost so much never got a second chance or do over. She had suffered through her marriage and then died after it.
Diana had not experienced what it is to be dated by someone who is passionately in love with you. Her relationships where furtive things, followed by the press and mocked by her enemies. She was under pressure not to collapse or show weakness. Every night she would go back to Kensington Palace and mull over her lost dreams. Meanwhile she could see before her eyes that Camilla was taking her place, home and husband. After that I think Diana deserved to be happy in this life.
Diana should not have been expected to fight anybody or compete. A wife should not have a third person around in the marriage. Maybe it was an ego trip for CHarles to have two women fighting over him (he had other ladies competing for him for years. I think it sordid. He should have told Diana the truth about Camilla and given her a chance to exit the scene. She thought he loved her which is why he proposed to her. This is the 20th century not 1452. Diana worked out the hold Camilla had on Charles when she saw those C and C cufflinks and heard the furtive phone calls. I think at the beginning Diana really believed she had to get Camilla's approval since the media did say that she and Kanga approved or disapproved of his girlfriends. Diana was only 36 and I would not call her a "failure." Camilla could never have really taken Diana's place. Diana had the royal children not Camilla. That Camilla could never have. Diana would have enjoyed HER children and grandchildren even if she never remarried.
Camilla is despised by many because she has the scruples of an alley cat. Diana could have played it better with hindsight as in keep your friends close but your enemies even closer. That said to be honest the war of the Wales really started on the honeymoon with Charles calling Camilla and wearing those cufflinks and carrying her picture in his diary. Diana was barely 20 while Charles and Camilla were both in their early 30's and more mature. Charles didn't want marriage he had a valet to cater to his needs, a chef to cook his meals and Camilla in his bed. I remember Charles giving an interview I believe it was when he was invested as POW when asked about marriage he said then in his position the woman he married would be Queen and that was the last decision where his heart should rule over his head. If Diana had been older she was 8 at the time she might have appreciated that Charles was not a loving person but a selfish narcissist. Camilla is in that same mindset all she cares about is herself. Now she is claiming to be a victim and how hard it all was for her she made Diana's life a living hell and she knew all she had to do was play Nanny to the needy Charles. How a woman with any sense of decency could do that too another woman a wife and mother like herself is beyond comprehension.
I tend to part ways with many Diana fans on the issue of double standards. I think we are all agreed that adultery is bad. That means that it is bad regardless of whether Camilla or Diana or Charles is doing it. Diana herself allowed herself to be linked to a man who was married, having been through that particular torture. The excuse that her husband was also cheating could very well apply to Camilla as well since APB was no slow coach when it came to cheating. What I find perplexing is that identical or similar behavior in two women is then treated as if it is markedly different. One woman is given sympathy and attempts made to deny her culpability while the other has the "morals of an alley cat". If we compare the known lovers of Camilla between 1980 and 1996 to those of Diana, it is quite clear that Camilla did not have many more lovers than Diana. Why then is Camilla the unforgiven but Diana the always forgiven?
The second issue was Camilla's interview. The press was beastly to Camilla, absolutely beastly. They harassed her children and were stalking her. Some might say this is justified because she had slept with a married man. Ok then we accept that premise for arguments sake: married women who commit adultery with married men are open season for the press. How then can we criticize the press for squiggygate and hounding Diana. Those double standards are where we completely part ways with some Diana fans.
^ Some of the different treatment, may be because of what was discussed earlier, ie your post regarding what you honestly felt were Camilla's motivations and actions regarding Charles's engagement to Diana.
Diana was an impulsive person who was obsessive about Hoare, Hewitt etc., and didn't really think things out properly, while Camilla seems practised and calculating and was shown to be prepared to wait her time until the lover she felt was hers came back to her.
A lot of people are prepared to give some leverage to a person who stumbles and blunders and makes awful mistakes, even when they harm others in doing so, (look at some of Harry's actions! ) but is ultimately felt to be sincere and loveable and good-hearted. Whereas, the suspicion about Camilla is the part she played in manoevring a rather weak man into marrying a very young and naive woman, to serve her own purposes. Many would feel repelled by the callousness of that.
I don't think Charles ever really left Camilla. Camilla also helped make things happen, like going to the Sun Editor for ten years, seeing off Diana, and so on. Charles IMO was too self centered to think going to his friends wives for "comfort" was wrong.
Double post auto-merged: June 21, 2017, 09:55:47 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 21, 2017, 05:34:10 AM
I tend to part ways with many Diana fans on the issue of double standards. I think we are all agreed that adultery is bad. That means that it is bad regardless of whether Camilla or Diana or Charles is doing it. Diana herself allowed herself to be linked to a man who was married, having been through that particular torture. The excuse that her husband was also cheating could very well apply to Camilla as well since APB was no slow coach when it came to cheating. What I find perplexing is that identical or similar behavior in two women is then treated as if it is markedly different. One woman is given sympathy and attempts made to deny her culpability while the other has the "morals of an alley cat". If we compare the known lovers of Camilla between 1980 and 1996 to those of Diana, it is quite clear that Camilla did not have many more lovers than Diana. Why then is Camilla the unforgiven but Diana the always forgiven?
The second issue was Camilla's interview. The press was beastly to Camilla, absolutely beastly. They harassed her children and were stalking her. Some might say this is justified because she had slept with a married man. Ok then we accept that premise for arguments sake: married women who commit adultery with married men are open season for the press. How then can we criticize the press for squiggygate and hounding Diana. Those double standards are where we completely part ways with some Diana fans.
They were beastly to her because of her own actions. She did not have to get involved with Charles, she did not have to undermine Diana, she did not have to do anything. Diana only turned to others when Charles ditched her. Camilla was involved one way or another with Charles the entire course of C and D courtship, engagement, marriage and she met up with Charles at the hunts. She was hugely instrumental in breaking up a marriage, a royal marriage too. Camilla's actions were entirely different, she never really stopped being involved with the Prince and was in there pitching to undermine the wife. Camilla could have said no to Charles and when he came to her for "comfort" sent him back home to his wife. Camilla merely did not have a "one night stand" with a married man, it was far more serious.
I think Camilla was just shedding crocodile tears.
You leave out the sixties and seventies where Camilla reportedly had much experience with men other than Charles and APB (some have come forward to the media). Camilla was married to someone else from 1973-1995 so she was not "faithful" to Charles.
I do have a rather different perspective on this. I think that it is the confirmatory bias of the aesthetic. A young pretty girl can do no wrong but an older less attractive woman must be the witch. It is what it is but the double standards make the arguments against Camilla inconsistent or even misogynistic in some instances. Charles is presented as the buffoon that is manipulated away from his wife when in reality it could be that he made a firm decision to leave his wife. Even without Camilla, I do not think that marriage could have survived. The foundations were so, so wrong.
The Queen Mother as an older woman was adored by the British public, more so when she was middle aged and extremely plump than when she was young and pretty, and even then she hadn't been a raving beauty. But, you see, unlike Camilla, she hadn't planned, schemed manipulated, in the planning of the forthcoming marriage of a male lover she regarded as hers, and continue to do so for years.
Do you think that Camilla helped Charles's marriage problems, however bad they were? Could she not have just said when he turned to her in 1984 or 1986 or whenever 'You get your own marriage problems sorted out before you involve me. If and when you're free we'll talk again'.
But she didn't, did she? She involved herself right from the beginning of Charles and Diana's courtship, ostensibly as the good and helpful friend. Yes, she was Diana's good friend, all right.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 21, 2017, 05:34:10 AM
I tend to part ways with many Diana fans on the issue of double standards. I think we are all agreed that adultery is bad. That means that it is bad regardless of whether Camilla or Diana or Charles is doing it. Diana herself allowed herself to be linked to a man who was married, having been through that particular torture. The excuse that her husband was also cheating could very well apply to Camilla as well since APB was no slow coach when it came to cheating. What I find perplexing is that identical or similar behavior in two women is then treated as if it is markedly different. One woman is given sympathy and attempts made to deny her culpability while the other has the "morals of an alley cat". If we compare the known lovers of Camilla between 1980 and 1996 to those of Diana, it is quite clear that Camilla did not have many more lovers than Diana. Why then is Camilla the unforgiven but Diana the always forgiven?
The second issue was Camilla's interview. The press was beastly to Camilla, absolutely beastly. They harassed her children and were stalking her. Some might say this is justified because she had slept with a married man. Ok then we accept that premise for arguments sake: married women who commit adultery with married men are open season for the press. How then can we criticize the press for squiggygate and hounding Diana. Those double standards are where we completely part ways with some Diana fans.
First lets be clear regarding APB and his adultery No the same doesn't apply to Camilla as she knew before marrying him that he was never going to be faithful while they were supposedly dating he was sleeping with others and dating others his most famous relationship being Princess Anne while she was dating Charles at the same time. As for Camilla and relationships between 1980 and 1986 why would she go looking for another when she had the POW? Camilla had influence and position not to mention perks as his mistress something no other man could give her.
Second the press being beastly to poor Camilla well they are beastly Sarah and Diana were also stalked and harassed remember Diana on a ski trip with William and Harry telling the press to leave them alone? Squidgy was tame as far as any hint of a real relationship was revealed whereas Camillagate was extremely crude as to what the nature of that relationship was and again it proved Camilla at her scheming worst stroking the ego of the needy Charles as if she had taken a page out of Wallis Simpson's playbook. It wasn't open season by the press of married women committing adultery however, these particular women were tied to the Crown making a juicy story that was in the public interest. I doubt Camilla was too highly bothered as well she reveled in her ancestors notoriety as mistress and she played the press herself leaking stories so I have no sympathy for her.
Camilla also appeared to find it OK for Charles to stray with Janet Jenkins and Kanga Tryon and other ladies as long as she was in control. Even vetting the girlfriends of PRince Charles. Apparently she decided Anna Wallace was not OK and saw to it that she and Charles broke up. Camilla also knew darn well that her dating times with APB was not based on fidelity Both cheated rampantly on the other. So why would she be surprised after the wedding ceremony?
Double post auto-merged: June 21, 2017, 10:29:03 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 21, 2017, 09:57:29 AM
I do have a rather different perspective on this. I think that it is the confirmatory bias of the aesthetic. A young pretty girl can do no wrong but an older less attractive woman must be the witch. It is what it is but the double standards make the arguments against Camilla inconsistent or even misogynistic in some instances. Charles is presented as the buffoon that is manipulated away from his wife when in reality it could be that he made a firm decision to leave his wife. Even without Camilla, I do not think that marriage could have survived. The foundations were so, so wrong.
Charles could not have married a woman Camilla's age. The idea was to have someone suitable and fertile to have his heirs. There was no one in his age bracket who was not married or had experience, he needed to choose a younger woman. 12 years younger in Diana's case.
Camilla had the upper hand and it had nothing to do with her looks.
so how did she have an upper hand? She knew she coud not marry Charles, (not that she wanted to) and he was marryng a much younger, pretty woman. how did she know that he would not fall madly in love with Diana, and live happily ever after with her?
^ Camilla took that risk, I believe, because she knew her man. She knew that Charles and she had an incredibly strong bond, memories, occasions, shared interests, mutual friends, stretching back over nearly a decade, and was something Diana couldn't match. She had also sized Diana up in the time leading up to the engagement and knew, in spite of her physical attractiveness, that Diana wasn't really Charles's cup of tea. I think she knew instinctively that Charles responded to her (Camilla's) sense of humour, buttering up, ego stroking etc, and she doubted Diana was up to it.
Quote from: amabel on June 22, 2017, 05:08:00 AM
so how did she have an upper hand? She knew she coud not marry Charles, (not that she wanted to) and he was marryng a much younger, pretty woman. how did she know that he would not fall madly in love with Diana, and live happily ever after with her?
She was the one he turned to no matter what. She knew that. She also knew she could manipulate things. Camilla actually hosted Diana and gave her advice. I think Camilla knew instinctively that it would not work plus she was 12 years younger than Charles and used primarily to produce heirs for him.
I do think she saw off women she did see as a threat like Anna Wallace. She did not play safe married friend around Anna and she and Charles danced the night away in front of Anna, who then broke the relationship off with Charles. She was unsubtle in front of Anna.
Quote from: Curryong on June 22, 2017, 05:23:02 AM
^ Camilla took that risk, I believe, because she knew her man. She knew that Charles and she had an incredibly strong bond, memories, occasions, shared interests, mutual friends, stretching back over nearly a decade, and was something Diana couldn't match. She had also sized Diana up in the time leading up to the engagement and knew, in spite of her physical attractiveness, that Diana wasn't really Charles's cup of tea. I think she knew instinctively that Charles responded to her (Camilla's) sense of humour, buttering up, ego stroking etc, and she doubted Diana was up to it.
or perhaps she didn't do any of this, but knew that she'd have to lose Charles now because he had to get married.
That statement sounds like her friend, the romantic author Jilly Cooper's wailing, over Mrs PB's sorrow at watching Charles wed. 'Can you imagine how awful it was for her!' (Camilla.) No, I can't actually, because she put herself out there when she started cheating on Andrew with Charles. But it says an 'awful' lot, Jilly, about the general moral standards of the polo and Hunt crowd you and CPB hung around with.
My answer to you. Yes, perhaps she did, but considering how Camilla inserted herself into Charles's courtship of Diana, I doubt it.
Camilla never lost Charles. She became his married mistress after she delivered the 'spare' for Andrew. According to Smith and Dimbleby and other sources. Smith maintains she was pregnant with Laura when she called Charles for "counseling." It was not as if Camilla stopped seeing or contacting Charles (and vice versa) after he put the ring on Diana's finger at the wedding ceremony. Charles did not have enough sense to drop Camilla when he married Diana or maybe he felt he could do anything because he would be a future King. There are some really creepy photos of Charles "dating" the Parker Bowles, the three going out for a Night on the Town after Camilla married Andrew.
Here's one of them:
https://www.google.com/search?q=charles+and+andrew+and+camilla+parker+bowles&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTv77xvNLUAhUD5SYKHVGFD24Q_AUIBygC&biw=1670&bih=837#imgrc=9AfPEHMFWd8QzM:&spf=1498169666417
Quote from: Curryong on June 22, 2017, 09:47:04 PM
That statement sounds like her friend, the romantic author Jilly Cooper's wailing, over Mrs PB's sorrow at watching Charles wed. 'Can you imagine how awful it was for her!' (Camilla.) No, I can't actually, because she put herself out there when she started cheating on Andrew with Charles. But it says an 'awful' lot, Jilly, about the general moral standards of the polo and Hunt crowd you and CPB hung around with.
My answer to you. Yes, perhaps she did, but considering how Camilla inserted herself into Charles's courtship of Diana, I doubt it.
did she?
It is all too easy to assign motives and thinking to people without really knowing them. How do we know that Charles really loved Camilla throughout out and was just unable to marry her due to palace pressures? How do we know that Charles did not want to commit to the marriage but gave up when it did not work? How do we know that Diana was a sympathetic and comforting wife? What do we know about their private lives? I think most of it is speculative.
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 07:31:06 AM
BTW, the upper classes are not quite as worked up about adultery as the lower classes. That is just the way it is.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 23, 2017, 07:29:58 AM
BTW, the upper classes are not quite as worked up about adultery as the lower classes. That is just the way it is.
Ah the class obsession. I'm so glad not to be British for this very reason.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 23, 2017, 07:29:58 AM
It is all too easy to assign motives and thinking to people without really knowing them. How do we know that Charles really loved Camilla throughout out and was just unable to marry her due to palace pressures? How do we know that Charles did not want to commit to the marriage but gave up when it did not work? How do we know that Diana was a sympathetic and comforting wife? What do we know about their private lives? I think most of it is speculative.
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 07:31:06 AM
BTW, the upper classes are not quite as worked up about adultery as the lower classes. That is just the way it is.
It weakens the bond between a man and a wife when there is a third party, a married mistress that the man runs to for "counseling." I think adultery no matter what "class" is involved hurts. It is just wrong on many levels. Diana did not want an open marriage when she said her vows. Charles was involved with two couples who had a sort of "open marriage." He also was involved with Kanga Tryon. Children are involved and that hurts too.
Charles did not cite "palace pressure" when he moved on from Camilla Shand. He told his biographer he was not ready to marry and moved on. He did not even tell Camilla to wait for him. He would have fought for her if he really had been in love with her.
William appears to have learned what not to do in his marriage to Kate. No mistress around to "counsel" him. So everybody does not "do it." Charles also is to be Head of the Church so the Church condones what he did because he's in the "upper class." I would say it is still wrong.
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 11:04:20 AM
Quote from: amabel on June 23, 2017, 04:53:36 AM
Quote from: Curryong on June 22, 2017, 09:47:04 PM
That statement sounds like her friend, the romantic author Jilly Cooper's wailing, over Mrs PB's sorrow at watching Charles wed. 'Can you imagine how awful it was for her!' (Camilla.) No, I can't actually, because she put herself out there when she started cheating on Andrew with Charles. But it says an 'awful' lot, Jilly, about the general moral standards of the polo and Hunt crowd you and CPB hung around with.
My answer to you. Yes, perhaps she did, but considering how Camilla inserted herself into Charles's courtship of Diana, I doubt it.
did she?
Yes she did indeed. Way back when Camilla was called the "good friend" of Charles who approved or disapproved of his girlfriends. Even when all was not revealed it still appears that she did insert herself in the courtships not only of Diana but other girlfriends of Charles.
I believe the real hold Camilla had over Charles was her ability to all things to Charles. Charles being quite the needy man needed a woman to mother him, be available at all times, not overshadow him and supporting his work, share his pursuits i.e hunting, fishing, horses and above all suit his sexual needs. Camilla being the experienced woman in bed suited Charles more so than the virginal Diana as Charles wrote that his sex life in the beginning was satisfying with Diana. Charles is basically lazy as Camilla taught Charles the physical aspects of love Charles in turn couldn't be bothered with his young bride. Diana due to her being immersed in royal work and raising the children couldn't be available at all time. If Charles had wanted a wife who wouldn't overshadow him surely why pick a beautiful woman with amazing Charisma?. The one woman Camilla knew she could never put one over on was Anna Wallace and as Sandy pointed out she was not subtle in breaking up that relationship.
Quote from: tiaras on June 23, 2017, 08:21:29 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 23, 2017, 07:29:58 AM
BTW, the upper classes are not quite as worked up about adultery as the lower classes. That is just the way it is.
Ah the class obsession. I'm so glad not to be British for this very reason.
why? Its noting to do with obsession, its just an observation that the upper classes are more relaxed about infidelity and don't rush to the divrorce courts. If it comes to that most classes have affairs, lots of them... its just a matter of how they handle them
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 06:55:55 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 23, 2017, 07:29:58 AM
It is all too easy to assign motives and thinking to people without really knowing them. How do we know that Charles really loved Camilla throughout out and was just unable to marry her due to palace pressures? How do we know that Charles did not want to commit to the marriage but gave up when it did not work? How do we know that Diana was a sympathetic and comforting wife? What do we know about their private lives? I think most of it is speculative.
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 07:31:06 AM
BTW
well precisely my point. I notice that while people claim Camilla had a cunning plan, it is quite simply impossible that she could have ben sure it wuodl work. whatever she did, she could not marry Charles, at that time. So she either had to give him up as a lover, and just be good friends.. or give up even his friendship.. or she cuodl HOPE that he would come back to her, in time. And I can't see how on earth she could be even passably sure that would happen. He was marrying a beautiful young girl, many years her junior. Anyone seeing him with Di in the first few months of marriage can see that he was attracted to her. It was very possible that He would find her so attractive that he'd fall for her, once they had time together to get closer..
It was not as if she "could not" marry Charles. He just plain did not pursue her as a prospective wife. If he had feelings for her then, it was not enough for him to want to settle down and get married. He told his biographer he felt "too young" to get married so as I see it he could be free to still pursue other women. Not the material of great love stories IMO. Diana IMO was used for Charles to get his heirs.Charles admitted he thought he could "learn" to love Diana. And he told his biographer he still preferred Camilla. I don't think that is the true spirit for anybody to go into a marriage. Being attracted to someone is not a firm commitment particularly since Charles never was out of contact with Camilla. He even called her on the honeymoon according to Stephen Barry.
Infidelity is not some "game" it is downright serious and harmful to children from the marriages. Diana's mother had an affair and later married her lover and she lost much access to her own children.
I repeat: the upper classes are not as obsessed about adultery as the lower classes. It is what it is. Assigning middle class values of fidelity and going on about that Church of England moralizing is a total failure to understand why and how that Church was established. The Church of England exists for no other reason than to ensure that a king could divorce and remarry. That is not my opinion but right there in the history books. There is absolutely no requirement on the monarch of Britain to be faithful or loving to his wife. That is what some people might want but it is no requirement for being king. Charles is not and has never been the most serial adulterer Prince of Wales or royal in our history. The obsession with his love life is alarming in my view. It has gone on for so long with so limited information that it is now bordering on a pathology.
Those who say that adultery is not a game and is a serious character flaw, fail to see the hypocrisy in trying to airbrush the multiple adulterous affairs that Diana had (one with a married man and whose distraught wife had to deal with crank silent calls from Diana) . First they said Charles cheated first. I seriously doubt that because even Diana herself never said he cheated on her first. Charles said he left after the marriage had broken down and never has she challenged that version despite all the things she tried to do to destroy him. So who cheated first and who cheated many times? Those are the kinds of conundrums you get for trying to be the judge, jury and executioner of people's marriages where the details are not fully known.
The other interesting thing. Some Diana fans (they don't like me saying so but that is what they are in reality) suggest that Charles is a very bad man, not particularly handsome, weak, pathetic, evil, wimp etc. Fair enough. That means that Diana was well rid of him. After all; the people that worshiped her would have not wanted her to remain to someone that is as bad as that? Others say that he should not have married her at all if he did not love her. Fair enough then that means that Diana would be better off married to some anonymous person with no Prince William and Harry? I don't get this obsessive dislike of Charles and the puzzling simultaneous insistence that he should have remained married to Diana or worked on the marriage. If he is a bad man, then Diana was better off when he left her. He did not love her, she did not love him. They divorced. That is what most normal people do.
Saying should have, could have, must have etc. goes back to that thing about fate. Unless you are saying that the entire marriage and the children that came from it plus the title and celebrity that followed should not have happened? If that is people's position then it makes some sense, at least being logically consistent. Far better than this confusing: "I hate him so much but want to remain married to him" nonsense. If we accept Charles and Camilla are very bad people, then by all means they deserve one another. Diana was well rid of them since they were so beastly to her. What then is this nonsense about "working on the marriage"?
well you're way off base about the Church of England. It divided from the ROman church because of complex reasons, which had to do with the politics of marriage and also with the desire for independence of Rome. but it is a church with a long history, has produced saintly people, and it is idiotic to dismiss it as if its moral teaching was different in essence ot that of other churches.
but that NOt in any case the issue.
I agree that I can't understand the stuff about "working on the marriage". if Charles was even half as bad as people make him out to be on this forum no woman except someone "just as bad as him" would want to be married to him. it would be imposislbe to "work on the marriage" because he would be such a selfish monster that he wouldn't/couldn't ever be a decent husband.
If Diana was fed up with him, had grown out of love for him, as he was so selfish, why not be glad that she was able to get a divorce and find a new love. ther was no prospect that such a man wuiold ever be a hsubadn to her.
Authors are entitled to state their opinion and write books. They do not need clearance from the pro-Diana partisans. I doubt that this book is intended for them because they picked sides in that marriage and it is impossible to penetrate their deeply held views. They will never forgive and will never forget. They hate Charles and Camilla and worship Diana. It is what it is and I think everyone has pretty much accepted it. I doubt Charles, Camilla or the palace are interested in courting or convincing the pro-Diana partisans as that is a pointless exercise.
The book is another perspective on the Charles and Camilla story. Those who want to read it will, those who don't can ignore it. I hate it when people complain about reading an article they have searched for, opened up and read. If you don't like it, ignore it. If you are not convinced by its PR, ignore it.
Also not everything that happens in July and August is an attack on Diana. Camilla was born around that time and many many things happen in those months. At this rate, we will be demanding that nobody writes anything around the months because they belong to Diana.
Well, I did say I was going to buy the book, and read it, even though I'm classed as a pro-Diana partisan I guess!
However, you don't think that the article a little while ago was a taster for the Camilla book, or that it's a mere coincidence that this book is coming out at the end of this month, before a massive amount of publicity on Diana and her death 20 years ago in August? Boy, have I got a bridge to sell you, Royal!
Seriously though, and just forget my Diana allegiance for a few moments, I do wonder whether something is happening with Charles and his sons. Both sons are partaking in tribute docos about their mother, shortly. That's quite natural in one way, in another, however, what if Charles isn't pleased about it or is a bit hurt?
There was the latest Charles biography that discreetly hinted that the Cambridges aren't exactly regular visitors to Highgrove.
Also, on another forum, a poster who specialises in Royal social occasions just commented out of the blue, (she's neutral as per Charles and William afaik) that in the videos and photos she'd seen of the first day of Ascot this year the Cambridges spent very little time with C and C and an awful lot of time walking around with Mike and Carole Middleton. Again, natural in one way but...?
Then there was Harry's remark about asking a child or allowing a child (as he was) to partake in his mother's funeral cortège. Also, this Junor book. All just tiny points, but it just makes me think there might be a bit of strain just recently.
Actually
@Curryong, I did feel the tension. A few things stood out:
1. Not once did Harry mention his father. He talked about his mum, grandma, brother and sister in-law but not his dad.
2. Camilla was glaring at the trooping of the color and I could see some real steel in the gaze.
I hope we are not going to have a new war of the waleses but with father and children. I know that Charles does not take sleights lightly and will most likely react. It would be a pity if after all these years, the family is permanently splintered with Charles going off with Camilla and the children forming their own new family. That would be a real shame.
At the same time I respect the rights and decisions of children to detach from their parents once they are 18. If that is what the boys have decided then Charles should just let it go. They are now grown up and can do as they please. He should just focus on his work and his own life. Like I said, if the Cambridges do not want him near their children I am sure Laura and Tom would have no objections to having him around. There are many options. If I was him, I would even consider adopting. There are many kids out there that need parents and guardians. Even Beatrice and Eugene are nice girls who might want to have the attentions of their uncle. He should not fret or engage in counter reprisals. Just let them be.
Unfortunately I always think that revenge is a dish best served cold. In isolating and diminishing Charles's part in their lives, the children could be writing their own downfall. Today it is Charles, tomorrow it is William and Harry. I hope they remember that. There will come a time when Charles is dead and gone forever. It would be hypocritical and rather pointless to cry over him then when in life they have chosen to ignore him.
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 09:08:31 AM
On the PR front, I would actually advise Camilla (if she is actually involved) to simply ignore the whole game of interviews, counter interviews and passive aggressive gestures. She can go visit her own family and children during the memorials or even go on a holiday abroad. Silence has served her well over the years, despite repeated provocations. She should revert back to time. Turn up where required, smile, do your duty and go home. Never complain, never explain.
Then why did the Percy daughter's get divorced so fast after being married, if the upper classes are more or less relaxed about cheating?
I think however you sugarcoat it in the real world very few people hold infidelity as a forgivable thing after done to someone they've married.
@tiaras. Fair enough about cheating being unforgivable in all classes. Hopefully you believe that the same standards of not forgiving apply to all cheaters and adulterers including Diana? If not, then those are double standards.
Quote from: tiaras on June 24, 2017, 09:19:55 AM
Then why did the Percy daughter's get divorced so fast after being married, if the upper classes are more or less relaxed about cheating?
I think however you sugarcoat it in the real world very few people hold infidelity as a forgivable thing after done to someone they've married.
I didn't say More or less relaxed. I said More relaxed. they do get divorced. and middle and working class people also have affairs, or are promiscuous..
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 09:28:42 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 24, 2017, 09:23:26 AM
@tiaras. Fair enough about cheating being unforgivable in all classes. Hopefully you believe that the same standards of not forgiving apply to all cheaters and adulterers including Diana? If not, then those are double standards.
I woudlnt' say that. Sexual matters are or should be private.. and who is to say how many marriages involve discreet infidelity while still holding together. you don't know, I don't know.
but I agree that it is odd that people condemn chalres ofr his affairs with married women but find excuses for or deny Diana's affairs with married men.
Of course they should never have been married in the first place.
well then, I don't think that the affairs with Camilla mattered at all. if you feel they were very very incompatible and didn't have anyting to make a good marriage, between them..then it would have pretty much ended the same way that it did.. that both of them would have found other lovers and spent more time with them in private. If Camilla had enver existed, Charles and Di would stil hve had a bad marriage and have had affairs.
I agree with and sympathize with those who argue that the personalities were so incompatible that the marriage should never have happened in the first place. That is at the very least a logically consistent position. What I find puzzling are those who say Charles is a horrendous human being but he should have remained married to Diana or not remarried at all. Very strange thing to say someone is bad and then insist that he ought to have remained married to your idol. It is almost as if people need to have their villain and victim in this story such that any effort to end the story is strongly resisted.
It is because he has gotten a "happy ending"..and poor Di didn't. so some people try and undermine his "happy marriage to Cam" by saying that "its not that happy" or that he and she and the boys don't get on.
I actually thought that was the case at Amabel. Some people reassure themselves e.g. "he does not really love her, it is an obligation", or "he is too selfish to love anyone anyway" or "he is so bad and ugly, she got the wrong end of the stick" or "they deserve one another" or "they live in separate houses so they must be on the way to a divorce" or "she was just the last woman standing" etc. It all sounds hollow like sour grapes. Bad, selfish, "narcissistic", ugly, wimpish Charles has found someone who wants to be married to him...warts and all. I think that is the best outcome rather than staying with someone you do not love or like, just for the sake of satisfying the public's belief in a fairy tale.
But we all know that we don't always get what we wish for. Charles has had a longer life span than Diana so the chances are that he got more opportunities to find someone he wanted to be with. Again the personalities and circumstances are different. Charles would never have been in Paris on that trip under any circumstances. His lifestyle is very different. The holidays at Balmoral which Diana found so boring actually do protect the royal family from the press.
OK I read the extract in the Daily Mail from Junors new book if this is the truth. If Charles was that in love with Camilla he should have told her. According to Junor it was Mountbatten not that palace that didn't encourage marriage as he found her not aristocratic enough and not virginal. Camilla it is made clear was in love with APB and wanted to marry him despite him cheating on her with friends and others during the time they were dating and his close friendship with Princess Anne. For the last 20 years it has been spun that Charles and Camilla have had a 40 year love affair well which is it? As for Diana and married men well that is just gossip and speculation Will Carling denied he had an affair with Diana even after her death in his biography and Oliver Hoare has never commented nor has his wife. If Diana was proven to have indeed been involved in affairs with them I wouldn't exactly praise her nor make excuses for that. Diana's known lovers were all single and unattached confirmation of Charles and Camilla came to light in Camillagate while Squiggygate involved a young man who was unattached.
Quote from: amabel on June 24, 2017, 10:23:17 AM
well then, I don't think that the affairs with Camilla mattered at all. if you feel they were very very incompatible and didn't have anyting to make a good marriage, between them..then it would have pretty much ended the same way that it did.. that both of them would have found other lovers and spent more time with them in private. If Camilla had enver existed, Charles and Di would stil hve had a bad marriage and have had affairs.
I totally disagree. It's like saying a man who was robbed would have lost his money anyway. Camilla is the elephant in the room. If Camilla had not been "there"for Charles then I think Charles and Diana would have had a much better chance. What sort of woman sends cufflinks to a man on his honeymoon and the man wears them in front of his new bride? Of course Camilla made a big difference. And she did exist and was poison to the marriage.
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 24, 2017, 07:28:23 AM
Authors are entitled to state their opinion and write books. They do not need clearance from the pro-Diana partisans. I doubt that this book is intended for them because they picked sides in that marriage and it is impossible to penetrate their deeply held views. They will never forgive and will never forget. They hate Charles and Camilla and worship Diana. It is what it is and I think everyone has pretty much accepted it. I doubt Charles, Camilla or the palace are interested in courting or convincing the pro-Diana partisans as that is a pointless exercise.
The book is another perspective on the Charles and Camilla story. Those who want to read it will, those who don't can ignore it. I hate it when people complain about reading an article they have searched for, opened up and read. If you don't like it, ignore it. If you are not convinced by its PR, ignore it.
Also not everything that happens in July and August is an attack on Diana. Camilla was born around that time and many many things happen in those months. At this rate, we will be demanding that nobody writes anything around the months because they belong to Diana.
There is such a thing as fairness. Junor trashes Diana. It is not just saying she is no saint. It is a full blown trashing session on her.
Camilla's birthday is no national holiday.
I think Junor intensely loathes Diana. And fawns all over Charles.
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 11:49:17 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 24, 2017, 10:36:15 AM
I agree with and sympathize with those who argue that the personalities were so incompatible that the marriage should never have happened in the first place. That is at the very least a logically consistent position. What I find puzzling are those who say Charles is a horrendous human being but he should have remained married to Diana or not remarried at all. Very strange thing to say someone is bad and then insist that he ought to have remained married to your idol. It is almost as if people need to have their villain and victim in this story such that any effort to end the story is strongly resisted.
No, Charles should never have gone into the marriage with Diana knowing he preferred another woman. He married Diana for expediency's sake. He needed to leave her alone and let her live a happy life. He wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Charles did behave in a horrendous way, yet excuses are always made for him
That to me is the eternal puzzle. The belief that somehow without Camilla, Charles would have loved Diana. That is a nonsense. The couple barely knew one another and later could not stand one another. I am also curious as to why some Diana fans wanted Diana to remain married to a man whom they have told us on numerous occasion is a very, very bad man. Surely the Diana fans would wish that he left that bad man and found a man that was more to their and her liking?
Camilla was there. So this is all what ifs. It is a cop out IMO to say that the marriage would have broken up anyway. Anything to whitewash what Camilla did. I think another woman around is poison to any marriage.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 24, 2017, 03:16:50 AM
I repeat: the upper classes are not as obsessed about adultery as the lower classes. It is what it is. Assigning middle class values of fidelity and going on about that Church of England moralizing is a total failure to understand why and how that Church was established. The Church of England exists for no other reason than to ensure that a king could divorce and remarry. That is not my opinion but right there in the history books. There is absolutely no requirement on the monarch of Britain to be faithful or loving to his wife. That is what some people might want but it is no requirement for being king. Charles is not and has never been the most serial adulterer Prince of Wales or royal in our history. The obsession with his love life is alarming in my view. It has gone on for so long with so limited information that it is now bordering on a pathology.
Those who say that adultery is not a game and is a serious character flaw, fail to see the hypocrisy in trying to airbrush the multiple adulterous affairs that Diana had (one with a married man and whose distraught wife had to deal with crank silent calls from Diana) . First they said Charles cheated first. I seriously doubt that because even Diana herself never said he cheated on her first. Charles said he left after the marriage had broken down and never has she challenged that version despite all the things she tried to do to destroy him. So who cheated first and who cheated many times? Those are the kinds of conundrums you get for trying to be the judge, jury and executioner of people's marriages where the details are not fully known.
The other interesting thing. Some Diana fans (they don't like me saying so but that is what they are in reality) suggest that Charles is a very bad man, not particularly handsome, weak, pathetic, evil, wimp etc. Fair enough. That means that Diana was well rid of him. After all; the people that worshiped her would have not wanted her to remain to someone that is as bad as that? Others say that he should not have married her at all if he did not love her. Fair enough then that means that Diana would be better off married to some anonymous person with no Prince William and Harry? I don't get this obsessive dislike of Charles and the puzzling simultaneous insistence that he should have remained married to Diana or worked on the marriage. If he is a bad man, then Diana was better off when he left her. He did not love her, she did not love him. They divorced. That is what most normal people do.
Saying should have, could have, must have etc. goes back to that thing about fate. Unless you are saying that the entire marriage and the children that came from it plus the title and celebrity that followed should not have happened? If that is people's position then it makes some sense, at least being logically consistent. Far better than this confusing: "I hate him so much but want to remain married to him" nonsense. If we accept Charles and Camilla are very bad people, then by all means they deserve one another. Diana was well rid of them since they were so beastly to her. What then is this nonsense about "working on the marriage"?
Citing Diana does not whitewash what Charles and Camilla did. You think Diana is a bad person apparently. Carling denied any affair took place.
. The Hoares are still together. And Hoare pursued Diana yet the male is exonerated. An affair was neither confirmed nor denied by Hoare.
Charles did cheat first. He went into the marriage knowing he preferred Camilla. That's cheating.
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 11:57:09 AM
Quote from: Trudie on June 24, 2017, 11:40:09 AM
OK I read the extract in the Daily Mail from Junors new book if this is the truth. If Charles was that in love with Camilla he should have told her. According to Junor it was Mountbatten not that palace that didn't encourage marriage as he found her not aristocratic enough and not virginal. Camilla it is made clear was in love with APB and wanted to marry him despite him cheating on her with friends and others during the time they were dating and his close friendship with Princess Anne. For the last 20 years it has been spun that Charles and Camilla have had a 40 year love affair well which is it? As for Diana and married men well that is just gossip and speculation Will Carling denied he had an affair with Diana even after her death in his biography and Oliver Hoare has never commented nor has his wife. If Diana was proven to have indeed been involved in affairs with them I wouldn't exactly praise her nor make excuses for that. Diana's known lovers were all single and unattached confirmation of Charles and Camilla came to light in Camillagate while Squiggygate involved a young man who was unattached.
The whole world is blamed by Junor. Anything to exonerate her idols.
Camilla wanted to marry Andrew Parker Bowles. She was not "forced to"
"Charles did cheat first. He went into the marriage knowing he preferred Camilla. That's cheating."
So anyone that does not wholly and truly love their partners is cheating. Wake me up from this Disney story please???? It is so annoying that someone who could have a substantial biography of charitable work is reduced to this vicious sanctimonious sentimental nonsense that would be laughed at in any other context.
Diana was caught by the police making crank calls to a married man. There is no getting away from that no matter what excuses are made. It is what it is. She made the crank calls and was found out. Unless of course her fans want to suggest that there was some malicious person on Charles' side who made her pick up the phone and make those silent calls??? The calls were traced to Kensington Palace and one of Diana's sister's homes.
Yes, it is. So it's a Disney story when a couple gets married because they love each other and are ready for a commitment. Since when? To me that sounds very cynical. They might as well do away with marriage if everybody is that cynical. And I don't think fidelity and commitment are "sanctimonious." Just not cynical.
Hoare pursued Diana. This has been attested to by those there at the time. You give a strictly one sided view. I think Hoare was toxic for Diana. And it was good she moved on. The thrill for Diana of being near Hoare was that he was also a friend of C and C. Or so it was said. Hoare never got on his judgmental high horse and condemned Diana, he moved on and never mentioned a thing about it. If he can be non-judgmental so can the rest of us.
No. Hoare was not a hypocrite. Indeed I have never heard him judge any one for adultery. It was Diana who complained about adultery and then went on to commit it, multiple times (sometimes with married men). This is not about Hoare. Hoare has never given any interview or record condemning anyone for any behavior. That was Diana and that is why I say that if adultery is bad then it is bad for everybody.
Those who want to buy Penny Junor's book will buy it. Those who don't will just have to bear it. Not everyone is prepared to have rose tinted glasses on this one and people will just have to lump it. In any case, if Charles is as bad as the Diana fans claim; then it was only a good thing that they divorced. In that way Diana could find more suitable partners (that even sounds silly reading it back but that is what we've come to).
Of course he was and is. Why is the man always the "good person" in these scenarios? He had a mistress he was keeping before he started seeing Diana. His wife put up with it. I don't know if he moved out on her then. You have no proof she slept with married MEN. The only two suspects are Hoare and Carling. Carling said there was no affair. Hoare neither confirmed nor denied one and I doubt he ever will. Diana's lovers confirmed by both were Hewitt, Khan (who confirmed this in the inquest), possibly Dodi (the secret went to their grave). Hewitt was single then. Charles on the other hand had many relationships. Confessed to adultery with Married Camilla and was involved with her pre Diana. His confessions forced a divorce. If you read one Junor book you have read them all. I think a lot of the same will appear in this one. She seems to be tossing Andrew Parker Bowles (the Mr Simpson of his day) under a bus. Camilla knew he cheated on her, she cheated on him when they dated. So why was she surprised when the same pattern of behavior happened in their marriage? Junor is an avid Charles fan and I think she is a true cultist.
The thing that Hoare has going for him is he does not "tell all" and is not tsking tsking Diana about the phone calls. I think his phone calls to Diana ran up his and his wife's phone bills. According to Jephson and Wharfe he was calling Diana a lot.
I wonder if Junor will bring up Janet Jenkins who was his mistress during the Camilla years. He moaned and groaned to her too.
Charles could have been a suitable partner if he had been a grown up when he married Diana. He sounds rather immature to me.
Could have, should have, might have....all these are just fantasies. Strangers acting as investigators, judges, juries and executioners of a marriage is one of the reason why that relationship failed permanently.
In any case it was not a happy marriage and one that should never happened. The best thing was to end it as quickly as possible. They delayed far too long. The ideal time was to end it when it "irretrievably broke down" circa 1984-1986. Better still, just calling off the wedding. Beyond that they were both making one another miserable and feeding this frenzy of obsessive interest in their relationship.
Charles was sensible enough to divorce his first wife and finally propose to the woman he loved and married her. That is what he should have done when he first saw Camilla instead of dithering. For a start, it would have saved us a whole load of sentimental nonsense in between.
This soap opera is getting quite old. Someone needs to put an end to it.
Quote from: amabel on June 24, 2017, 10:23:17 AM
well then, I don't think that the affairs with Camilla mattered at all. if you feel they were very very incompatible and didn't have anyting to make a good marriage, between them..then it would have pretty much ended the same way that it did.. that both of them would have found other lovers and spent more time with them in private. If Camilla had enver existed, Charles and Di would stil hve had a bad marriage and have had affairs.
Yes I do believe that there was never going to be a good happy ending to their union. They weren't compatible and he loved someone else that's a recipe for disaster.
Right. Camilla was in the way
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 05:59:16 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 24, 2017, 01:48:42 PM
Could have, should have, might have....all these are just fantasies. Strangers acting as investigators, judges, juries and executioners of a marriage is one of the reason why that relationship failed permanently.
In any case it was not a happy marriage and one that should never happened. The best thing was to end it as quickly as possible. They delayed far too long. The ideal time was to end it when it "irretrievably broke down" circa 1984-1986. Better still, just calling off the wedding. Beyond that they were both making one another miserable and feeding this frenzy of obsessive interest in their relationship.
Charles was sensible enough to divorce his first wife and finally propose to the woman he loved and married her. That is what he should have done when he first saw Camilla instead of dithering. For a start, it would have saved us a whole load of sentimental nonsense in between.
This soap opera is getting quite old. Someone needs to put an end to it.
Sentimental nonsense? Two human beings would not exist today if Charles had chosen Camilla in the first place. I don't call Will and Harry sentimental nonsense.
If Diana had not married a royal nor had an early pregnancy I think she'd have had grounds for an annulment
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 06:00:33 PM
Quote from: Trudie on June 24, 2017, 11:40:09 AM
OK I read the extract in the Daily Mail from Junors new book if this is the truth. If Charles was that in love with Camilla he should have told her. According to Junor it was Mountbatten not that palace that didn't encourage marriage as he found her not aristocratic enough and not virginal. Camilla it is made clear was in love with APB and wanted to marry him despite him cheating on her with friends and others during the time they were dating and his close friendship with Princess Anne. For the last 20 years it has been spun that Charles and Camilla have had a 40 year love affair well which is it? As for Diana and married men well that is just gossip and speculation Will Carling denied he had an affair with Diana even after her death in his biography and Oliver Hoare has never commented nor has his wife. If Diana was proven to have indeed been involved in affairs with them I wouldn't exactly praise her nor make excuses for that. Diana's known lovers were all single and unattached confirmation of Charles and Camilla came to light in Camillagate while Squiggygate involved a young man who was unattached.
Junor always blamed Mountbatten as did Ingrid Seward. I think that is a cop out. Charles and Camilla were responsible for their own actions and not marionettes with their strings pulled by Mountbatten
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 24, 2017, 01:48:42 PM
Could have, should have, might have....all these are just fantasies. Strangers acting as investigators, judges, juries and executioners of a marriage is one of the reason why that relationship failed permanently.
In any case it was not a happy marriage and one that should never happened. The best thing was to end it as quickly as possible. They delayed far too long. The ideal time was to end it when it "irretrievably broke down" circa 1984-1986. Better still, just calling off the wedding. Beyond that they were both making one another miserable and feeding this frenzy of obsessive interest in their relationship.
Charles was sensible enough to divorce his first wife and finally propose to the woman he loved and married her. That is what he should have done when he first saw Camilla instead of dithering. For a start, it would have saved us a whole load of sentimental nonsense in between.
This soap opera is getting quite old. Someone needs to put an end to it.
Diana wanted to call of the wedding she was talked out of that one by her sisters and from what I have read it was the Queen who asked her sisters to calm her down. As for the marriage ending in the mid eighties that would have been a solution however, at the time it wasn't an option as they were not allowed to divorce. Charles sensibly ended the marriage? It was the Queen who ordered the divorce. It says a lot about Charles maturity if he was bullied into the marriage by his Daddy and ordered to divorce by his Mummy now doesn't it.
@Trudie. I agree Charles should have been firmer and not allowed himself to be bullied into proposing to someone he did not love. It is also quite outrageous for those Spencer girls to have advised Diana to marry because her name was on tea towels. What a silly reason to get married to someone who has made it very clear to you (through actions, if not words) that he does not love you?
I have always thought the queen was a terrible parent. Knowing about Camilla and Diana's doubts, it would have been the height of stupidity to insist that Diana had to get married. Well, the queen certainly paid the price for that decision and interference. Diana did give them all a very long headache and I am sure if she could turn back time, the queen would have stopped that relationship at the first meeting stage. Of all her daughters-in-law, none has done as much to destroy the monarchy as Diana did.
As for
@sandy. Yes we have suffered lots of sentimental nonsense because of the marriage between C&D. No relationship in royal history has attracted this amount of external nit-picking and tabloid media interest. Had Charles married Camilla when he first had a chance, the annus horribilis would never have happened (at least on the Wales side). In hindsight Camilla is far better suited to being married to Charles than Diana ever was.
Charles allegedly made Diana's life a misery and she too returned the favor by trying her very best to destroy him, his family and the institution of monarchy. That is why it was a very bad decision to get married at all. In any case if Charles is such a bad person as Diana fans keep telling us; then William and Harry would have been saved the trouble of being born to such a horrendous person, isn't it?
@royalanthropologist I never said Charles was a very bad person. Charles does have his good points he is very caring and loyal on behalf of the people of the U.K. The biggest problem with Charles is his sense of entitlement it has never occurred to him that despite being the POW he is just another human being with the same flaws as everyone else. Charles has always been yessed to death and as a result no one is his equal not even a wife. Diana was perhaps the first person to tell him no and his bewilderment that she wouldn't yes him probably didn't help no more than Diana being emotionally needy. What Diana needed was a partner who loved her and would reassure her that yes she was valued Charles couldn't give her that. Charles and the Monarchy did make her life a misery but to say Diana tried to destroy the monarchy is stupid twenty years on it is still standing and standing as it did in 1936 when a King abdicated for the woman he loved.
I understand
@Trudie. My point is that if people are constantly saying how bad and beastly Charles is, then perhaps it would have been in Diana's interests not to have married him at all. Even after being married, it would have been in her interests to divorce him at the earliest opportunity.
I was responding to someone who said that William and Harry were not sentimental nonsense. Over the past few days I have read from some Diana fans how Charles was a bad father and bad husband. How cruel he was to Diana and how he is a terrible person. My own take then is that it would have been better if he had never married Diana at all if he is so bad. He could have married someone who is as "bad" as him (i.e. Camilla).
The very fans then counter by saying that that is not good because William and Harry resulted from the relationship. In the end one has to take life as it is, the good and bad. If you are constantly whining about your fate, there is an alternative which is not being born at all.
Charles is no saint. But nobody called him "beastly." Charles had the upper hand, he was the one who proposed, he knew the score. He should be blamed instead of the starry eyed young woman who accepted he proposal. She could not propose to him. She could not divorce him right away, she was pregnant within about two months so should she have stormed off carrying the heir? No way! And divorce was discouraged back then.
My point is clear: if Charles and Diana had not married--the boys would not have even existed. So I think in that way they are glad the parents married.
He would not have married Camilla to have heirs with. I think he made that clear. If Diana had said no, he would have moved on and not to Camilla. Charles wanted heirs.
Of course he wanted heirs. it was his duty to have them. And he coudld not have married Camilla in the 70s.. so he had to marry someone else. if Diana had not married him he would have found another young woman. And that would mean that there would be no Harry or William. but that's life. If one path is taken, consequences happen. WIll and H wouldn't be born..but - other sons or daughters would be.
He could have taken the route of his great Uncle Edward VIII and not married the suitable girl. Maybe he would have been happier that way. He wanted children but he would have had difficulty loving their mother. In his case, he should have had a contract signed with the wife and mother of his children so she would know the exact terms he wanted in the marriage.
oh yes, he should certainly have followed his uncle Edward.
My take on things regarding Charles and marriage at the time Royals were now marrying for love not dynastic opportunities. The Victorian era and Edwardian eras were over. George V allowed his children in the case of George VI to marry for love as did their daughter Elizabeth II. Charles was too much in the thrall of Mountbatten with his own agenda and wayward Victorian ideas. Why The Queen and Phillip allowed Mountbatten such prominence in Charles life is a mystery when one considers how much the Queen Mother disliked him.
Marrying for love
@royalanthropologist is not a fairytale it is however the basic foundation to enable a successful marriage.
I beg to disagree with that notion
@Trudie . Yes, being madly in love is ideal but this was not some romantic storybook tale. Diana was being invited into a dynasty to become its matriarch. The idea that she thought that Charles would be the doting devoted lover shows that Diana did not really understand what she was facing. Being a queen of England is a lot more than having a romantic relationship with your husband. The royal family is like a firm. You put up with lots of personal trials for the greater good. I can guarantee you that Charles and Camilla have disagreements. They may even have bad rows but Camilla knows that there is a lot more to this than her being a contented wife.
Besides even those who start off with lots of love can end up getting divorced. The sentimentality is the high expectation of this particular marriage. So many external people were pinning their hopes on it working. The royal family was very, very foolish in not vetting Diana carefully. Just a little glance at the domestic life of the Spencers would have informed them that Diana was never going to fit into the Windsor style. To her credit, Diana's grandma warned her but she did not listen. You have to be very strong and very disciplined to survive that environment. Emotional incontinence is frowned upon and under no circumstances must you ever challenge or upstage your royal consort. Once you deviate from that, you are out and the out can be very unfriendly for an ex royal as Sarah Ferguson and Diana learnt.
If you are looking for comfort then I am afraid the House of Windsor is not the place to get it. Diana could not hack it because she wanted the man and the position but the man was forever taken by someone else. A more pragmatic person might have considered the position and not caused a fuss but Diana wanted to let it all out. To cry, complain, stump her feet...it was a cathartic experience but it cost her very dearly. Even the happiness she so wanted never happened. When they spat her out, Diana realized only too late that she was better off within the fold but she could not reverse the consequences of her responses to Charles' infidelity.
Double post auto-merged: June 25, 2017, 05:15:52 PM
There is an anecdote (don't know whether it is true or not but I read it somewhere) that when the queen presented Diana with the loversknot tiara before her wedding, she went out and started shouting "I've got Brenda's rocks" etc. If that anecdote is true then the seeds of failure in that union were sown at that very point. By giving her that historical tiara, Diana was being welcomed into the fold as a future queen and queen mother. She would follow in the footsteps of the QM, Alexandra and Mary of Teck. Her reaction (if true) showed that this was a very immature 19-year old and Charles had no business proposing to her, let alone marrying her. She was just not cut out for the role. Diana would have been perfect as a celebrity campaigner or charitable worker but she was certainly never going to have a 40th wedding anniversary as a wife to the prince of wales. It was just not her style.
^ I have never heard of the Queen being addressed as 'Brenda' by Diana, in or out of her hearing, and I seriously doubt that the anecdote you quote is true. Diana was for several years quite tentative and rather nervous around the Queen, and she wore the Spencer tiara to her wedding anyway. The Queen wouldn't be presenting her with any tiaras until an occasion came up in which she was to wear one, and certainly not before she became Princess of Wales.
Quote from: amabel on June 25, 2017, 02:42:22 PM
oh yes, he should certainly have followed his uncle Edward.
Did you read my post. I said COULD not should.
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 12:13:40 AM
Quote from: Trudie on June 25, 2017, 04:48:45 PM
My take on things regarding Charles and marriage at the time Royals were now marrying for love not dynastic opportunities. The Victorian era and Edwardian eras were over. George V allowed his children in the case of George VI to marry for love as did their daughter Elizabeth II. Charles was too much in the thrall of Mountbatten with his own agenda and wayward Victorian ideas. Why The Queen and Phillip allowed Mountbatten such prominence in Charles life is a mystery when one considers how much the Queen Mother disliked him.
Marrying for love@royalanthropologist is not a fairytale it is however the basic foundation to enable a successful marriage.
Mountbatten was self serving. But I still blame Charles for his own choices. The Queen Mother and Mountbatten were both bad influences IMO though in different ways of course.
I think Mountbatten was an enabler for CHarles' own bad behavior.
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 12:18:07 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 25, 2017, 05:07:59 PM
I beg to disagree with that notion @Trudie . Yes, being madly in love is ideal but this was not some romantic storybook tale. Diana was being invited into a dynasty to become its matriarch. The idea that she thought that Charles would be the doting devoted lover shows that Diana did not really understand what she was facing. Being a queen of England is a lot more than having a romantic relationship with your husband. The royal family is like a firm. You put up with lots of personal trials for the greater good. I can guarantee you that Charles and Camilla have disagreements. They may even have bad rows but Camilla knows that there is a lot more to this than her being a contented wife.
Besides even those who start off with lots of love can end up getting divorced. The sentimentality is the high expectation of this particular marriage. So many external people were pinning their hopes on it working. The royal family was very, very foolish in not vetting Diana carefully. Just a little glance at the domestic life of the Spencers would have informed them that Diana was never going to fit into the Windsor style. To her credit, Diana's grandma warned her but she did not listen. You have to be very strong and very disciplined to survive that environment. Emotional incontinence is frowned upon and under no circumstances must you ever challenge or upstage your royal consort. Once you deviate from that, you are out and the out can be very unfriendly for an ex royal as Sarah Ferguson and Diana learnt.
If you are looking for comfort then I am afraid the House of Windsor is not the place to get it. Diana could not hack it because she wanted the man and the position but the man was forever taken by someone else. A more pragmatic person might have considered the position and not caused a fuss but Diana wanted to let it all out. To cry, complain, stump her feet...it was a cathartic experience but it cost her very dearly. Even the happiness she so wanted never happened. When they spat her out, Diana realized only too late that she was better off within the fold but she could not reverse the consequences of her responses to Charles' infidelity.
Double post auto-merged: June 25, 2017, 05:15:52 PM
There is an anecdote (don't know whether it is true or not but I read it somewhere) that when the queen presented Diana with the loversknot tiara before her wedding, she went out and started shouting "I've got Brenda's rocks" etc. If that anecdote is true then the seeds of failure in that union were sown at that very point. By giving her that historical tiara, Diana was being welcomed into the fold as a future queen and queen mother. She would follow in the footsteps of the QM, Alexandra and Mary of Teck. Her reaction (if true) showed that this was a very immature 19-year old and Charles had no business proposing to her, let alone marrying her. She was just not cut out for the role. Diana would have been perfect as a celebrity campaigner or charitable worker but she was certainly never going to have a 40th wedding anniversary as a wife to the prince of wales. It was just not her style.
Mary of Teck fell in love with George and vice versa. They were a love match and he never strayed. Mary would have given Camilla the same treatment as she gave Wallis Simpson.
The "I've Got Brenda's Rocks" is hearsay.
I would say Charles needed to grow up. From the account of Junor he seemed to be a spoiled baby.
If Charles were "taken" by someone else (a married woman who was already "taken" no less!) he had no business marrying Diana unless he wanted to have sister wives or have a harem.
There were plenty of royal couples that had "romantic" relationships: Nicholas and Alexandra, Victoria and Albert, Vicky and Emperor Frederick, Mary and George V, Philip and Elizabeth, George and Elizabeth, Sophie and Edward, and so on. Diana had every right to expect the same.
well I know its a waste of time to argue but Princess May of Teck didn't fall in love with George. She and he married because of the situation of her being engaged ot Eddy, and losing him, and George then becoming heir and needing to find a wife. They made a sensible marriage and grew into love.. but it was hardly Romeo and Juliet.
The same thing might have happened to Charles and Diana, but unfortunately they were not that compatible.. Diana knew little of royal life, she knew little of Charles and while she loved him in a way, it was superficial. He was fond of her, and hoped clearly that he would grow into love with her.. and that they had enough in common to make a start. There's a lot more to marriage than "falling in love". but they hadn't enough in common.. he had already been in a relationship with Camilla that he found satisfiying.. and I think he was bewildered by Diana's abrupt volte face when they were married. She had seemed jolly and pleasant and simple.. now she was angry and upset all the time. he tried to calm her down, and to introduce her to life in the RF. She was volatile, hated the RF life when suddenly plunged inot it.. and was unwell. and it all went south from there. He tried to take her away on sunny holidays, and do less shooting etc.. but she wasn't really happy except when they got away from Britain and were able ot be together with Will.
She couldn't help being ill, and there was not much psychiatric help at the time for people with eating disorders.
It was a tragedy and niehter of htem were to blame. Charles did his best, but he could not make himself fall in love.. they might have grown into it, had they shared enough interests and not upset each other...
I totally agree with
@amabel. People tend to imagine that because other royal consorts do not blurt out their heartache and problems to the press, their lives are fairy tale romances. Until Diana, members of the royal family were generally discreet. This was a first time that a future matriarch of the dynasty was out there washing all the dirty family linen to people who never had the best interests of the institution at heart. The queen had to do something. It could not go on like that with Diana briefing the press and trying to denigrate other royal family members' work or upstage them. She just had to go, no matter how sympathetic members of the family might have been to her plight. Ironically, paradoxically and even puzzlingly; Diana who had complained so much about this "f...in family" did not want to leave. She did not want to be divorced. Very strange behavior.
^ Might I remind you though that Charles added his portion of fuel to the fire by doing the June 1994 TV interview with Jonathon Dimbleby. He didn't have to do that and he didn't have to sit there and 'out' Camilla.
That also had unintended consequences, if we are talking regret following precipitate actions. Camilla's father confronted him, causing, according to reports I've read, Charles to burst into tears. After Andrew PB was called 'Mr Simpson' by other males at Ascot he was no doubt extremely annoyed and embarrassed, however much he'd condoned the affair. Charles's revelation ultimately set the ball rolling on the PB divorce, and as I wrote in another post Charles blamed others for 'making' him do the interview, including attacking his completely innocent Private Secretary Edward Adeane about it in front of others, when it had been entirely his own decision to partake in that interview and answer questions about his estrangement from his wife and his love life.
This occurred long before Diana talked in the Panorama interview in November 1995. So don't let's forget that Charles too is capable of rashness and running off at the mouth when he doesnt have to.
i dont see why you think it strange. Of course she did not want to lose her position. why would anyone? She was a good Princess of wales, I think that if she had not been so unhappy she would have been a good queen. She felt that her marriage failure wasn't her fault, and that she was now in danger of being deprived of her status because she hadn't been able to make her marriage work -
I think at times she wanted a divorce to get out of the RF and be free and be able to find a partner she could be with openly, but at times she flet that she would be happier iwht the half way house of a separation, and that way she'd still be part of the RF and be able to do her job as Princess which gave her satisfaction. But the problem was that she and Charles were engaging In other relationships, and the C of E had said that it did'nt mind them being crowned if separated, provided they were NOT invovled in affairs and were prioritising hteir children
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 07:37:31 AM
Quote from: Curryong on June 26, 2017, 07:03:35 AM
^
This occurred long before Diana talked in the Panorama interview in November 1995. So don't let's forget that Charles too is capable of rashness and running off at the mouth when he doesnt have to.
I think that it is true certainly that charles was very foolish to do the Dimbleby interview involving questions about his private life. He could have said nothing, said that he would not discuss his marriage or his personal relationships and it was wrong of him to wimp out then and blame his secretary for pushing him to do the interview.
But to be fair, Diana was the one who outed his affair with Camilla in the Mortotn book.. It wasn't said explicitly but everyone knew what was meant.. and Dimbley was a riposte to her doing the Book.
I think that Charles did by then want to marry Camilla, and felt that if the affair was now out in public, and he ad Diana were on the way towards a divorce, APB wanted a divorce anyway to Marry Rosemary Pitman. He may have felt that if the affair was pretty well known anyway due tot eh Morton book and the taping of his Camillagate conversation, he might as well admit it and hoep that the public would accept that he wanted to marry her. OK when it didn't go well, initially, he was, as I've said very wrong not to accept blame and to admit to himself that he had pushed the story out there too soon..an d it was his own decision..
Well if she did not want to lose her position then Morton and Panorama were very inexplicable ways of going about it. They effectively signed her end in that marriage. I would not have expected Charles or the royal family to tolerate anything other than a final divorce after those forays. Diana was no longer a loyal member of the family but a fifth columnist. She was a present and imminent danger to the institution. The thing that puzzles me is how she complained about her lot but then did not want a way out when an opportunity presented itself. I would have thought that she would have jumped at the opportunity to divorce and rid herself of the man and family she hated so much???
Quote from: amabel on June 26, 2017, 07:29:12 AM
i dont see why you think it strange. Of course she did not want to lose her position. why would anyone? She was a good Princess of wales, I think that if she had not been so unhappy she would have been a good queen. She felt that her marriage failure wasn't her fault, and that she was now in danger of being deprived of her status because she hadn't been able to make her marriage work -
I think at times she wanted a divorce to get out of the RF and be free and be able to find a partner she could be with openly, but at times she flet that she would be happier iwht the half way house of a separation, and that way she'd still be part of the RF and be able to do her job as Princess which gave her satisfaction. But the problem was that she and Charles were engaging In other relationships, and the C of E had said that it did'nt mind them being crowned if separated, provided they were NOT invovled in affairs and were prioritising hteir children
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 07:37:31 AM
Quote from: Curryong on June 26, 2017, 07:03:35 AM
^
This occurred long before Diana talked in the Panorama interview in November 1995. So don't let's forget that Charles too is capable of rashness and running off at the mouth when he doesnt have to.
I think that it is true certainly that charles was very foolish to do the Dimbleby interview involving questions about his private life. He could have said nothing, said that he would not discuss his marriage or his personal relationships and it was wrong of him to wimp out then and blame his secretary for pushing him to do the interview.
But to be fair, Diana was the one who outed his affair with Camilla in the Mortotn book.. It wasn't said explicitly but everyone knew what was meant.. and Dimbley was a riposte to her doing the Book.
I think that Charles did by then want to marry Camilla, and felt that if the affair was now out in public, and he ad Diana were on the way towards a divorce, APB wanted a divorce anyway to Marry Rosemary Pitman. He may have felt that if the affair was pretty well known anyway due tot eh Morton book and the taping of his Camillagate conversation, he might as well admit it and hoep that the public would accept that he wanted to marry her. OK when it didn't go well, initially, he was, as I've said very wrong not to accept blame and to admit to himself that he had pushed the story out there too soon..an d it was his own decision..
Charles was making it more and more clear he had contempt for her. So why would she want to live a lifetime with the man who obviously resented her.
No, Charles outed the affair. Charles' friends said Diana was wrong and he and Camilla were mere friends. The royals even gave credence to this welcoming Camilla and ANdrew into the royal enclosure. Morton never called her the mistress or lover of Charles.
Charles blabbed that she was his mistress. So if Diana was the one who outed them, then probably the divorce would have happened in 1992. It did not. THe immediate effect of Charles confessions was the PBs divorcing. No, Charles outed Camilla. Big time.
As there have been accusations on another thread about Diana fans being selective the same can be said for Charles and Camilla fans. Who have a very selective memory as to the 1994 Dimbleby interview that occurred over a year before Panorama.
@royalanthropologist yes Diana did say the day of her divorce it was the saddest thing and it was Diana from childhood said she never wanted to be divorced yet it happened. It does make sense she was of two emotions one happy to be free of the restraints of her loveless marriage yet sad that it had to happen.
Diana, PC BOTH talking to these reporters did not END the marriage.
The marriage was over in the late 1980's, right after she , the broadmare, birthed the spare foul.
The final part was not her talking to Bashir or him to Dimbey. Long before that , it was over.
They could only fool the media for so long. TPTB could only issue generic statements for so long.
1990's, PD immense popularity, interests, iconic figure and PC , his rank and title and to better long lenses cameras to bold paps and so many news and gossip/entertainment outlets to ahhhhh, that new thing called the INTERNET was coming, there was no way for PC and PD to stay legally married with all press and media knowing they were in separate households... separate offices, separate and never living together...only together for photo opts, things with the kids and even keeping it together for BRF duties became more a chore, a forced chore. PD sitting at TajMahal. PD glanced back instead of looking at PC in the car. That famous photo.
PD could have stayed quiet and holded up in KP, still, it was over. No media was fooled or could have been fooled.
I posted up before People magazine cover stories from the late 1980's. IT WAS OVER!!
I know some of us do not like FACTS, but check it for yourself. I might pull up those covers.
I wonder whether Diana fans actually realize that she came to be appalled at the suggestion that she was a "brood mare"? I actually wonder what she would think about her youngest son being called a "spare foul"? These cliches represent cognitive laziness. Instead of analyzing the issues people go back to the tired cliches e.g. eat his cake and have it, moral campus (said by that dreadful Blair), brood mare etc. They are just cliches without particular meaning or relevance to the issues at hand.
When Diana finally realized how insulting that was to her and her children, she tried to make a hasty retreat on that one by saying that they did love one another in the beginning. Like I said before, the people that did most damage to Diana and prevented her from finding true happiness were some of her most ardent and fanatical supporters.
eBay - Page Not Found (http://i.ebayimg.com/images/a/)(KGrHqNHJEgFButCzFv3BQc48JVNlw~~/s-l300.jpg
That was just one from 1988. I do not care nor have the time to search up People magazines. I cannot no longer from the site of PM. Anyone here can if he/she wants to. I posted these way back, a few years ago. I do not have to prove the FACTS FACTS , not my opinion, but FACTS.
Late 1980's, several cover stories were out there and including outing Camilal LONG BEFORFE PD said Camilla or Her True Story or Dimbley interview or Bashir interview or Panorama interview or she even knew Dodi or Hasnat or .....
Double post auto-merged: June 27, 2017, 07:46:30 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 27, 2017, 07:25:37 PM
I wonder whether Diana fans actually realize that she came to be appalled at the suggestion that she was a "brood mare"? I actually wonder what she would think about her youngest son being called a "spare foul"? These cliches represent cognitive laziness. Instead of analyzing the issues people go back to the tired cliches e.g. eat his cake and have it, moral campus (said by that dreadful Blair), brood mare etc. They are just cliches without particular meaning or relevance to the issues at hand.
When Diana finally realized how insulting that was to her and her children, she tried to make a hasty retreat on that one by saying that they did love one another in the beginning. Like I said before, the people that did most damage to Diana and prevented her from finding true happiness were some of her most ardent and fanatical supporters.
Good grief, get a grip on reality!!!!!! :lol:
If she were alive, and PH and PW, TRUST me, do not read gossip stuff on line like ohhhhhh, RIForum. I hardly think, lil ole me or you could have influenced, talked to Didi and Charlie and Milla and Andy and gave them advice. LOL!!!! :teehee:
I do not them. They are not my family or friends.
YES, I and others here have used the terms, broadmare.
Humor!!!
Ok, I will say she was simply a breeder for HRH, PC to achieve one of his most important goals and that was having purebred heirs. Is that better royalanthro?
Everyone, please help me think of better ways to refer to PD as PC's ummm....... LOL!!!!
:partaay:
Books, yes, royal watchers reporters, thing like that get back to them ...indirectly, but YES, they have a thick skin, but then again, it is hurtful , no doubt, to a point. PK, Sophie, Sarah, HRH, QEII, all of them have to have thick skin and tune out some media things to a point ...as much as possible...are insulated by TPTB, friends, etc.
Being talked about , not always so nicely, comes with the territory of being a public figure. Again, there is a dumb , meaningless , silly, gossip filled message board , here , the royal could care less about, do not read, do not know about, etc. Then there are ohhh....Junor's books.
Her most ardent supporters and fans did not stop her life or make her life. Really, as if fans and writers like Morton even, made a difference in her personal life.
Buh-bye. I am meeting Carole, Kate and the kids at The Cheesecake Factory for lunch. >( :thumbsup:
https://www.google.com/search?q=junor+and+parker+bowles&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqnKr15t7UAhWEaT4KHcG8BR4Q_AUIBygC&biw=1280&bih=864#imgdii=dWu7r58uh5HXeM:&imgrc=dpqgz58j2FyQKM:
Camilla and Junor are as thick as thieves
Double post auto-merged: June 27, 2017, 07:58:28 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 27, 2017, 07:25:37 PM
I wonder whether Diana fans actually realize that she came to be appalled at the suggestion that she was a "brood mare"? I actually wonder what she would think about her youngest son being called a "spare foul"? These cliches represent cognitive laziness. Instead of analyzing the issues people go back to the tired cliches e.g. eat his cake and have it, moral campus (said by that dreadful Blair), brood mare etc. They are just cliches without particular meaning or relevance to the issues at hand.
When Diana finally realized how insulting that was to her and her children, she tried to make a hasty retreat on that one by saying that they did love one another in the beginning. Like I said before, the people that did most damage to Diana and prevented her from finding true happiness were some of her most ardent and fanatical supporters.
Diana always said she loved he husband. He was the one who admitted to his biographer he married Diana preferring the other woman. So he beat the hasty retreat.
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/504a206969bedd6346000025-1200/1987-the-press-picks-up-on-trouble-in-princess-dianas-faux-fairytale-marriage-to-prince-charles.jpg
1987 people magazine-USA
Double post auto-merged: June 27, 2017, 08:19:50 PM
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/eb/00/be/eb00bea78f6995994f12703547fb9f9d.jpg
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 27, 2017, 07:25:37 PM
Iwas to her and her children, she tried to make a hasty retreat on that one by saying that they did love one another in the beginning. Like I said before, the people that did most damage to Diana and prevented her from finding true happiness were some of her most ardent and fanatical supporters.
I don't quite see how her supporters could have prevented her from finding happiness. and I think it is possible that they did love each other at the beginning.. but Charles was always less in love than her and she was in love with a fantasy Charles.. but thy had warmer feelings for each other and had they had a bit more in common, been less stressed by a difficult public lifestyle, they might have made the marriage work. but they didnt'. Its no use blaming them for what they could not help.
Charles never loved Diana. Diana of course was awed by this older man courting her. She thought he loved her and she was "the one." How is that a fantasy. She did not fantasize about this, it actually happened. The man proposed to her. Charles should have walked away when Camilla married another man. Grown ups do that. They could have made the work if Charles manned up and realized he could not have it all. Charles was in love with HIS concept of marriage and never even thought his "arrangement" would upset his first wife. It was all about him.
Im thinking what
@royalanthropologist meant, and please let us know if im on the right track, is that the fans relentless interest in her drove the publicity machine to greater and greater heights, especially post morton, to where she had so much scrutiny over her life and suitors that only very a few rich men with the resources to provide security, privacy, etc. would be able to give her any kind of "normal" or "happy" life. But the personality traits that drove them to amass such a fortune, would likely make them not a very caring, sensitive, tactile person. A diamond encrusted rock and a hard place.
Eloquent and to the point. That is what I am saying or trying to say all along. Diana was a lot more than her failed marriage. She was a human being with so many complex facets. Reading some of the commentary about her, you would imagine that she spend all her life from 19 to 36 crying her heart out about Charles' abandonment.
There were happy moments in her life. I rather suspect that some of those happy moments were with Charles and because of Charles. She had a sense of humor. She had friends (even within the royal family) and interests. The relentless need to make her a martyr ended up crucifying her and ruining all her romantic relationships. Someone she genuinely liked like Khan was frightened away by the media interest. It was just overwhelming. I remember when she was in the Caribbean and people were literally pushing cameras in her face. She was nearly in tears because it was becoming physical. Who can live like that?
Now that she is dead, the desire to take revenge is denying Diana her rightful place as a matriarch of the royal family. A woman who should be at Frogmore is consigned to a pay-per-view island. The HRH title that was offered back as a conciliatory gesture was thrown away by Charles Spencer. The bitter speech at the funeral meant that instead of the Spencers and Windsors working together to give those children space to recover; the monarchy closed ranks and cut Charles Spencer off completely. A rededication service that ought to have been a state occasion has been turned into a private affair with no cameras. When will this bitterness end?
Instead of all the royal family (including Camilla) celebrating Diana, she is now an uncomfortable presence that they must avoid at all costs. Bitterness and the desire for revenge is a fruitless and thankless endeavor.
it was NOT offered back Royal. why do you say these things? She shoud not be at Frogmore but if she sadly died, the right place for her is on a private island where her family and close friends can see her grave, not the public. why would you want to "see her grave"?
Its not a "pay per view" island.. it is part of Di's family estate, and perhaps the only place where her remains can lie in peace without trippers and press around.
as for the Spencers, yes the RF were not pleased with Charles S but I don't know of any sign that Diana's sisters who did provide the boys with a bit of motherly care, were kept away from them...
And Hasnat Khan wasn't just frightened off by the meida attention.. there were alos, as I'm sure you must know other reasons why he was reluctant to marry Diana.
@amabel. Here is an article highlighting the issues about HRH.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/hrh.htm
Also Charles Spencer had a prime opportunity to lay the foundation for the true reconciliation of two families that had lost someone so young and so important. Instead he went into a tantrum and spoilt it all. The royals were absolutely furious but exercised incredible discipline by not showing any emotions. The cheerleaders for such undignified displays like Holden felt he gave them a bloody nose. Yes he did...but at what cost. Later on, he was revealed to be a horrendous misogynist who made Prince Charles look like an absolute saint in his treatment of his wives and lovers.
Diana's sisters on the other hand showed how it should be done. There is no indication that anyone in the royal family has a single issue with them. They behaved like dignified and caring aunts, not some man child having a tantrum to show that it was him and only him who really cared about Diana.
well that link you just posted leads to "nothing"..and As I recall Curryong posted a link the other day stating that the RF had made ti clear that the HRH restoration offer had NOT been made...
I dot believe the offer was made, I think it might have been considered but I doubt if the queen would have gone ahead and made such an offer..
Here is another. A bit tabloidy but it speaks about the same thing:
BRO NIXES RESTORED TITLE WINDSORS OFFERED RETURN OF DI'S RANK - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/bro-nixes-restored-title-windsors-offered-return-di-rank-article-1.769400)
CNN - Royal family denies row over Diana's funeral - September 8, 1997 (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/08/diana.argument/)
Thanks
@royalanthropologist and for sure she did have many happy moments in her life, imagine the level of experiences and impact she had on the world because of being a member of the Royal Family, far beyond what she would have had as a wife to a city investment banker or some other Etonian or some such husband.
I agree the media interest ruined a lot of her relationships, and yes, as amabel says there were other reasons Khan backed away from her, stupid, foolish, prideful reasons imo. but im hardly an objective observer on that score.
I also remember that occurrence in the Caribbean, that plaintive "Pleeease" she cries out, breaks my heart whenever I hear it. Her lack of protection was an example of her being willful and rash vs being pragmatic. If the royals wanted to spy on her they bloody well could no matter what, she could have hired private security at Charles expense and would have added greatly to the quality of her life in her final 5 years, and also wouldnt have left her so vulnerable to ppl like the El Fayeds that she had to almost trade access to her and the resultant publicity in exchange for protection.
The funeral week made sure the Spencers and Windsors would be separated for a long time, in the 21st century idk how much matters of dynastic alliances will matter, but the House of Spencer will be on the wane for a few generations. I think a lot of the principal parties will have to die off before true reconciliation is possible.
As for her being interred in Frogmore, I can see where amabel might want to stand on royal tradition, esp where it comes to Diana, but like it or not, she was a one off special case. Had she died 5 or 10 years later, people probably wouldnt have mentioned it. Although given her family tradition and recent timing of the divorce when she passed, one can see why the Spencers wanted her buried with them.
While its technically true that you cant pay to access the oval, I think youre missing the point of what royalanthropolgist was trying to say, in that she is buried in what was for a few years almost a theme park atmosphere at Althorp vs the decorum of a royal internment. Although given her popularity, something like that would have to have been done, somewhere.
As for people wanting to see her grave, why do ppl visit graceland, etc. like it or not she meant an awful lot to many people and I cant blame them for wanting to pay respects to her. She was a daily occurrence in many peoples lives, voluntary or not, and her sudden absence did shock a lot of people.
I think many, many people have completely misread Diana by trying to imprint themselves on her. There were subtleties even in her relationship with Charles that went beyond a cheating husband and an angry wife. When those horrendous Camillagate tapes came out, one of Diana's friends indicated that she was genuinely embarrassed for the duo. I know if I had been in those tapes, I would not have appeared in public for many years. It was easily the most excruciating thing in my memory. Had she been that "Single White Female" caricature that people want to paint her in, she would have used the opportunity to stick the boot in. Even in panorama, you can see the interviewer trying to push her that extra mile but she is reluctant to hit the hardest blows. This was not some sad, bitter, deranged woman. Just a person that was hurt, vented and then moved on with her life. Unfortunately at the time she seemed like moving on, death struck.
Charles had his share of anger. He did not understand why Diana complained about Camilla, after all he married Diana so what else did she want. He also was angry that Diana (a surprise to him) became very popular and endearing to the public. He was raised to be the center of attention so he just did not get it. Charles also should have had some reality checks in his upbringing. He was and is not the center of attention and he needed more empathy. If he truly had been empathetic he'd have seen how wrong it was for him to marry Diana when he did not love her. Diana never said she was embarrassed for C and C re: the tapes. She kept her mouth shut about it to the media. What she said in private is subject to speculation. She probably felt humiliated by it so why say anything? Diana never stopped being interested in charity work and causes no matter what happened in her private life.
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on June 27, 2017, 07:18:31 PM
Diana, PC BOTH talking to these reporters did not END the marriage.
The marriage was over in the late 1980's, right after she , the broadmare, birthed the spare foul.
The final part was not her talking to Bashir or him to Dimbey. Long before that , it was over.
They could only fool the media for so long. TPTB could only issue generic statements for so long.
1990's, PD immense popularity, interests, iconic figure and PC , his rank and title and to better long lenses cameras to bold paps and so many news and gossip/entertainment outlets to ahhhhh, that new thing called the INTERNET was coming, there was no way for PC and PD to stay legally married with all press and media knowing they were in separate households... separate offices, separate and never living together...only together for photo opts, things with the kids and even keeping it together for BRF duties became more a chore, a forced chore. PD sitting at TajMahal. PD glanced back instead of looking at PC in the car. That famous photo.
PD could have stayed quiet and holded up in KP, still, it was over. No media was fooled or could have been fooled.
I posted up before People magazine cover stories from the late 1980's. IT WAS OVER!!
I know some of us do not like FACTS, but check it for yourself. I might pull up those covers.
I agree. The marriage was over when CHarles got his heir and spare. Also not that he was never contacting Camilla since the marriage began with Diana.
Charles and DIana did keep up a facade of a marriage and still made joint appearances though Diana and Charles had more and more solo appearances and not as a couple
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 07:18:28 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 01, 2017, 06:46:25 PM
Here is another. A bit tabloidy but it speaks about the same thing:
BRO NIXES RESTORED TITLE WINDSORS OFFERED RETURN OF DI'S RANK - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/bro-nixes-restored-title-windsors-offered-return-di-rank-article-1.769400)
CNN - Royal family denies row over Diana's funeral - September 8, 1997 (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/08/diana.argument/)
Even though WIlliam and Harry were not "of age" they were not tots. I hope Uncle Charles talked to them at least about it. I doubt that he did.
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 07:21:01 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 01, 2017, 06:32:25 PM
@amabel. Here is an article highlighting the issues about HRH.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/hrh.htm
Also Charles Spencer had a prime opportunity to lay the foundation for the true reconciliation of two families that had lost someone so young and so important. Instead he went into a tantrum and spoilt it all. The royals were absolutely furious but exercised incredible discipline by not showing any emotions. The cheerleaders for such undignified displays like Holden felt he gave them a bloody nose. Yes he did...but at what cost. Later on, he was revealed to be a horrendous misogynist who made Prince Charles look like an absolute saint in his treatment of his wives and lovers.
Diana's sisters on the other hand showed how it should be done. There is no indication that anyone in the royal family has a single issue with them. They behaved like dignified and caring aunts, not some man child having a tantrum to show that it was him and only him who really cared about Diana.
Oh no. IMO Charles Spencer did not make Charles Windsor look like a saint. I think both were nasty in the way they treated their wives (Diana and Victoria and SPencer's second wife). Charles Windsor IMO cannot pass judgment on Charles Spencer.
Spencer was raw with emotion at that service and spoke out. He did appear with the royals at the Fountain opening a few years later and the Windsors and Spencers were civil to each other.
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 07:22:33 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 01, 2017, 06:13:38 PM
Eloquent and to the point. That is what I am saying or trying to say all along. Diana was a lot more than her failed marriage. She was a human being with so many complex facets. Reading some of the commentary about her, you would imagine that she spend all her life from 19 to 36 crying her heart out about Charles' abandonment.
There were happy moments in her life. I rather suspect that some of those happy moments were with Charles and because of Charles. She had a sense of humor. She had friends (even within the royal family) and interests. The relentless need to make her a martyr ended up crucifying her and ruining all her romantic relationships. Someone she genuinely liked like Khan was frightened away by the media interest. It was just overwhelming. I remember when she was in the Caribbean and people were literally pushing cameras in her face. She was nearly in tears because it was becoming physical. Who can live like that?
Now that she is dead, the desire to take revenge is denying Diana her rightful place as a matriarch of the royal family. A woman who should be at Frogmore is consigned to a pay-per-view island. The HRH title that was offered back as a conciliatory gesture was thrown away by Charles Spencer. The bitter speech at the funeral meant that instead of the Spencers and Windsors working together to give those children space to recover; the monarchy closed ranks and cut Charles Spencer off completely. A rededication service that ought to have been a state occasion has been turned into a private affair with no cameras. When will this bitterness end?
Instead of all the royal family (including Camilla) celebrating Diana, she is now an uncomfortable presence that they must avoid at all costs. Bitterness and the desire for revenge is a fruitless and thankless endeavor.
Why on earth would Camilla celebrate Diana? She did not celebrate her when she was alive. I think Camilla would be branded a hypocrite. I don't see Diana as an "uncomfortable presence."
QuoteThis comment has been removed by Moderator(SophieChloe) because it didn't abide by our community standards: User Conduct and Etiquette (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?action=about;sa=User%20Conduct%20and%20Etiquette) and Registration Agreement. (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?action=about) Replies may also be deleted.
.
[gmod]Edited as above
[/gmod]
Now back on subject:
Charles had anger issues and his upbringing did not make him really great husband material for Diana. He just did not know how to look beyond his own ego. I think in a lot of ways Charles is a very confused person.
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 08:03:58 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 01, 2017, 06:46:25 PM
Here is another. A bit tabloidy but it speaks about the same thing:
BRO NIXES RESTORED TITLE WINDSORS OFFERED RETURN OF DI'S RANK - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/bro-nixes-restored-title-windsors-offered-return-di-rank-article-1.769400)
CNN - Royal family denies row over Diana's funeral - September 8, 1997 (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/08/diana.argument/)
qwell I cant' remember where Curry posted the link to the alternative viewpoint but I would be more inclined to believe it than " a palace spokesman" saying that the queen offered it after the Charles Spencer eulogy. I'd have said that she would be in less of a mood to make any concession to Diana at that stage./
William said he would restore it when he is King (this reported by Diana and I believe it).
[gmod]Edited as above.[/gmod]
Tabloids are tabloids. Here and there. They wrote what they do. You see The Globe here in the USA. Totally fabricated, fictional stories without an ounce of truth. QEII wants W and K as K and Q. C has row with K. TOTALLY NOT TRUE.
Some other tabloids get parts of the story or may even have the truth. The Star. People magazine.
I think it is insulting to say the tabs have infected the minds of those who cant read and comprehend and research. That is taking a jab at people here.
How many times must we ALL say, pardon me for repeating myself, but I know I have said over and over DIANA WAS NOT A SAINT. NOT AN ANGEL.
FACTS FACTS, all is good if we can stick to the FACTS.
I don't get the "assumption" in the post quoted above that the information from posters comes from tabloids. That is not true. Tabloids can have amusing headlines but they are not to be taken seriously. If they are taken at face value then Kate would have had 20 pregnancies this year alone.
I have said my piece. The response (s) tell me the message was received and understood perfectly. Beyond that, I have no more to say on this.
Quote from: sandy on July 01, 2017, 09:02:20 PM
William said he would restore it when he is King (this reported by Diana and I believe it).
I would not take too seriously what he said at the age of 12 or so.
I
Quote from: amabel on July 03, 2017, 04:29:47 AM
Quote from: sandy on July 01, 2017, 09:02:20 PM
William said he would restore it when he is King (this reported by Diana and I believe it).
I would not take too seriously what he said at the age of 12 or so.
AGAIN, LOL, the ill feelings for this dead girl, ya'll, I do not understand.
Not taking a then 12 yr. old seriously...ok. Why? Why not? Why would he then or now not feel , think this for HIS MOTHER?
If he sad this or did not, I care not to it research it to find out.
I apologize, I am sorry amabel if this is not what you meant.
I believe, MY OPINION, YES, when King William is in 20-25 years or more, he will restore lots of things such as proper burial of his mother to a more historic place like WAbbey, or SPauls, Frogmore .
QEII will dead. King Charles will be dead. Spencer, current Earl , will be dead. Next Earlof,Spencer, will be youngish , 30ish. Maybe that age.
PW and PH , I believe, thread lightly when it comes to their mother to others in their family. TPTB, PC, CPB, QEII and PP and the princes do admire, get along well with and love HRH, E an P, but , etc. do not want to hear or see that stuff.
Double post auto-merged: July 03, 2017, 11:11:03 AM
I want to add, again, PD has not present or future. Time stopped. There s nor maturity on PD's part, time and forgiveness on QEII's part.
Sarah, well, she has not messed up in a few years now, yet she still continued well past 1990, :teehee:, QEII has allowed her Ascot appearance, Balmoral visit.
Quote from: amabel on July 03, 2017, 04:29:47 AM
Quote from: sandy on July 01, 2017, 09:02:20 PM
William said he would restore it when he is King (this reported by Diana and I believe it).
I would not take too seriously what he said at the age of 12 or so.
IF he were four it would not be taken seriously. 12 year olds are not clueless. I think he meant it.
Think about it, it wouldnt really cost anything or by the time William is king, ruffle too many feathers for him to give Diana back her HRH title. Even though he was a pre teen at the time he said it, im sure he wouldnt have the statue made and go to the effort to mention her, if it wasnt a possibility.
I think its just a case of people falling along "party" lines on this issue that its gotten the legs its had thus far.....
The title was never "taken away". That is one of the longstanding lies in this story. The palace issued a chilling statement categorically clarifying that the decision to give up the HRH title was Diana's and Diana's alone. Nobody inside or outside the palace forced her to give up the title. It is a lie to say so.
That was just Diana's spinning of her strategic mistake in releasing a preemptive press release about the divorce in an attempt to manipulate the proceedings. The queen had not yet considered such a step. Diana's preemptive release galvanized her into issuing an order in council giving effect to what Diana had already stated in her press release. Of course when Diana realized her mistake, she tried to backtrack and spun it back as if the palace had removed her title. She wanted to play the PR game with the queen and soon found out that that is not how her soon to be ex-mother-in-law operated. The queen may have many failings, but she is not a liar or fantasist.
Then you have this rather manipulative (in my view) stance of saying a teenager said that he would restore it. That is just a classic case of using the emotional attachment of children in your battle against a spouse...very wrong in my opinion. If Diana wanted the title, she should not have released that silly preemptive statement. All she had to do was to include it in her requests during the negotiations.
William at 12 might be a very different William in his 50s when he takes the throne. People will have to wait and see whether he restores the title. Although it might sound a bit weird to restore a title that was voluntarily given up some 30 odd years ago, all involving someone who has been dead for decades. We will wait and see.
No it was not Diana's decision. She went to the media and if she really did not want the title she would have personally visited the Queen in her office and tell her she did not want it. ANd papers would have been signed and so on. The Queen took Fergie's HRH away, her beloved son Andrew's wife. If Diana really "asked for it" then Fergie would have kept her title and Diana would have lost it. Both ladies lost the HRH. It is not a "lie". The Queen never said at any time that I took Diana's HRH away because she went to the media. No way would Diana have gotten that title no matter what she did. When a wife is divorced, the HRH is gone. If she were out to "punish" Diana she would have dispensed with POW title also and she would have been Lady Diana Spencer again. I don't think the Queen is a monster who would strike back at Diana. It was in the works for her NOT to have the HRH. Wallis Simpson who was entitled to the HRH did not get the title and she married a royal. So why would Diana get it?
Why is WIlliam 'manipulative" he loved his mother and it was a natural thing for him to say. DIana did not "coach" William to do it. DOn't you even think William cared enough about his mother without being "coached." YOu make Diana sound like a monster.
I don't think it would be weird if he restored the title. Charles and Camilla fans may not like it but too bad. William may be King sooner than when he is in his fifties. THere is no date/time stamp attached to any of the royals.
The Queen did not "lie" she never said anything about the divorce and the HRH. And she never said she "punished" Diana. Diana still got the settlement. IT would have been unheard of if she got the HRH in any case. Diana lost the HRH after she divorced Charles. So did FErgie.
Personally, I think the settlement very reasonable since Diana DID get to keep the PRincess of Wales title. And also, Charles was working on marrying Camilla in future, I doubt he wanted two HRH PRincess of Wales out and about. I think he had a lot to say about her not getting the HRH.
Double post auto-merged: July 03, 2017, 07:32:41 PM
This is the settlement. The whys, wherefores, of it are not mentioned. It does not say a thing about an "angry" Queen "getting even" with Diana.
Diana to Lose Title but Get Millions in Royal Divorce - latimes (http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-13/news/mn-23656_1_royal-title)
Double post auto-merged: July 03, 2017, 07:38:54 PM
The NY Times said it was CHARLES who did not want her to have the HRH
Charles and Diana Agree on Divorce Terms - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/13/world/charles-and-diana-agree-on-divorce-terms.html)
"William at 12 might be a very different William in his 50s when he takes the throne. People will have to wait and see whether he restores the title. Although it might sound a bit weird to restore a title that was voluntarily given up some 30 odd years ago, all involving someone who has been dead for decades. We will wait and see."
I really agree some parts of many of your posts, but there is always that one line, one thought or two that is a dig a long gone dead woman.
I am trying to be pleasant and diplomatic here on the board.
PD was "someone who will have been dead for decades..." PD WAS HIS AND PH's mother. She was not their mistress. She was not the long time and favorite royal nanny. She was not their wet nurse. She was not a friend of their fathers at one time. She did not work in the royal household.
YES, King Wiliam will be a different man when becomes King in 20-25 years as he is now different that the boy of 12 -15.
Seeing what a marriage is like, his , and his Mom and Dad's and the close family unit they created-Carole and Micheal Midds...reflection on his own mother, life, ...yes an a middle aged man.
If King William wants HIS MOTHER to be buried at SPauls, Frogmore, WAbbey, he will. If he wants her titled HRH, The Pof Wales, and other other titles or makes up for her , he will.
He will be able to do whatever he wants.
This is like the debate of opinions we all had about here PD would have sat if she were alive at PW's wedding. many said, their opinion, she would have sat out yonder in the audience by the Spencers.
I and theirs thought, you are joking right? PW would have had his mother sit next to his father as PD's parents had to . PD's signif other and CPB would have per protocol somewhere else, perhaps their spouses.
I did not know it was a debate! I thought it was common sense .
I just do not get why some of us are so obsessive with PD and the need to tear down a dead woman with no present and no future. Her story ended 20 years ago. No new chapters.
I am not fan of PC and CPB howeer, my opinion, when they become King Charles and Queen Camilla, HER CHILDREN and grandkids, children and grandchildren of THE QUEEN will be on BuckBalcony, walk to Sandringham, etc. I doubt , hmmmm, something tells me, QUEEN CAMILA is not going to see her kids and grandkids later in the day at Raymill House s she does now .
SHE WILL BE QUEEN and what she says , goes.
I do not like her, but I think she should and very will have her children and grandchildren up center . You have the Midds invited to Sandringham Christmas Walk. OMG!!! That is a bit much, but QEII wants that and she , being QUEEN, has it her way
She makes the rules.
When it is QUEEN CAMILLA's turn in 10-20 years , she will make the rules. When it is QUEEN KATES' turn n 20-25 years, she will make the rules.
Yes, we will wait and see.
.
This is an interesting quote from
@FanDianaFancy "the need to tear down a dead woman with no present and no future."
In my defense I will say this. Most of my posts are reacting to digs at the living (specifically C&C). It is Diana's fans who want her in the present and future, not me I can assure you.
And at times the "digs" are deserved and yes, even from "non Diana fans." And saying Will does not want to give her back the HRH because he loves his mother but because Diana "manipulated him" is unfair. That shows the mindset of "C and C" fans.
Right now C and C are holding all the cards. Charles as a future King can hire "scribes" to badmouth and trash his late ex wife. Junor is a friend of them and has visited them socially. I think there is still tremendous resentment on CHarles part of his late ex's popularity. He still can't stand it even to the point of Camilla giving the interview while his sons were talking about their mother.
1997 and a BBC report following the funeral, on Diana's HRH. It appears that although it was without precedent TPTB were prepared to move on the matter but the Spencers said 'Thanks, but too little, too late'. The Queen bowed to many different pressures that week. This could have been one of them, but in this case it didn't happen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/hrh.html
Time will tell as to whether or not William will come to the throne in 5 years or 25 years since Charles is not immortal. I do not want to speak on behalf of amabel but both of us lost our husbands young thinking we possibly had years together and yet we know life is never guaranteed even Diana who would have thought at 36 she would pass. William was not 5 when he offered to restore the HRH when he is King that said Diana asked if he minded she no longer had that title and he replied" Your still Mummy" and then he offered to restore it when he is king and at 13-14 It didn't come up until the divorce at the time he would have been that age was quite mature for his age so I wouldn't quite dismiss outright him not restoring it.
@royalanthropologist Don't be so quick in saying well she will have been dead for decades so what? Diana was and is Williams mother and let me tell you not even death breaks the bond of mother and child. IMO your replies all seem to imply that William may not restore as it will be a slight on Camilla as you are now saying you take exception at the digs at the living.
As the NY Times article said, I think Charles himself called many of the shots re: the divorce. If Camilla survives Charles, I doubt she will have much influence during WIlliam's reign. She will be much involved with her own children and grandchildren.
I like a good scrap as much as the next, but I gotta say it seems like a waste of good electrons. Its like a game of telephone. For the record my 2 cents are as I recall the giving up of the title was proposed as a condition of the lump sum, sort of something the RF wanted in exchange for the lump sum.
We have the times link with Charles being adamant on it being dropped, which as much as I like to poke at Charlie, one can understand a party to a divorce being prickly over certain things, its the royal equivalent of fighting over grandmas gravy boat.
We have the popular opinion of The Queen wanting it removed, maybe, maybe not, likely more the palace grey suits and or, QM maybe wanting it. Remember Richard Aylard did most of the negotiating on Charles side, he was a snake in the grass previously working for Diana, as private secretary in the early 80s. Then he flipped over to Charles and his brother fed Dimbleby that whole BPD drivel, and it was Aylard not Edward Adeane that Charles admonished at a dinner for the whole Camilla admission stunt. I could even imagine Robert Fellows wanting that dig at diana for the sticky wicket he put him in over the morton book (that ones pure speculation on my part though).
To me its as they say now, a nothingburger. True it was important to Diana, but end of the day it didnt affect how people saw her. It had more to do with how she saw herself in the royal pecking order, I thought the article mentioning that she was equivalent to Sarah Ferguson speaks a lot about why she probably wanted the title, doubley so given their state of "non speaks" at the time.
With William honoring his mother this year, hes shown he hasnt forgotten her, and unless theres some "deep state" objection to it, I cant see why he wouldnt restore it when king, to think its just a childish utterance is foolish imo. Yes when were 12-13 we say stupid things, but this isnt along those lines, it costs little political capital for him, plus he'd get big bonus points with the public, imagine the photo op for him on that one.
You guys are fighting over deck chairs on the titanic, just my opinion, though.
I got a better one for you all if you want to go a few rounds LOL......
Princess Diana was 'smitten' with another man claims Royal biographer Andrew Morton | Daily Star (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/623259/Diana-Princess-Death-Tapes-Secret-60-Minutes-Charles-Paris-Andrew-Morton-James-Colhurst)
I got to thinking about Andrew Morton dropping the dime on this after all this time, about her affection for David Waterhouse vs just being chums. It got me thinking...if that is so, does that lend more credence to Lady Colin Campbells claims in her book about Diana's love life?
[gmod]Removed.[/gmod]
They could have had a brief love affair but equally Waterhouse could have been just a very close friend and confidante.
What I find most intriguing is that Morton listened to the tapes and heard Diana talking about someone he had never heard of, Mrs PB. Given that it's the contention of some on the forum that Diana must have known all the details about the hold Camilla had at the time Charles started dating her (Diana) and therefore she must have chatted about it to flatmates etc, and gone into the romance with her eyes open I find that pretty remarkable, actually. Morton was a London-based journalist and pretty clued up on the royals and gossip swirling around them, he'd written about them for years, yet he'd never heard of Mrs PB!
However, a 19 year old part time cleaner and nursery assistant was supposed to be clued up on all the ramifications of the Charles/Camilla affair. Her mother lived in the wilds of Scotland, her grandmother (best friends with the QM) obviously didn't know either, or else she would discreetly have told her, but yes 19 year old Diana must have known what relatives and a mature ears to the ground journalist did not!
The Waterhouse story is an old one. 1987 was when Diana was involved with Hewitt.
Yes perhaps I was a touch insensitive
@Trudie since ultimately these are people who lost their parent. In any case it would be quite offensive if William refused to honor his mother for no other reason than the fact that it might make Camilla uncomfortable. As far as I am concerned, William and Harry have every right to celebrate and talk about their mother. Diana did not commit some unforgivable sin where she must not be spoken about. I would never and have never supported such a mindset. My ideal is that everybody moves on with their lives and celebrate the great things that Diana achieved in her relatively short life.
To be fair, most of the "Diana the victim" stuff is not brought on by fans of C&C. It is precisely a section of people that claim to know and love Diana more than everybody else who insist on always painting her as nothing more than a victim of her former husband and his new wife. I am on record as categorically stating that Diana was a lot more than an embittered abandoned wife. It is just that some people pick what they want to pick and run away with it. Yesterday, I had a ridiculous situation where someone was criticizing me for praising Diana for her charity work!!! That is when I get dismissive and a tad rude. Some people are just so spoiling for a fight that they do not even read a message before responding.
@royalanthropologist To be fair I have to agree that most of the "Diana is victim" stuff is not brought on by fans of C&C because to those fans the real victims are C&C and the horrendous Diana put a very bad strain on their relationship for all those years because she didn't want to share her toy. Then to add insult Diana objected publicly telling her story and to make sure Camilla was even more hated by the public she had the bad taste to die at the age of 36.
Quote from: Curryong on July 04, 2017, 04:54:34 AM
They could have had a brief love affair but equally Waterhouse could have been just a very close friend and confidante.
What I find most intriguing is that Morton listened to the tapes and heard Diana talking about someone he had never heard of, Mrs PB. Given that it's the contention of some on the forum that Diana must have known all the details about the hold Camilla had at the time Charles started dating her (Diana) and therefore she must have chatted about it to flatmates etc, and gone into the romance with her eyes open I find that pretty remarkable, actually. Morton was a London-based journalist and pretty clued up on the royals and gossip swirling around them, he'd written about them for years, yet he'd never heard of Mrs PB!
However, a 19 year old part time cleaner and nursery assistant was supposed to be clued up on all the ramifications of the Charles/Camilla affair. Her mother lived in the wilds of Scotland, her grandmother (best friends with the QM) obviously didn't know either, or else she would discreetly have told her, but yes 19 year old Diana must have known what relatives and a mature ears to the ground journalist did not!
I hear what youre saying
@Curryong and its interesting that Morton said that about only hearing about CPB from the tape, which is odd because before the book, he wrote articles about Charles preferring Camilla, as the reason he was picked to be the "NOAH" for the book was his years of pro Diana stories, that were particularly well sourced.
I think Morton realized it made a better story about how the book came to be, to include that part about how he learned about CPB. Like everyone he had an agenda, I noticed when rewatching the Doc on Dianas year off, in 95, he mentions Barry Manakee as a former lover about 7-9 years before the "Settlin Tapes" came out, and while Diana was alive, I find that interesting....
As for her at 19 and her knowledge about C&C, I just think theres some grey in the "traditional" story. As she mentioned in the tapes about "a womans instinct" im sure she must have picked up on their chemistry, and we all know the story as it unfolded through the engagement with discovered gifts, etc.
It could be as innocent as she may have thought she could "win him over" or "it was all in the past" how often have we flung ourselves into bad matches with unrealistic intentions only to be stung after the fact???? I doesnt necessarily mean she was ruthlessly working him.
James Whitaker apparently was on to Camilla. He and other reporters agreed she was the blonde on the Royal Train in 1980.
Diana told Settelen point blank she had no "sexual" affair with Mannakee. It is on the tapes.
THe woman's instinct came after a few years into the marriage when she believed Camilla and Charles got back together.
I don't think Diana thought she'd have to win him over. She believed he meant the marriage vows and thought Camilla was "history."
When Charles was single, Camillla and Kanga were according to most media sources the ones who "approved" or "disapproved" of Charles lady friends. I read an early book about Charles and Diana and he went on vacation with his "good friends" the Tryons and Dale played hostess for him in London because he had no wife yet.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 03, 2017, 04:47:46 PM
That was just Diana's spinning of her strategic mistake in releasing a preemptive press release about the divorce in an attempt to manipulate the proceedings. The queen had not yet considered such a step. Diana's preemptive release galvanized her into issuing an order in council giving effect to what Diana had already stated in her press release. Of course when Diana realized her mistake, she tried to backtrack and spun it back as if the palace had removed her title. She wanted to play the PR game with the queen and soon found out that that is not how her soon to be ex-mother-in-law operated. The queen may have many failings, but she is not a liar or fantasist.
Then you have this rather manipulative (in my view) stance of saying a teenager said that he would restore it. That is just a classic case of using the emotional attachment of children in your battle against a spouse...
I don't believe she would have been able to keep it anyway, as she was divorcing her royal husband, why should she want a royal title? But the Queen might have been more generous and possibly allowed her to keep it till she remarried, had she not been increasingly aware of Diana's habit of leaking things prematurely to the press. And she was determined to show Di who was boss. But I agree, it seems to me ridiculous to expect William to restore a title just ot put it on Diana's gravestone.
The NY Times (no slouch in the fact department) says Charles did not want her to have the HRH. I don't think it ridiculous for a loving son to do this for his mother. Nothing ridiculous or wrong about it. WIlliam and Harry loved their mother and want to honor her. It's natural for them to want to do so. With Charles looking to the future with Camilla no way would he have wanted two HRH Princess of Wales at the same time. The Duchess of Windsor no question according to the rules should have had the HRH, she was entitled to it. But the royals did not allow her to have it. It created many issues including the Windsors looking at Baltimore gravesites and it took the Queen to tell them they could be both be buried at Frogmore.
There are no rules regarding the granting of an HRH. It's always been solely within the sovereign's gift. Probably, apart from the feeling of the Royal family itself against this woman who had caused the greatest constitutional crisis for many centuries, the HRH was withheld from Wallis because of her previous marital history.
They thought there would have been nothing to prevent her from divorcing Edward in a few years and then sailing off on a fourth marital adventure with her HRH intact. When you read letters of the time members of the family seem puzzled by Wallis's hold on Edward, regarding her as a sort of adventuress-scarlet woman type who'd got her hooks into their son/brother, causing him to take leave of his senses. Not the sort of woman, in other words, who 'deserved' to be rewarded with such a status.
The Queen may have thought that Diana, only in her mid-30s, would almost certainly marry again, perhaps to a foreigner, and there would then be an undignified snatching back of her HRH before it happened. I've always thought she could have let Diana keep it, arranging it before any leaking started, but making it clear that upon remarriage it was forfeit. To me there's always been something a bit mean-spirited about taking an HRH from a woman who was the mother of a future king and the two grandsons of the monarch, but feelings were running high on both sides at the time.
I believe that a big reason that Wallis lost the HRH was that Queen Elizabeth consort of George VI did not like Wallis and prevailed upon her husband to keep the HRH from her. If Wallis divorced Edward the HRH could have been removed from her and the HRH would not have been intact since she presumably would not be marrying another royal. If George VI had not intervened, then Wallis automatically would have gotten the HRH. Diana would have even lost the Princess of Wales designation had she married again. If she married Hasnet Khan she most likely would have had the name Lady DIana Khan. She would have kept the designation of Lady. I think it was mean spirited of Charles and the Queen to remove the HRH. But in any event had any remarriage taken place she would have lost both the Princess title and the HRH. Wallis IMO should have gotten the HRH. Edward had stepped down from being King and had the HRH. And it could have been removed from Wallis upon any remarriage or a divorce for that matter.
I agree Diana could have kept the HRH until she remarried and at the time the removal seemed petty and spiteful. When Princess Alexandra and Prince Joachim of Denmark divorced Queen Margarethe removed the HRH and replaced it with the HH Princess Alexandra of Denmark and until she remarried she was still considered a member of the RF and featured on their website with it only being removed when she married her second husband. There is precedent in the BRF of removing the HRH and replacing it with the HH as was the case with two of George V cousins when all the German titles were abolished in 1997 I believe it was the daughters of Princess Helena.
Quote from: Curryong on July 04, 2017, 11:33:58 PM
There are no rules regarding the granting of an HRH. It's always been solely within the sovereign's gift. Probably, apart from the feeling of the Royal family itself against this woman who had caused the greatest constitutional crisis for many centuries, the HRH was withheld from Wallis because of her previous marital history.
They thought there would have been nothing to prevent her from divorcing Edward in a few years and then sailing off on a fourth marital adventure with her HRH intact. When you read letters of the time members of the family seem puzzled by Wallis's hold on Edward, regarding her as a sort of adventuress-scarlet woman type who'd got her hooks into their son/brother, causing him to take leave of his senses. Not the sort of woman, in other words, who 'deserved' to be rewarded with such a status.
The Queen may have thought that Diana, only in her mid-30s, would almost certainly marry again, perhaps to a
it was up to the queen and I doubt if she was in a mood to be generous. and if Diana wanted out of the RF, why would she want to keep a royal title?
Suppose Diana had lived till now and was unmarried. There would have been occasions to do with her sons at which she would have met Camilla. All non HRHs have to curtsey to those with the title, so she, the mother and grandmother of a future king would have had to curtsey to the likes of Camilla.
The rules are that you curtsy when you want to curtsy. Even the queen does not force people to curtsy. It is really up to you unless you want to make a point (a la Cherie Blair); in which case the joke is on you. It is a bit like saying: "I will not cross the road to greet Charles and Camilla even if they paid me". Of course they could not care less what you do as long as you are not posing a security risk. Other than that, the choice is yours and any resultant issues are yours to deal with.
Diana would have had to give way in precedence to Camilla or any other Princess of Wales or member of the royal family. She was a semi-detached member of the family (in part to ensure that William was not embarrassed). By the terms of her divorce, she was no longer The Princess of Wales. Indeed if she married, she would take her new husband's name and lose even the "Princess of Wales" appendix. I would have thought that was the price she had to pay for her "freedom" from her husband and the royal family.
Quote from: Curryong on July 05, 2017, 06:57:13 AM
Suppose Diana had lived till now and was unmarried. There would have been occasions to do with her sons at which she would have met Camilla. All non HRHs have to curtsey to those with the title, so she, the mother and grandmother of a future king would have had to curtsey to the likes of Camilla.
I don't think the Queen under the circumstances would have had expected Diana to curtsey to Camilla. In any case it took years for Charles to marry Camilla after the divorce. William also may have prevailed upon his grandmother to bend the rules so this rather uncomfortable situation would not take place.
Diana did have her freedom which I believe she welcomed.
I believe if Diana if she were still alive would curtsy to the blood Princesses and the Queen however, I highly doubt she would curtsy to Camilla as The Duchess of Windsor refused to curtsy to the Queen Mother. For those not familiar with the story I believe it was in the late sixties there was a re dedication of Marlborough House Queen Mary's former home and the entire family was present including the Windsors Wallis curtsied to all the royal woman except the Queen Mother explaining that since she stopped people from having to curtsy to her she wouldn't curtsy to her meaning the QM.
^ Why would people want to curtsey to Wallis? It's the ownership of an HRH title that makes people do the curtsey, and she didn't have it. And if that was the excuse,why didn't it apply to the Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Princess Margaret etc ? Sounds like any excuse was better than none to me. It didn't make any difference to the situation anyway. The QM was the widow of a crowned monarch. Wallis wasn't. End of.
Incidentally, Diana was still the Princess of Wales. In Britain divorced wives retain their husbands' style and title until they themselves marry. A divorced Duchess of Clodhill is still Duchess of Clodhill until she remarries, a divorced Countess of Bucket is still the Countess of Bucket until she remarries. The styling is different but they still remain Princess, Duchess and Countess. If they never remarry that styling remains until death. Sarah is, for instance, still Duchess of York.
@Curryong Wallis felt that it was the QM behind the denial of the HRH and they did have a long standing feud that did not extend to the rest of the family.
Yes, I know. I was referring to the excuse given for not curtseying. Supposedly the two women loathed each other, though Wallis's bitterness was far more longstanding. Still common courtesy should have prevailed.
It would have been interesting ladies and to be honest I do believe that it would have depended upon the circumstances whether or not Diana would have curtsied to her former in-laws. No one is forced to curtsy/bow to the members of the BRF. I do believe that she would have always done so to QEII, DoE and QEQM in public/private meetings and especially at large ceremonial events (weddings) William and Harry's personal milestone events (graduation/passing out parades.) I don't believe that she would have curtsied to her ex-husband, his wife, her former sister and brothers-in-law etc...(I don't think that they would have cared to be honest.)
However if the relationship were cordial at the time that Charles' reign began, she might have curtsied to TM Charles and Camilla/ PoW/PssoW William and Kate/ and Harry and spouse in public once her ex-husband ascended to the throne. However I believe that it would be more so as a gesture of respect to the position rather than the people in them.
I don't think there would ever have been a cordial relationship between Diana and Camilla. She may have curtsied to her ex husband as the reigning monarch and in the future, to her son as reigning monarch. I doubt she would have curtsied to Camilla.
Double post auto-merged: July 05, 2017, 03:28:27 PM
Quote from: Curryong on July 05, 2017, 01:19:51 PM
Yes, I know. I was referring to the excuse given for not curtseying. Supposedly the two women loathed each other, though Wallis's bitterness was far more longstanding. Still common courtesy should have prevailed.
The Duke of Windsor disliked the Queen Mum as well. But when they returned to England for an unveiling of a statue of Queen Mary, everybody was civil to one another.
I doubt a mature 56 year old woman would be playing childish curtsying games with her ex from 20 years ago or his new wife. I would have thought that her life would be too occupied with her new life, charities and her grand children to worry about whether to curtsy or not to curtsy.
As far as C&C are concerned, I believe that they would have no interest in having Diana at their court unless it was something that directly related to Diana's children and grand children. If things became too uncomfortable, they might have just pulled out of the event to let Diana have time with her family.
Even today, C&C (quite rightly IMO) never ever mention Diana at all. Celebrating Diana is within the ambit of her friends, family and admirers. It has nothing to do with her ex or his new wife. I would be surprised if senior royals approaching their 70th birthdays would spend time worrying about whether someone who divorced 20 year ago is curtsying or not curtsying. It is such a trivial thing that would not bother most normal people.
^^^IMO part of the dialogue about royals does include speculation so I'm not surprised to see that the question of "Would Diana curtsy to the Windsors?" has arisen. However I do agree that it wouldn't be the foremost concern in Diana's life had she lived.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 05, 2017, 05:43:45 PM
I doubt a mature 56 year old woman would be playing childish curtsying games with her ex from 20 years ago or his new wife. I would have thought that her life would be too occupied with her new life, charities and her grand children to worry about whether to curtsy or not to curtsy.
As far as C&C are concerned, I believe that they would have no interest in having Diana at their court unless it was something that directly related to Diana's children and grand children. If things became too uncomfortable, they might have just pulled out of the event to let Diana have time with her family.
Even today, C&C (quite rightly IMO) never ever mention Diana at all. Celebrating Diana is within the ambit of her friends, family and admirers. It has nothing to do with her ex or his new wife. I would be surprised if senior royals approaching their 70th birthdays would spend time worrying about whether someone who divorced 20 year ago is curtsying or not curtsying. It is such a trivial thing that would not bother most normal people.
Well it would be Charles and Diana's children and grandchildren. For instance, a school event for George and/or Charlotte would perhaps be attended by only Charles and Diana.
I don't think Camilla would call the shots if it involved arrangements between Charles and Diana and their children and grandchildren.
We are all "normal" people on the board and talking about curtseying came up and it is a topic of interest for discussion.
Oh I think Charles and Camilla mention Diana. Penny Junor spoke to them and their friends (she said so)and obviously the topic of Diana came up considering all the digs at Diana.
Quote from: TLLK on July 05, 2017, 06:16:53 PM
^^^IMO part of the dialogue about royals does include speculation so I'm not surprised to see that the question of "Would Diana curtsy to the Windsors?" has arisen. However I do agree that it wouldn't be the foremost concern in Diana's life had she lived.
wellyes but really, "would she have curtsied to Camilla if she'd lived"? the poor woman's been dead for years.. isn't this a very trivial speculation?
I repeat, most normal people do not spend their time worrying about whether someone who they divorced 20 years is going to curtsy or not curtsy to them. This is not about you
@sandy just to clarify. My post does not mention you or any poster on this forum. You are creating drama where there is none. I was giving my opinion as to why it would be silly for people who are above 50 years wasting their time demanding and rejecting curtsies from one another.
As regards to events involving Diana's grand children, I do not think Camilla has any interest in that; let alone hypothetically trying to control things. It is to do with the parents and grand parents. If she is invited and it is convenient she attends, if not she politely declines. I trust that all the parties involved would be too mature to get involved in grandma/step grandma wars. Who does that unless they are seriously messed up????
They would be grown up people with better things to do with their time than to fight petty wars about who attends which events. It would all seem very childish and frankly disturbing if they behaved like that.
How could it be about me? It is the subject of conversation among a few of us. I am not creating drama. Just curious at the use of "normal people."
Royals do take the curtsies seriously. If they did not, the custom would have been long gone.
I doubt Camilla and Diana would have fought over the "right" to grandchildren. Camilla has her own grandchildren in any case.
I think there is protocol as to who attends which events. I think Charles and Diana had figured that out after the divorce.
Quote from: amabel on July 05, 2017, 07:25:51 PM
Quote from: TLLK on July 05, 2017, 06:16:53 PM
^^^IMO part of the dialogue about royals does include speculation so I'm not surprised to see that the question of "Would Diana curtsy to the Windsors?" has arisen. However I do agree that it wouldn't be the foremost concern in Diana's life had she lived.
wellyes but really, "would she have curtsied to Camilla if she'd lived"? the poor woman's been dead for years.. isn't this a very trivial speculation?
Yes it is, but I have to say that there is a significant percentage of discussion on all royals that is "trivial speculation." It is not solely limited to the Windsors either.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 05, 2017, 07:28:13 PM
I repeat, most normal people do not spend their time worrying about whether someone who they divorced 20 years is going to curtsy or not curtsy to them. This is not about you @sandy just to clarify. My post does not mention you or any poster on this forum. You are creating drama where there is none. I was giving my opinion as to why it would be silly for people who are above 50 years wasting their time demanding and rejecting curtsies from one another.
As regards to events involving Diana's grand children, I do not think Camilla has any interest in that; let alone hypothetically trying to control things. It is to do with the parents and grand parents. If she is invited and it is convenient she attends, if not she politely declines. I trust that all the parties involved would be too mature to get involved in grandma/step grandma wars. Who does that unless they are seriously messed up????
They would be grown up people with better things to do with their time than to fight petty wars about who attends which events. It would all seem very childish and frankly disturbing if they behaved like that.
While I can agree to an extent with this IMO Charles is not normal regarding protocol let us not forget he lives more lavishly than The Queen and all her children expect the bow or curtsy as that was the way they were brought up. Diana had to call Charles Sir until they married she didn't even call him Charles during their engagement she referred to him as Darling. Sarah had to call Andrew Sir until he gave her permission to call him Andrew when they got engaged.
It is not the speculation that is trivial (people can have any interests they like). The triviality I am referring to is the idea that grown up people would make a fuss over such things within the family. My belief would be that current members of the mainstream royal family would take precedence but Diana would do whatever suited her and nobody would be particularly bothered either way.
Double post auto-merged: July 05, 2017, 09:01:45 PM
Charles can be a stickler for protocol but I think by the time they divorced he had just about had enough of having to deal with Diana. I can't imagine him trying to engage with her on something so inconsequential as a curtsy. He would probably have to engage with her on things and situations that were unavoidable such as the education of their children when they were young. Charles has over time made a very conscious effort to detach himself from Diana-related stuff. He never speaks about her in public and even his biography tends to only add a few lines to the effect that they were divorced and had two children. Now that he is happily remarried, I am sure he would not want to go back to that old stuff.
Diana and Charles had the divorce settlement worked out including the fine print. They had to deal with each other because they had children together. In the year after the divorce they were making a go of it and it seemed civil. Oh there was a lot more than a few lines in both Smith's and Junor's biographies. I myself wish they had limited this to a few lines. Diana and Charles had children together so she cannot truly ever be airbrushed. I think it proper that Will and Harry speak about their mother. Not Charles. A good idea on his part.
QuoteIt is not the speculation that is trivial (people can have any interests they like). The triviality I am referring to is the idea that grown up people would make a fuss over such things within the family
Thank you for clarifying
@royalanthropologist.
In a way it was unfortunate for Charles that his two sons were old enough to remember their mother and speak of her quite often, so she can't be completely airbrushed out of the history of the Royal family in the way he would probably like. Charles is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't in the matter of speaking about Diana, though. If he did mention her in a complimentary sort of way it would be a huge surprise to the people who remember her, considering how their marriage ended, so it's probably just as well he keeps quiet.
Charles reminds me of an Aussie radio and TV personality of years ago. He was married three times and had children by two of his marriages. However, at the time I remember him he was very happily married to his third wife, a much younger woman. He'd speak about her and their children fondly and often but there was NEVER any mention of his older children and their mother. Most people knew his history and there was a lot of sniggering about his complete 'amnesia' with regard to his life before he was forty, a tribute to selective memory syndrome!
Charles can't 'wipe' Diana. The whole world knows what happened to his first marriage and his second wife's part in it, and that includes his children. His elder child will be King and is also Diana's child. Can't ignore that completely, Charles, however hard you try!
Speculating!! Speculation!!
That is what we do here and all we can do in a thread about PD who has no present and no future.
This place is a silly , little getaway for people to play on the internet about a subject they are interested in.
Curtsy. Weird. Outdated. Odd. Strange thing to do.
Who curtsy's to whom?
Pardon me for repeating myself AGAIN and Again because we posted on this before.
We talked about this before , some little known facts, that royal prince/princess ,must have respect of a curtsy by the non ones, regardless of rank. Someone posted this and I had no idea, never thought abut who curtsy's to whom. Many of thought it was new info and odd too.
Sooooo, Camila, a senior royal and Queen of England in waiting, must curtsy to royal born Princess B and E?
I do not think so!!!! In private NOR in public.
Sooooo, Kate must curtsy to royal born children, PGeorge and P Charlotte, before Kate, their mother, spanks those little royal bottoms and gives them a time out.
LOL, I do not think so.
Does K curtsy public or private to PB and PE, her equals in age , but not rank? No.
Curtsy is a sign of respect to show rank and title .
Does Carole the Commonor curtsy, shows resect , listens to royalty , to PChar and P George before she tells that they have enough ice cream and that is that. They can pout all they want. He , the grandmother , I am sure, will not let them get sick of eating too much, LOL!!
Something tells me, LDFS/PD/D,PofW, whatever, post divorce and before divorce did not curtsy in private and no way in public to royal born PrinceW and PHenry.
If she were alive, something tells me she would not curtsy to PW, PH, nor PGeorge or PChar.
If she were alive, I THINK, she and PC would attend formal milestone events for THEIR sons and sit together and no curtsy or calling him Sir. I would think they would just avoid conversation among prying media ears. I would think they would attend smaller things like PW's Sandhurst grad, but Camilla, perhaps would bow out for the smaller , non really historic ones. I do not think , for example, Camill would have gone to the hospital to see K after PGeorge was born.
I think PD would not curtsy to Camilla and PC in public nor private. I think they few times they would be seen together in public would be so few...time marches on....PD would be involved with her charity work, sons, their lives, her grandchildren...Camilla and PC have each other..Camilla has her children, grandchildren, etc.
YES, I believe these people would have moved on as PD DID MOVE the last year or so of her life.
PD and everyone would curtsy to QEII, PP, The QM until she died . These people earned that respect with everyone. Everyone in their family, the aristos, and their subjects. They are different.
FLofTUSA , Nancy Reagan DID NOT curtsy to QEII. It was big in the news at the time of their first meet or the wedding. Rumor was , Queen Nancy , as FL , head of this country and not British, did not she QEII more than she.
I agreed with that then after my dad had explained it to me that Nancy Reagan, FLofTUSA was right. He thought so and I thought what my dad thought was right because .... :teehee:
This speculation of the curtsy goes back to our debate and I could not figure that one, as to where LDFS would sit at her sons' wedding. Some of us , too biased, just could not see her as WILLAIMS MOTHER. Not his mistress. Not his favorite long time nanny. Not his wet nurse. Not he fav teacher . Common sense , HIS MOTHER would have sat with PC, his father as LDFS's parents had to sit like this. Different though because PD would have to continue to be in her son's life.
:welcome:
Double post auto-merged: July 06, 2017, 04:33:16 AM
Why DUCHESS of CAMBRIDGE performs a WRONG CURTSEY? Lady Diana, Sophie and Camilla know how to do - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L4C1fThW10)
Double post auto-merged: July 06, 2017, 04:36:53 AM
From a thread here under Duchess of Cambridge..ahhh,the curse of the curtsy.
http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=87540.msg1410844#new
Quote from: TLLK on July 05, 2017, 08:36:35 PM
Quote from: amabel on July 05, 2017, 07:25:51 PM
Quote from: TLLK on July 05, 2017, 06:16:53 PM
^^^IMO part of the dialogue about royals does include speculation so I'm not surprised to see that the question of "Would Diana curtsy to the Windsors?" has arisen. However I do agree that it wouldn't be the foremost concern in Diana's life had she lived.
wellyes but really, "would she have curtsied to Camilla if she'd lived"? the poor woman's been dead for years.. isn't this a very trivial speculation?
Yes it is, but I have to say that there is a significant percentage of discussion on all royals that is "trivial speculation." It is not solely limited to the Windsors either.
I know beucase a lot of stuff about the RF and its way is trivial. but still, when poor Diana is dead, how can we knw what she'd feel about something now 20 years into the future? Had she lived, all sorts of things might have happened to change her.. and I'd rather if I indulged I this sort of specualation, think of "what would she think about "real" things, like her grandchildren or her sons or something real..."
Double post auto-merged: July 06, 2017, 06:14:43 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 05, 2017, 09:15:27 AM
The rules are that you curtsy when you want to curtsy. Even the queen does not force people to curtsy. It is really up to you unless you want to make a point (a la Cherie Blair); in which case the joke is on you. It
I think that while the queen naturally does not an should not impose bows and curtsies on the general public, within the RF, the rituals are expected of its members...
Quote from: Curryong on July 06, 2017, 12:55:31 AM
In a way it was unfortunate for Charles that his two sons were old enough to remember their mother and speak of her quite often, so she can't be completely airbrushed out of the history of the Royal family in the way he would probably like. Charles is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't in the matter of speaking about Diana, though. If he did mention her in a complimentary sort of way it would be a huge surprise to the people who remember her, considering how their marriage ended, so it's probably just as well he keeps quiet.
Charles reminds me of an Aussie radio and TV personality of years ago. He was married three times and had children by two of his marriages. However, at the time I remember him he was very happily married to his third wife, a much younger woman. He'd speak about her and their children fondly and often but there was NEVER any mention of his older children and their mother. Most people knew his history and there was a lot of sniggering about his complete 'amnesia' with regard to his life before he was forty, a tribute to selective memory syndrome!
Charles can't 'wipe' Diana. The whole world knows what happened to his first marriage and his second wife's part in it, and that includes his children. His elder child will be King and is also Diana's child. Can't ignore that completely, Charles, however hard you try!
The world THINKS it knows what happened. The reality is that apart from the two parties to the marriage, nobody really knows what happened. That it is incredible why a section of the public has decided that they have a right to be a prosecutor, judge, jury and jailer for the so called sins committed in the marriage. It is the disease of our society that people like to stick their noses in other people's private affairs. The two parties made a terrible mistake telling the media about their problems. That gave people leeway to stick their oars in. They have been doing it ever since.
Diana is part of royal history, just like Anne Boleyn is. Historians will write about her life but there is no need for Charles to spend time thinking about her. Yes they had children together but those children are now grown people and do not need direct parental control. Those who liked and loved Diana are quite welcome to remember her. What I find disturbing is some people's insistence that everybody (including Charles) must participate in their remembrances. Why try to remind someone of a very unhappy time of their lives????
If Charles wants to forget Diana, it is his right. Remember her if you like but do not insist that he must remember her because you want it that way. This story has brought out very alarming responses from certain members of the public. Their reactions are completely out of all proportion. It is as if Charles cheated on them personally or rejected them in some way. Very disturbing IMO.
Charles himself admitted what happened and talked of his relationship with Camilla , and was involved with Camilla after she married someone else (this pre and post DIana). SO it is known what happened. He put it "out there" back in 1994. I don't think it appropriate for Charles to participate in Diana memorials anymore.
Charles may "want" to forget Diana but without her would not have children and grandchildren.
I think many complain about Junor's blatant bias. She seems to have a crush on Charles or as she calls it a "soft spot." She said it.
@sandy says "Charles may "want" to forget Diana but without her would not have children and grandchildren. "
No. Charles could have married someone else and started a family if it was not with Diana. He simply made a mistake by marrying an incompatible person. They divorced and married someone that they are compatible with.
Charles is perfectly entitled to decide whether or not to attend her memorials without reference to third parties that have nothing to do with the marriage or the memorial itself. As it happens; he seems to have decided to just block out the memories of Diana from his life. Her family,friends and fans can then celebrate her to their hearts content. The recent trip to Canada and the private re-dedication service were handled very well. Nobody was where they did not want to be and we did not have baying crowds demanding revenge on the "adulterous couple". That can only be a good thing.
The QM is a very different kettle of fish from Diana, very different. She single-handedly supported her husband who did not really want to be King and brought out the best in him. For whatever reasons (justified or not justified), Diana could never do that for Charles. Indeed she left him much, much worse off in terms of his relationship with his people than she found him. The consequence of her actions was to undermine him and his work. That is in no way comparable to the way the QM held the family together after the abdication crisis. C&D were just too dysfunctional as a couple to ever work together on that scale.
Also Penny Junor is to Charles what Andy Morton is to Diana. Both seem to have told lies and exaggerated stuff to make the other side look bad while writing nice things about the party they supported. If some people can believe Morton, then others are perfectly entitled to believe Junor. Junor has committed no crime by having a soft spot for "Charles". She clearly likes him and Camilla, believing in their innate goodness. The same applies for those authors that similarly liked and admired Diana.
royalanthropologist says that Charles could have started the family with any woman.
Each woman is unique and not interchangeable.
But he did marry Diana and she started the family with him. He made the mistake of getting married when he knew he did not love his bride. She was incompatible because she did not agree with his concept of marriage, which he did not entirely explain to her. Divorced or not, she still was the mother of his children. Similarly Camilla's only children are from her first marriage.
Do you really know for sure royalanthropologist if he "dropped her out of his thoughts." Since nobody can read his mind it is subject to speculation.
Camilla and Charles got smaller crowds than the ones that showed up for Kate and William.
Diana wanted to support Charles but he made it clear he preferred someone else after the marriage. Diana wanted to please Charles and work with him on their early appearances together. I think Camilla was the one with the bad influence on Charles.
Diana was undermined by Camilla every step of the way.
Of course some are naive enough to believe what Junor says. But she herself said in an interview she has a "soft spot" for Charles. But that said, it is vicious to batter a dead woman in print. Diana can no longer defend herself.
Charles is still around and can defend himself.
Baying crowds! GMAB
Charles could marry any other woman who accepted his proposal. He was not ring-fenced to Diana and should have told his father to buzz off after that letter hinting at the need to propose or break up. It has nothing with women being interchangeable and I have suggested no such thing
@sandy.
If women were interchangeable, Charles could easily have shifted his affections from Camilla to Diana when he married. He did not because they are different women and he preferred Camilla. Diana just happened to be the one that was proposed to, a mistake he has bitterly regretted ever since. Fate has been kind to him in as far as he has finally found someone he likes being married to.
Crowds are not an indicator of a or the quality of the work that is put in. Charles and Anne do a heck of a lot more work (more significant and impactful work by the way) than the Cambridges. The fact that the Cambridges get more crowds may actually be a reflection of the shallowness of our society today, not the quality or intensity of the work that the respective royals put in.
In either case, I have not heard members of the royal family complaining that they are getting low crowds. If they are happy and the hosts are happy to invite them, I think that is enough. Those who want to stay away, can do just that. Those who want to come will come and have a good time in peace.
I also ask the question (I asked before and was not answered): A section of the public indicates "we do not like you and will not attend your functions". So what...? What should the royal do?
My view is that they continue doing their work as usual and let those who do not like them stay right at home, make vitriolic comments on forums or even indicate their dislike in polls. The world will not end because of it.
Diana wanted her own version of Charles and he was not playing ball. He wanted a different version of Diana and she was not playing ball. Their marriage was a tragic mistake right from the proposal to its last second before the final divorce decree. The only saving grace is that they had two children who cannot really be regretted. They divorced, the best solution when you have different expectations of your marriage and are doing harm to one another.
Penny Junor dislikes Diana and is not abashed about it. You can see it in her book. It is the very same way that Morton or Holden dislikes Charles. Freedom of speech and intellectual curiously means that they have a right to write as they please. Likewise the public has a right to read or not read them as they please.
The "she is not here to defend herself" meme is getting a bit old in my view. We read absolutely horrendous things about people who have died and Diana is no exception. Not everyone that writes is going to say nice things about her. It is a fruitless endeavor to expect that every writer will like or be complementary about Diana. Some will like her, some will hate her and some will not be bothered at all. That is just the way it is.
@royalanthropologist Don't you see that was the problem. Charles felt he had to settle your right it could have been anyone as long as he got heirs and it was that attitude that really made that the marriage from H. Charles though put pressure on himself when he said in an interview years earlier that 30 was when he should marry. In some ways I have to admire Albert of Monaco who was in that situation though he was an only son and females at the time couldn't inherit. Albert didn't settle and as a result his father was forced to change the laws before his death but Albert in his 50's finally found love and married starting a lovely little family.
Diana made the mistake that only a very young girl would make she fell in love with a man who to be honest was unattainable for her. Charles was in love with someone unattainable at the time for him. Diana married him thinking she could change him. The problem was he was older than his years and she was an immature teenager. I more or less put the blame on the royal system in place at the time as with Princess Margaret that stance caused nothing but heartache and bitterness.
I have to say, that I totally agree with
@Trudie in the last post. Diana deserved much better than being married to someone that is not in love with them. Everyone deserves better than that. The difference is that some people make the compromise and say: "ok I will make this work even if this is not the love of my life". Neither Charles nor Diana were prepared to do that.
Had I been Diana's mother and she described her courtship and proposal as described in Morton; I would have strongly advised against proceeding. At the same time I wonder whether Diana was prepared to give it all up at that point??? Was Diana really prepared to lose the chance at being Princess of Wales and future queen? I doubt that very much.
Diana was prepared to give it up. It was the night of the pre wedding ball Diana wanted to do so and her sisters were sent in to calm her and have her go ahead with it. That is where the famous " Your face is already on the tea towels to late to chicken out now" came from and even Charles sent her a note. Frances Diana's mother said she didn't interfere and felt it was time for Diana to marry why a mother would not intervene in a situation like that and similar to her own marriage to Diana's father is beyond me. However the Aristocracy at that time was still in the Victorian/Edwardian age when it came to their daughters.
I can forgive the sisters' flippancy but the mother's is just terrible. It is extraordinary that she considered a 19 year old in the category of "biological cloak ticking" whereas many of us thought she was way too young???? Frances ought to have done much better than that.
Well I can say from experience she was too young. I am the same age as Diana and married around the same time the first time around. My parents tried to talk me out of it and I wouldn't listen. In fact My father on the ride to the Church tried to talk me out of it and had the car circle the church trying up until the last moment. In the end I married him had two kids and left him seven years and two kids later. I thought I was in love but that lasted until I got pregnant on the honeymoon and he asked me what I wanted to do about it. Long story short at the age of 25 I met the love of my life and we were happy until a year ago when he passed away. I was lucky my parents really cared and saw him for the person he was but in Diana's case I don't think it was a case of her parents seeing Charles for what he was but it was a case of it was what he had HRH and a Crown in his future.
The Queen did not force Charles to marry Diana. She never expressed an opinion one way or another. The Duke merely sent him a letter asking him to make up his mind or give her up. It's been stated in biography after biography of Diana and Charles that people who saw the letter did not regard it as an order to wed.
Charles merely regarded it as such because he had been bullied by his father, he was still frightened of him and he refused to have it out with his father because of that. He therefore proposed to and married Diana, not loving her but keeping that letter as the excuse if the marriage failed. I consider that the act of a moral coward actually.
And yet Diana at 19 was the one who, according to you, was to sum up the situation and withdraw from the engagement. Oh, and she really didn't love him, sez you. None of us know what Charles said when he proposed, whether he told he that he loved her, or what he said, nor do we know what Diana said to her friends at the time about why she was attracted. It was a tragedy waiting to happen and the fault is Charles's for proposing in the first place.
@Curryong you are absolutely right no one other than Norton and Penny Knatchbull and Nicholas Soames had an opinion as to whether Charles should marry Diana. In many biographies Norton and Penny advised against it and Charles told them to mind their own business. Same with Soames. That speaks volumes about Charles as he ignored them and proposed knowing in his heart he did not love her but more importantly must have known she was not on his level as a mature sophisticated woman.
Charles was in many ways naïve but in a different way. He had more of an abstract view of marriage. He did not see the realities. He could not imagine why Diana would be upset about Camilla--after all he married Diana, why should she be upset and APB did not mind the arrangement, etc.
Double post auto-merged: July 07, 2017, 08:43:21 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 07, 2017, 10:02:27 AM
I have to say, that I totally agree with @Trudie in the last post. Diana deserved much better than being married to someone that is not in love with them. Everyone deserves better than that. The difference is that some people make the compromise and say: "ok I will make this work even if this is not the love of my life". Neither Charles nor Diana were prepared to do that.
Had I been Diana's mother and she described her courtship and proposal as described in Morton; I would have strongly advised against proceeding. At the same time I wonder whether Diana was prepared to give it all up at that point??? Was Diana really prepared to lose the chance at being Princess of Wales and future queen? I doubt that very much.
Diana came into the marriage with a clean slate, no past and all that. Diana loved Charles. Charles was ambivalent and thought he could "learn to love" Diana after they got married. That is terribly unrealistic. He should not have gone into any marriage unless he was sure he loved his bride.
I think Diana was prepared to make a go of it. But Charles had his own idea of marriage after the wedding.
Double post auto-merged: July 07, 2017, 08:48:27 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 07, 2017, 08:15:04 AM
Charles could marry any other woman who accepted his proposal. He was not ring-fenced to Diana and should have told his father to buzz off after that letter hinting at the need to propose or break up. It has nothing with women being interchangeable and I have suggested no such thing @sandy.
If women were interchangeable, Charles could easily have shifted his affections from Camilla to Diana when he married. He did not because they are different women and he preferred Camilla. Diana just happened to be the one that was proposed to, a mistake he has bitterly regretted ever since. Fate has been kind to him in as far as he has finally found someone he likes being married to.
Crowds are not an indicator of a or the quality of the work that is put in. Charles and Anne do a heck of a lot more work (more significant and impactful work by the way) than the Cambridges. The fact that the Cambridges get more crowds may actually be a reflection of the shallowness of our society today, not the quality or intensity of the work that the respective royals put in.
In either case, I have not heard members of the royal family complaining that they are getting low crowds. If they are happy and the hosts are happy to invite them, I think that is enough. Those who want to stay away, can do just that. Those who want to come will come and have a good time in peace.
I also ask the question (I asked before and was not answered): A section of the public indicates "we do not like you and will not attend your functions". So what...? What should the royal do?
My view is that they continue doing their work as usual and let those who do not like them stay right at home, make vitriolic comments on forums or even indicate their dislike in polls. The world will not end because of it.
Diana wanted her own version of Charles and he was not playing ball. He wanted a different version of Diana and she was not playing ball. Their marriage was a tragic mistake right from the proposal to its last second before the final divorce decree. The only saving grace is that they had two children who cannot really be regretted. They divorced, the best solution when you have different expectations of your marriage and are doing harm to one another.
Penny Junor dislikes Diana and is not abashed about it. You can see it in her book. It is the very same way that Morton or Holden dislikes Charles. Freedom of speech and intellectual curiously means that they have a right to write as they please. Likewise the public has a right to read or not read them as they please.
The "she is not here to defend herself" meme is getting a bit old in my view. We read absolutely horrendous things about people who have died and Diana is no exception. Not everyone that writes is going to say nice things about her. It is a fruitless endeavor to expect that every writer will like or be complementary about Diana. Some will like her, some will hate her and some will not be bothered at all. That is just the way it is.
No not here to defend herself never gets old. This has been going on in biographies since time immemorial.
Junor says things about Diana that are based on hearsay and her diagnosing Diana as having BPD is absurd.
Morton and HOlden IMO do not have the same vitriol against Charles as Junor does for Diana. I stand by that opinion.
No I meant interchangeable as far as Charles proposed bride having his heirs. As far as Diana, love had nothing to do with it. Camilla back then would not have been chosen to have Charles heirs--at the time Charles courted Diana. SHe had a husband and children and at the time it would have been iffy if Charles married her and could still keep his place in the line of succession.
Double post auto-merged: July 07, 2017, 08:49:28 PM
Quote from: Curryong on July 07, 2017, 02:53:41 PM
The Queen did not force Charles to marry Diana. She never expressed an opinion one way or another. The Duke merely sent him a letter asking him to make up his mind or give her up. It's been stated in biography after biography of Diana and Charles that people who saw the letter did not regard it as an order to wed.
Charles merely regarded it as such because he had been bullied by his father, he was still frightened of him and he refused to have it out with his father because of that. He therefore proposed to and married Diana, not loving her but keeping that letter as the excuse if the marriage failed. I consider that the act of a moral coward actually.
And yet Diana at 19 was the one who, according to you, was to sum up the situation and withdraw from the engagement. Oh, and she really didn't love him, sez you. None of us know what Charles said when he proposed, whether he told he that he loved her, or what he said, nor do we know what Diana said to her friends at the time about why she was attracted. It was a tragedy waiting to happen and the fault is Charles's for proposing in the first place.
I think Charles had a lot to lose if yet another woman said no. Amanda and Anna had already turned him down. I think he sweet talked Diana through the courtship
Still in catchup mode so having to restrict my reply to the current page for brevity's sake. As far as the feeling that Charles was cheating personally on them, I think it was more a case of how ppl felt about Diana, in that she was "our" girl, and no one likes to see someone they care about, hard done by. I think the recent doc I linked to shows so many examples of that, both she and the public nourished each other, sometimes good, sometimes a worldwide folly a deux im big enough to admit, but there was an extraordinary connection between both. something the royals may not have duplicated, but there were excellent lessons there for them.
While its true that Charles was free to marry others, the reality is, his options were closing fast. I think so much of the appeal of the C&D (&C) story is beyond the personalities, but this window on the royal and societal customs changing before their eyes so fast, and of course they paid the price for it.
Had he passed on Diana, he might have had to resort going back to the old days and HM and DoE trying to work a deal with the other royal houses to marry him off, given the straitjacket of customs of the expected bride of a PoW. Or be a mid to late 30s year old waiting for some girl, sexually cordoned off to reach the age of majority (I guess ol Jimmy Saville could have helped Charles quite a bit on that, what was that show called, Jim'll fix it!!! ah sorry, cant help put take a run at that one).
By the end, to use an investment term, the "smart money" had figured out that Charles was more keen on having a bride than any specific attachment to the various girls he dated in the last couple years of his single years, and some had figured out about Camilla's hold on him. So in some ways, depending on ones point of view, Diana was either very thick, or very shrewd to press her advantage at that time.
I think both sides were both using and being used, like most romantic relationships are to varying degrees. You add Dianas generations of family conditioning to subconsciously strive to gain as much royal favor as possible, the societal dream of most girls to marry prince charming, no matter what crown, and too many romance novels and it was a disaster waiting to happen combined with Charles lack of planning for his single life, his issues with his parents, losing Mountbatten and the woman he would not give up.
I think the unattainable was an attraction, how many relationships have been doomed by the thought or words "I can change him" right up there with his "maybe I can grow to love her" both hoped for the best but got the worst. Its interesting that Anthony Holden has been so quiet this year, maybe his health isnt the best, i dont know.
Both were anxious about the marriage, but there was the whole momentum, and i think the idea of giving up the trappings and such of becoming a member of the royal family would have been very hard for her to give up. Again those generations of family history, i recall once she was to have said about her not going in for "downtown boys" slang for lesser and more ordinary blokes, and while her family had wealth, her own was largely limited to her inheritance from her american relations on her mothers side at the time, aside from whatever allowance her father gave her, so as she said, "It would have been quite something to have all of this".
Now its not just limited to her side, Charles saw a quick answer to his parents pressure, either real or imagined on his side, an amazing specimen with which to have his children and secure the line, not to mention bask in the status of all those men so envious of him, even if he couldnt care less for her, im sure the fact that he had something they wanted was a powerful reward and confirmation of the narrative of everyone saying how special he was, etc.
I did like the idea that Charles given his misgivings took such little heed of the few dissenters among his friends. Although I dont think his displeasure of it wasnt so much that he was keen to go forward, but I think he felt he was trapped, and that to have his closest friends remind them of it (although they didnt know thats what they were doing, they probably thought they were giving good advice) made the situation all the worse.
As for Charles being left worse off by her, and not getting the support he needed from his wife, I think a lot of that was his own doing. Because the love wasnt there, and it was something he didnt want to do, he didnt put the groundwork in during the start that I think would have paid off the dividends he wanted.
THe line was secured already. Charles technically did not have to marry. THe line of succession was there. I don't think he could stand the idea of his younger brother inheriting instead of his flesh and blood heir.
Diana wanted to support CHarles but he would not let her in. He should not have married her if he did not love her or anyone he did not love for that matter.
Sandy I am sure you are well informed enough to know that the line was not considered secured until Charles had an heir..
Charles' line was secured when he had an heir. The heir having an heir. But in the event there was a line of succession. Andrew was Charles' heir until CHarles had a child of his own. Same as with Harry being William's heir until WIlliam's first child was born. It would not have ended the monarchy if Charles had been childless.
Second sons have succeeded to the throne when their elder brothers had no surviving children. Edward VIII did not have any legitimate children and his brother became King. Naturally Prince Eddy, Edward VII's son, was expected to have a legitimate heir--he died before he could marry so his brother Prince George became the next in line.
No but as you know very well, the heir is expected to produce an heir. Younger children are there if the heir is unable to produce one, or dies young.
Well there were others who were "expected to" but did not. Even if there were no younger children, the crown could go to a cousin, and so on. Charles may have been "expected to" but it was not mandatory and if he refused to marry a suitable girl he could have. His great uncle did not marry the suitable girl and have any children. So the monarchy's continuation did not depend on Charles having a child. George IV disliked his wife and only had one child not even trying for another one with her. His daughter Charlotte died so his brother became King when George died. If Charles was so unhappy marrying Diana and brought her misery, it seemed a lot of grief went into Charles producing the heir. With all these books about about his crying over marrying Diana, maybe he should have had some arrangement with someone and told her that he'd never love her and she could sign a pre nup but they would have a baby. Charles should not have married someone he did not love to have the heir if the pre nup could not be a possibility for him.
Pre nup? yes of course... a concept that was not in law at the time.
The royals can create new rules when it suits them as history has proven.
Well this is a first, ive been driven to support amabel based on the very odd turn the topic has taken. While its "technically" true the family wouldnt have died out if Charles hadnt married and had kids. The RF is in many ways like a family business, and as the oldest, he was slotted to take over the business when the time came.
If he didnt have the guts to either fight for Camilla in the 70s or to resist what he thought his fathers meaning of his letter re: Diana was, he surely wasnt going to become a punching bag for their pressure, then disappointment for decades being the life long bachelor, with god knows what kind of life once andrew took the thrown.
Even I have to say, thats not a tenable position, and I believe it was his worry over that thing happening if Diana left his life without marrying him that pressured him into marrying her.
As for the idea of Diana being some kind of surrogate for him, thats preposterous. not only was the concept either not around or in its infancy, but it would have been detrimental to Diana for her marrying prospects.
She was very wise to guard her virtue and keep her dance card clear, she just could have used more instruction on what was going to happen once she bagged the type of prize either she or her family was hoping for her. To be some partially used baby maker, even to the PoW i dont think would have been her preferred route to finding a quality husband.
Both of them needed to as the queen said "buck up" and see their roles with clearer eyes, Charles needed to bend her way and show enough love and affection at least till she got her feet under her, so to speak with her new life and role, and Diana needed to see this for what it was, a dynastic marriage to a man who loved another, so she should find a man who can meet whatever needs Charles cannot or willnot, perhaps shed still be alive.
Quote from: sandy on July 09, 2017, 01:38:28 PM
The royals can create new rules when it suits them as history has proven.
Law Sandy. There was no such law in the UK at the tiem and the Royals do not make laws. As I know that you know.
I said rules not "law." They can issue letters patent like they did to keep Wallis from getting the HRH. And so on.
that's soemthing completely different. They have no power to make Pre nup agreements legal.
Royals can adjust rules. But I doubt they will ever issue pre nups unless something extraordinary happens. Even without a prenup, Charles should have made it clear to Diana about what he expected in the marriage (not the royal duties but their personal life). She could have had a chance to back out of the relationship and since Charles and previous girlfriends had broken up it would not have been really "shocking." He could have been honest and said that he wanted to keep Camilla in his life one way or another. If Diana did not like the idea (or Camilla) she could have walked. I think Diana took a face value approach that he married her because he loved her. Even without a pre nup, the "rules" of the marriage that Charles expected could have been spelled out by Charles himself. It might have been if Diana had walked: 1) he would find a woman who did not care about love but wanted the perks and the bling and did not mind Charles continuing to see Camilla or 2) find a woman that he loved and he actually would ditch Camilla for her.
IF a royal marries a very very wealthy heiress, then a pre nup might be something for the royals to consider.
I know this is the wrong thread but I beg for permission to discuss. I wish this had been in the Digest. That digest is so flexible you can put anything you like without falling short of the strict categorization of debate.
I have been sharing with a friend on this very same issue after getting some feedback about my seemingly inflammatory post on the Diana education thread. This is my take:
A marriage rarely fails because one party or a third party. It usually fails because of the two parties involved. Trying to apportion blame from the outside based on the biased accounts of one injured party is a recipe for disaster. You can never get the other person to respond to such intimidation. They dig their heels in and move away. Diana tried many tactics ranging from eagerness to please, to vengeance, to please, to seduction, to using the children, to using the monarchy, to using public opinion etc. They all failed miserably because she did not understand or refused to understand that a relationship is made up of two people. Camilla would have been nothing (as Kanga was nothing) if the relationship had been nurtured and sustained. Many marriages I know do not start off with declarations of undying love but they end up well because the people learn about one another and start appreciating their qualities.
If your husband is being cold, there has to be something within that relationship which makes him cold and you have to be part of the solution. The Charles that Diana tried to paint in Morton and Bashir ( that Charles that her fans have worked so hard to insist as the true version) is completely different from the Charles many people know. He has personal foibles and weaknesses like anyone else, but is nowhere near the kind of monster she wanted to portray so as to avoid being blamed for her affairs and the eventual divorce. Anyone with amateur detective skills can clearly see that Morton was only released because Diana's affairs were about to be exposed. She wanted to preemptively portray herself as the wronged wife to avoid the backlash.
If her plans succeeded, Charles would forever be blamed for every single mistake in life she made. She was the lamb to the slaughter whose entire litany of mistakes stemmed from the heartless man who had used, abused and dumped her. That narrative has stuck in the minds of some people to the extent that they cannot open their minds to any thing else. When you do that, you begin the process of destroying the relationship. The other party feels put upon and lied about. They then resent, rebel and leave the home. I have experience of family courts and can tell you that scene repeats again and again.
I am going to say something very, very controversial (as per usual) but evidence has proved me absolutely right). Charles was the only man who would be able to put up with Diana's personality. Any other Joe Bloggs would have divorced her within the year if the accounts of the people that lived with them are even 50% true. As it happened, after Charles left; Diana was never able to sustain a single long term relationship. Those who say that she was waiting for the divorce are engaging in selective amnesia. Charles left by 1986. Over the next decade Diana tried a number of relationships and they all failed. If you are having a string of failed relationships and your terrible spouse is stuck with his mistress then you had better start questioning whether there might be something about your personality or behavior that contributed to the marriage break down.
The servants describe a wife that is so suspicious of her husband that she looks for evidence in every corner and from everyone to show that he is cheating on her. They describe a wife whose mood swings are so incredibly diverse that she startles people like the Queen who absolutely had no interest in her marriage failing. They describe a woman who overnight underwent a transformation that shocked those who had known her before. They describe a toxic household in which Charles had no peace or place. Even the family pets were becoming victims of the disagreements. Much later on when Charles had left the family home, the children were invited to take sides. People would ask what was the matter and Diana would burst out crying. She would engage in attention-seeking scenes like throwing herself down the stairs. People were puzzled and Charles was disgusted. He thought she was trying to manipulate him and so decided to ignore her more and more.
When Diana's tantrums became excessive, he left the house and went back to Camilla. I believe that although Charles always preferred Camilla,he actually did not cheat on Diana until after the birth of Harry. She has never ever disputed his version on that score. Some of the Diana fans know this very well but then say "oh but he must have cheated on her in the mind then". Once again the desire to blame the other party for your own mistakes is the beginning of the end.
I also believe that Charles never really had an intention to marry Camilla until Diana's relentless campaign forced him to dig his heels in. He was not about to let her continue having her affairs whilst raising a stink about his. As far as he was concerned, he had tried and failed to sustain the marriage. That is exactly what he said in Dimbleby. Those biased Diana fans know this deep down but they cannot let go of the narrative of the cruel many who married an innocent princess with no intention of ever being faithful.
I happen to believe that although Charles remained partial to Camilla, he really had no serious intention of marrying her. That is until after all they went through together that he realized that this was the woman for him. She had unfailingly supported him when the world was against him and had withstood the most appalling treatment from the press for his sake. It was then that Charles truly fell in love with Camilla and became determined to marry her, come what may.
Diana explained that she had bulimia and all those are signs of someone that is suffering form a certain disturbed mental state. She said that she was crying out for help but the wrong kind of help. Diana then made the mistake of saying that it was indeed her husband that caused her to have bulimia. We know that this is a nonsense because there are other members of her family that suffered from eating disorders. Charles' coldness may have made matters worse but the genes were there. A good education (getting back to the topic) would have allowed Diana to engage in self inflection. To see her situation as it is rather than as she wanted it to be.
Diana engaged in something that we call "disastering" or "awfulizing". This is where you turn some somewhat undesirable situation into a crisis and then run away with it. Hers was by no means that worst marriage in the world, let alone within the royal family. A single reading of the lives of past royal wives would have told her all she needed to know about the challenges of being married in such a situation. Instead she chose to describe all the details of her marriage in the most negative terms she could find, with the implicit intention of making her husband such a bad person that nobody would blame her for the mistakes that she had already started making.
Then she went too far and the divorce papers landed on the doorstep. The tragedy of Diana is that she never truly got a chance to reflect, correct and rebuild. She was taken in the midst of yet another PR stunt designed to manipulate, revenge and upstage. A very sad end indeed for someone who with a little self reflection might have made the best of the wonderful opportunities that came her way. Diana could have been the anchor to the monarchy in the way that the QM and Mary of Teck were. All the raw materials were there. Instead she chose the shiny things of celebrity, PR wins and revenge. It ended up consuming her and later destroying her.
NB. Please moderators, you can move this post to the digest if you don't want it here but I think I needed to say my piece. I know some people are going to be very angry with my post but you cannot live in a bubble. Sometimes reality hits you.
Kanga was the more "traditional" mistress. I think she was less ambitious than Camilla. For one reason or another she was very besotted with the Prince. He once called her the only woman who understood him.
Charles married Diana knowing he did not love or the more "positive?" spin he hoped to "learn to love her." He had no business marrying her. Marriage is for two people and it should be undertaken with mutual respect and love between the couple. Camilla was not going anywhere. I think Diana was in a no win situation.
Dr. Lipsedge said the stress of the marriage brought about the bulimia in Diana. Stress does bring about bulimia nervosa. Diana did get it under control. Diana's sister Sarah had anorexia nervosa for a time because she was rejected by someone she really did want to marry, the Duke of Westminster.
It was not Diana's interview only that brought about the divorce. It was a series of events. Charles first of all bestirred the Parker Bowles to get the divorce when he named Camilla as his mistress in 1994. There was the Camillagate tape which still did not bring about a PB divorce. Morton did not bring about the PB divorce. Charles blabbing forced the divorce. Diana replied to the Panorama interview. I think if the QUeen had not stepped in, Charles would have had a rebuttal to the Panorama interview.
Queen Mary of Teck did not receive Wallis Simpson even after she married her son Edward. I doubt Camilla would have gotten her foot into a royal residence if The Queen had been like her grandmother. Despite being labeled as "cold" by her son, the Queen let Camilla in.
Why the assumption Diana was "destroyed." I think there is a wish by her detractors that she'd have ended up a failure, shunned by society and losing it all. She did not. Her last year was productive, she auctioned off her iconic gowns for charity, she called attention to the anti Landmine campaign, and was building a new role for herself. She was not 'Kicked out" of the royal family,there are photos of her with her ex husband accompanying their sons to a school event. She never would have been kicked out. No, she was not "destroyed."
Charles lost a lot of credibility and despite the spin by Junor, people do not "buy into" his being a "victim" and Camilla being a "victim." People can make up their own minds. Charles and Camilla will move up eventually but I doubt they will be liked by everybody to say the least.
Of course Camilla would support him, she was in a position of great power and influence and got perks from Charles for her role. I see her as a manipulator. Once Charles named her, that was that, her position was secure but Charles still got heavily criticized for naming her.
Diana got a raw deal. She had years ahead of her or should have. Like her sisters she probably would have made a good marriage had Charles left her alone. One could also say the only woman to put up with Charles is Camilla. Charles WAS rejected by two other "suitable" women and they could see the flaws in Charles. CHarles is no prize and has some issues himself.
Diana was not in Charles life, when Charles decided it was OK to sleep with his friends' wives. DIana can't be blamed for that.
Charles married Diana for the wrong reasons. I think it wrong to say Diana could fail at any relationship with a man. That just shows total dislike for Diana wishing her bad and treating her like a "devil."
The woman fought back, she was not some Edwardian woman who turned a blind eye. What woman would not have "tantrums" as you call her when she found out the husband preferred the mistress. Charles never really was out of touch with Camilla.
Diana obviously did not have "mood swings" all the time. She worked and was good at it. Charles got all sulky and moody because she was popular and he could not stand it even during their early years.How do you know what the Queen "felt"? You just have Junor's point of view and she's in heaven because she can be a crawling sycophant and possibly get to be Dame Penny.
Charles in a snit once pulled out a sink in Highgrove. He pouts and sulks when disagreed with.
Why wish bad on a dead woman who died at age 36 saying such things about her? She had close friends who cared about her, her sons adored her. She was not some "reject" who was "destroyed."
The fantasies continue unabated. Fought back indeed...and where did that get her I ask? The constant need to avoid being blamed is the fatal flaw that brought Diana down and yes she was most definitely brought down. She may have attended family events but she was most definitely not "HRH The Princess of Wales".
Already the wheels were coming off in the photo shoot in the post-Camilla birthday episode. Meanwhile that terrible, terrible man she so desperately wanted to marry and remain married to is now happily married. Not a squint of bulimia, depression or in-fighting. Who really lost that battle? We will wait and see.
well I think that Diana certainly won battles but she lost the war. I think that's obvious. Even fi she had been able to stabilise and work out a happy ending, which would have been great, she would never again be a Princess of Wales, or Queen. She would never really be more than tolerated by the RF. And I think the signs are there that she needed help to get stable enough to find a happy ending of a settled life outside the RF, with or without a husband or partner.
You talk of bias Royal. Yet there is no one more biased than you when looking at Charles and Diana's marriage and your constant comparisons between Charles's character and Diana's. Any praise of Diana comes through gritted teeth as far as you are concerned. You grind Diana constantly into the dust in order to elevate your idol, Charles.
You say that Diana didn't understand that a relationship is made up of two people. And Charles did? A man petted and pampered all his adult life, taught to believe he was the centre of the universe since his nursery days, a man who was perplexed when his girlfriend, Anna Wallace, objected to him dancing all evening with Camilla. Yes, he showed perfect understanding of how a relationship works with that little exercise!
Charles has a happy marriage now because Camilla fawns on him, flatters him, strokes his ego. He rewards her by telling her as he did in the Camillagate tapes 'Your great achievement is loving me'. And the sad thing is he believes it. And what a lot that says about him!
There were plenty of staff who lived with the Wales who certainly weren't impressed by Charles's behaviour towards his wife. The member of staff who saw him throwing clocks on a regular basis, the housekeeper at Highgrove who saw Diana running after him in the rain, slip and Charles get into his car and drive off without a backward glance. ('The Housekeeper's Diary')
Ken Wharfe who witnessed several put downs, Dickie Arbiter, Press Secretary, who otherwise I can't stand, who said 'She (Diana) deserved better.' You say 'If your husband is being cold there must be something in the relationship which makes him so...' Not necessarily, if he himself is cold and unloving, and didn't want to be married in the first place.
As for Diana staying with Charles in spite of the put downs etc there is someone else who did that for years isn't there? Camilla called Andrew 'the thing' and 'the stuffed stoat' but she was still hanging around. Even after Charles outed her she didn't want a divorce from this husband who had treated her badly and been unfaithful to her for years. And Camilla's motivation...?
You are determined to reiterate what a loser Diana was in every way. Well, she was and is no loser to her sons twenty years after her death and never has been, and they were the ones who always counted for her in the end.
Anyway, I personally have had enough of constantly reading each day on this forum of how terrible every facet of Diana's nature was and how incomparably better Charles was and is in comparison. It's a bombardment I don't need or want. Life's too short. You've won your Pyrrhic victory, Royal (and it is pyrrhic because you haven't changed my mind one iota). However, I'm leaving.
I'm sure you and amabel will be able to make up the numbers in your own little echo chamber and go on, reassuring each other how utterly marvellous in every way Charles was and is, and how Diana was as the dust under his feet in comparison.
Bye, everyone else!
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 10, 2017, 04:52:25 AM
The fantasies continue unabated. Fought back indeed...and where did that get her I ask? The constant need to avoid being blamed is the fatal flaw that brought Diana down and yes she was most definitely brought down. She may have attended family events but she was most definitely not "HRH The Princess of Wales".
Already the wheels were coming off in the photo shoot in the post-Camilla birthday episode. Meanwhile that terrible, terrible man she so desperately wanted to marry and remain married to is now happily married. Not a squint of bulimia, depression or in-fighting. Who really lost that battle? We will wait and see.
What fantasies? There are different points of view. You seem to want Diana to have had a horrible time. Why? Just curious.
Diana took part of the blame. Charles and Camilla to this day play victims and take no blame.
She was Princess of Wales when she died without the HRH. A future King of England is her son. She would not have been ousted.
I for one I am glad Diana got the headlines instead of Camilla. And that is no "fantasy." It is my Opinion.
Diana was not "brought down." But you seem to wish it so.
Double post auto-merged: July 10, 2017, 01:04:46 PM
Quote from: amabel on July 10, 2017, 05:55:53 AM
well I think that Diana certainly won battles but she lost the war. I think that's obvious. Even fi she had been able to stabilise and work out a happy ending, which would have been great, she would never again be a Princess of Wales, or Queen. She would never really be more than tolerated by the RF. And I think the signs are there that she needed help to get stable enough to find a happy ending of a settled life outside the RF, with or without a husband or partner.
What war? The woman died at age 36. But I think Charles and Camilla are still waging war with her interview and the Junor book and all that.
The woman died at age 36 so you have no idea what would have happened. She may have had a wonderful life for all you know.
Double post auto-merged: July 10, 2017, 01:12:10 PM
Quote from: Curryong on July 10, 2017, 10:27:08 AM
You talk of bias Royal. Yet there is no one more biased than you when looking at Charles and Diana's marriage and your constant comparisons between Charles's character and Diana's. Any praise of Diana comes through gritted teeth as far as you are concerned. You grind Diana constantly into the dust in order to elevate your idol, Charles.
You say that Diana didn't understand that a relationship is made up of two people. And Charles did? A man petted and pampered all his adult life, taught to believe he was the centre of the universe since his nursery days, a man who was perplexed when his girlfriend, Anna Wallace, objected to him dancing all evening with Camilla. Yes, he showed perfect understanding of how a relationship works with that little exercise!
Charles has a happy marriage now because Camilla fawns on him, flatters him, strokes his ego. He rewards her by telling her as he did in the Camillagate tapes 'Your great achievement is loving me'. And the sad thing is he believes it. And what a lot that says about him!
There were plenty of staff who lived with the Wales who certainly weren't impressed by Charles's behaviour towards his wife. The member of staff who saw him throwing clocks on a regular basis, the housekeeper at Highgrove who saw Diana running after him in the rain, slip and Charles get into his car and drive off without a backward glance. ('The Housekeeper's Diary')
Ken Wharfe who witnessed several put downs, Dickie Arbiter, Press Secretary, who otherwise I can't stand, who said 'She (Diana) deserved better.' You say 'If your husband is being cold there must be something in the relationship which makes him so...' Not necessarily, if he himself is cold and unloving, and didn't want to be married in the first place.
As for Diana staying with Charles in spite of the put downs etc there is someone else who did that for years isn't there? Camilla called Andrew 'the thing' and 'the stuffed stoat' but she was still hanging around. Even after Charles outed her she didn't want a divorce from this husband who had treated her badly and been unfaithful to her for years. And Camilla's motivation...?
You are determined to reiterate what a loser Diana was in every way. Well, she was and is no loser to her sons twenty years after her death and never has been, and they were the ones who always counted for her in the end.
Anyway, I personally have had enough of constantly reading each day on this forum of how terrible every facet of Diana's nature was and how incomparably better Charles was and is in comparison. It's a bombardment I don't need or want. Life's too short. You've won your Pyrrhic victory, Royal (and it is pyrrhic because you haven't changed my mind one iota). However, I'm leaving.
I'm sure you and amabel will be able to make up the numbers in your own little echo chamber and go on, reassuring each other how utterly marvellous in every way Charles was and is, and how Diana was as the dust under his feet in comparison.
Bye, everyone else!
I agree with you. I don't understand why some wanted Diana to end up "in the gutter" so to speak with no friends, and cast out away from her "wonderful (cough cough)" Husband.
Double post auto-merged: July 10, 2017, 01:24:32 PM
There is a big fantasy going on this thread. That Diana was "ousted" from the royal family, everybody disliked her and avoided her when crossing streets, she lost her title and clung to the Princess of Wales title when in reality she was Diana Spencer again, she was shunned and a dismal failure. Years later she would come begging to Charles and Camilla and in the goodness of their little old hearts they would give he a few dollars which Diana would spend on drink. Oh Camilla we tried to save her. I know Charles, smiles Camilla. No man could spend 5 minutes with Diana and she never ever could have a serious relationship. But Charles found a saint to marry. Charles in his interview only wanted to tell the world about his great love for his mistress. It was time for the PBs to divorce anyway. He made Camilla so unhappy so she ran to Charles. Diana attacked "poor" Charles and made his life a living hell. And Saint Camilla to the rescue.
Even at age 19 Diana was out to "upstage" Charles. Junor claims she told a friend of a friend "I'm out to upstage him."
Such a villain that Diana in the Fractured Fairy tale book by Charles supporters
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 09, 2017, 11:50:40 PM
I know this is the wrong thread but I beg for permission to discuss. I wish this had been in the Digest. That digest is so flexible you can put anything you like without falling short of the strict categorization of debate.
I have been sharing with a friend on this very same issue after getting some feedback about my seemingly inflammatory post on the Diana education thread. This is my take:
A marriage rarely fails because one party or a third party. It usually fails because of the two parties involved. Trying to apportion blame from the outside based on the biased accounts of one injured party is a recipe for disaster. You can never get the other person to respond to such intimidation. They dig their heels in and move away. Diana tried many tactics ranging from eagerness to please, to vengeance, to please, to seduction, to using the children, to using the monarchy, to using public opinion etc. They all failed miserably because she did not understand or refused to understand that a relationship is made up of two people. Camilla would have been nothing (as Kanga was nothing) if the relationship had been nurtured and sustained. Many marriages I know do not start off with declarations of undying love but they end up well because the people learn about one another and start appreciating their qualities.
If your husband is being cold, there has to be something within that relationship which makes him cold and you have to be part of the solution. The Charles that Diana tried to paint in Morton and Bashir ( that Charles that her fans have worked so hard to insist as the true version) is completely different from the Charles many people know. He has personal foibles and weaknesses like anyone else, but is nowhere near the kind of monster she wanted to portray so as to avoid being blamed for her affairs and the eventual divorce. Anyone with amateur detective skills can clearly see that Morton was only released because Diana's affairs were about to be exposed. She wanted to preemptively portray herself as the wronged wife to avoid the backlash.
If her plans succeeded, Charles would forever be blamed for every single mistake in life she made. She was the lamb to the slaughter whose entire litany of mistakes stemmed from the heartless man who had used, abused and dumped her. That narrative has stuck in the minds of some people to the extent that they cannot open their minds to any thing else. When you do that, you begin the process of destroying the relationship. The other party feels put upon and lied about. They then resent, rebel and leave the home. I have experience of family courts and can tell you that scene repeats again and again.
I am going to say something very, very controversial (as per usual) but evidence has proved me absolutely right). Charles was the only man who would be able to put up with Diana's personality. Any other Joe Bloggs would have divorced her within the year if the accounts of the people that lived with them are even 50% true. As it happened, after Charles left; Diana was never able to sustain a single long term relationship. Those who say that she was waiting for the divorce are engaging in selective amnesia. Charles left by 1986. Over the next decade Diana tried a number of relationships and they all failed. If you are having a string of failed relationships and your terrible spouse is stuck with his mistress then you had better start questioning whether there might be something about your personality or behavior that contributed to the marriage break down.
The servants describe a wife that is so suspicious of her husband that she looks for evidence in every corner and from everyone to show that he is cheating on her. They describe a wife whose mood swings are so incredibly diverse that she startles people like the Queen who absolutely had no interest in her marriage failing. They describe a woman who overnight underwent a transformation that shocked those who had known her before. They describe a toxic household in which Charles had no peace or place. Even the family pets were becoming victims of the disagreements. Much later on when Charles had left the family home, the children were invited to take sides. People would ask what was the matter and Diana would burst out crying. She would engage in attention-seeking scenes like throwing herself down the stairs. People were puzzled and Charles was disgusted. He thought she was trying to manipulate him and so decided to ignore her more and more.
When Diana's tantrums became excessive, he left the house and went back to Camilla. I believe that although Charles always preferred Camilla,he actually did not cheat on Diana until after the birth of Harry. She has never ever disputed his version on that score. Some of the Diana fans know this very well but then say "oh but he must have cheated on her in the mind then". Once again the desire to blame the other party for your own mistakes is the beginning of the end.
I also believe that Charles never really had an intention to marry Camilla until Diana's relentless campaign forced him to dig his heels in. He was not about to let her continue having her affairs whilst raising a stink about his. As far as he was concerned, he had tried and failed to sustain the marriage. That is exactly what he said in Dimbleby. Those biased Diana fans know this deep down but they cannot let go of the narrative of the cruel many who married an innocent princess with no intention of ever being faithful.
I happen to believe that although Charles remained partial to Camilla, he really had no serious intention of marrying her. That is until after all they went through together that he realized that this was the woman for him. She had unfailingly supported him when the world was against him and had withstood the most appalling treatment from the press for his sake. It was then that Charles truly fell in love with Camilla and became determined to marry her, come what may.
Diana explained that she had bulimia and all those are signs of someone that is suffering form a certain disturbed mental state. She said that she was crying out for help but the wrong kind of help. Diana then made the mistake of saying that it was indeed her husband that caused her to have bulimia. We know that this is a nonsense because there are other members of her family that suffered from eating disorders. Charles' coldness may have made matters worse but the genes were there. A good education (getting back to the topic) would have allowed Diana to engage in self inflection. To see her situation as it is rather than as she wanted it to be.
Diana engaged in something that we call "disastering" or "awfulizing". This is where you turn some somewhat undesirable situation into a crisis and then run away with it. Hers was by no means that worst marriage in the world, let alone within the royal family. A single reading of the lives of past royal wives would have told her all she needed to know about the challenges of being married in such a situation. Instead she chose to describe all the details of her marriage in the most negative terms she could find, with the implicit intention of making her husband such a bad person that nobody would blame her for the mistakes that she had already started making.
Then she went too far and the divorce papers landed on the doorstep. The tragedy of Diana is that she never truly got a chance to reflect, correct and rebuild. She was taken in the midst of yet another PR stunt designed to manipulate, revenge and upstage. A very sad end indeed for someone who with a little self reflection might have made the best of the wonderful opportunities that came her way. Diana could have been the anchor to the monarchy in the way that the QM and Mary of Teck were. All the raw materials were there. Instead she chose the shiny things of celebrity, PR wins and revenge. It ended up consuming her and later destroying her.
NB. Please moderators, you can move this post to the digest if you don't want it here but I think I needed to say my piece. I know some people are going to be very angry with my post but you cannot live in a bubble. Sometimes reality hits you.
This is quite the spin and fantasy you have woven here. First of all just how many hoops as you describe above did Diana have to jump through to nurture and sustain her child husband?. Second when Morton came out that was in 92 and Hewitt didn't blab till 94 and any other so called affairs are just speculation. Third what are your qualifications to diagnose Diana with mental illness? Bulimia and anorexia are eating disorders brought on by stress and anxiety as a way to control chaos around them a desire to be perfect. Put yourself on the world stage and lets see how you react. Fourth I highly doubt Charles really wanted to sustain the marriage and if he did it had to be on his terms to include the mistress I don't believe he really tried at all you need to look back to the honeymoon for evidence of that.
You accuse those who love Diana as having blinders on well take a good look at yourself as a Charles lover and your blinders are on Diana publicly took 50% of the blame tell where Charles has admitted his.
Also, I find it odd that Diana is accused of not having sustaining relationships. The fact is she was married to Charles until 1996 and could not sustain long term relationships ending in marriage while married to someone. She could not have bolted to marry Hewitt and face the possibility of losing custody of her sons. So they really had no long term future unless she wanted to risk losing her sons. Diana had only one year to live after the divorce. She was involved with Khan and later, Dodi. It was only one year so how could she be judged as "not being able to sustain long term relationships." I am not getting such intense dislike of Diana that such charges can be leveled against her based on ONE year of being a divorced woman. That makes no sense.
Camilla was and is an ambitious woman. Somehow it worked out (by Charles blabbing) that she and APB divorced and she was a "free woman." Her father asked Charles what he was going to do about her now. So all of a sudden he had the intention of marrying her. Charles was quoted as saying that he would never marry again. And look how that turned out!
If Camilla cared about opinion about her, she would have backed off after Charles married Diana. She was and is nervy and she hung in there. I don't see that she made any sacrifices. Charles had his buddies and sympathizers trash Diana and still do to this day.
Dr. Lipsedge blamed the stress of the marriage to Charles for the bulimia. Diana did not say this. Lipsedge did.
Diana was not allowed to be an anchor to the monarchy, thanks to Charles and Camilla. Camilla IMO was always calling the shots.
I think Charles had relationship issues. He felt it his "right" to bed the wives of his friends, Tryon and Parker Bowles. That is really dysfunctional. He also was turned down by several women. And he felt it OK to marry someone to have his children and expected the wife to be Ok with Camilla being around. That sounds like real dysfunction to me.
I predicted and fully expected the meltdown so it is not really that surprising. The fantasy and fiction has been going on for quite sometime. Someone had to break it. The reaction tells me that my message was understood and received. You can wish and justify and deflect but reality remains reality. If someone wants to leave a forum because people do not agree with her then...good luck and good bye. It is a free world.
There is no "meltdown." It is the other side of the story. And no it is not fantasy and fiction. You are actually saying that Diana would have been a flop and a failure. It is fiction that she was "ousted" from the royal family. She was not. She retained a Royal Residence at KP, still was referred to as Princess of Wales, she still had a son who was going to be King (and most certainly not have kicked his mother to the curb), and she could attend royal events involving the children she had with Prince Charles. That is truth not fiction. She was not ousted. Ever. And she died at age 36 do how on earth do you know she would not have had a "sustaining relationship." IT is just hope on your part that she would have no reality.
The message hit home...hence the reaction. Fantasies are comforting but they do not reflect reality and someone somewhere unmasks them for the fantasies that they are. That is what has happened here. I hope those who are too invested in this recover from the psychological blow of realizing that at least one or two people do not buy into the elaborate fantasy.
Actually royalanthropologist Just what message and truth are we talking about? The truth is Charles and Diana should never have married in the first place. Diana was too young and Charles was too old and set into his entitlement ways. For the whole 7 months you have been a member on this forum I must say much of the posts do not hold to the spirit of the forum and how you get away with it along with a certain pal of yours I don't know. I also wouldn't be patting myself on the back too much for making Curryong leave. As much as you seem to deride the fans of Diana as cultist etc the same could be said regarding you about Charles however, No one here is as mean and callous IMO as you are to the point of making a member leave.
P.S. I am still waiting for Charles to publicly say he takes 50% of the blame himself not " the marriage irretrievably broke down us both having tried".
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 10, 2017, 05:53:58 PM
The message hit home...hence the reaction. Fantasies are comforting but they do not reflect reality and someone somewhere unmasks them for the fantasies that they are. That is what has happened here. I hope those who are too invested in this recover from the psychological blow of realizing that at least one or two people do not buy into the elaborate fantasy.
The divorce terms were not fantasies. Period. Diana was not kicked to the sidewalk with her things in a plastic bag. She got to stay in her royal residence, her son is still is a future King, she lived in a Royal dwelling after the divorce, and she and Charles shared custody and she would always be invited to royal events when their sons were involved . Perhaps the Truth is comforting. No matter how you twist it, it is still a fact. If you insist that Diana was ousted, then maybe that is something comforting to you and your fantasy.
:gaah:
I think the full moon has all sides a little worked up perhaps...im gonna need to wait till im off work to digest and respond, but basically, more grey ppl, more grey.
Diana had some issues and was as much an architect of her own misery as Charles was. But she was, even without press spin, exquisitely lovable, and Charles lack of understanding how to transition to married life brought out the worst in the situation, as much as Diana not being aware of how this marriage might be different from ones she fantasized about.
one can safely store petrol and matches together but it requires a lot of forethought......from 1980 to 1986 im not seeing a lot of it by all parties and with the same results.
@Trudie. I have not asked anyone to leave. They have left of their own volition, apparently because I was not sufficiently complementary of Diana or sufficiently critical of Charles. If the spirit of the forum is to cheer Diana as the perfect person then so be it.
This is not my forum. You can kick me out if I have not sufficiently bought into your view of things. I have said my piece like all of you have said yours. Insisting that everyone must align with your view is the beginning of Groupthink and echo chambers. Unfortunately I do find echo chambers a little bit boring. The emotional investment in this saga is frankly speaking a bit disturbing. Anything negative said about Diana sends people into a tizzy as if you have insulted them personally. It is the same intense dislike for Charles as if he cheated on them personally.
The meanie poster complaint does not work with me. Charles and Camilla have been criticized with relentlessness on these forums for years. Stories and nasty motives are assigned to them with not a shred of evidence. Things that Diana herself said are disputed and shamelessly denied in order drive certain narratives. Those who question such narratives are then reported to moderators for being mean.
This is exactly what Trudie is trying to do by saying "Oh you've been here for just 7 months and are not to our liking. We might get rid of you if you don't change your views"...whatever. I will not change my views or resist expressing them because someone's precious feelings are going to be hurt when I fail to praise their heroine or criticize their nemesis.
If you can dish it out, you should be prepared to take it. If Charles and Camilla fans were as fragile as some people here seem to be; they would have left this forum long ago. I am not into guilt trips. If someone wants to leave, it is their choice and I wish them luck.
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on July 11, 2017, 05:05:37 AM
I think the full moon has all sides a little worked up perhaps...im gonna need to wait till im off work to digest and respond, but basically, more grey ppl, more grey.
Diana had some issues and was as much an architect of her own misery as Charles was. But she was, even without press spin, exquisitely lovable, and Charles lack of understanding how to transition to married life brought out the worst in the situation, as much as Diana not being aware of how this marriage might be different from ones she fantasized about.
one can safely store petrol and matches together but it requires a lot of forethought......from 1980 to 1986 im not seeing a lot of it by all parties and with the same results.
Well most brides to be think it reasonable to want a husband who has nobody "on the side."
That may well be true. However, your reaction to a major failing in your spouse will have an impact on the eventual outcome of the marriage. If you stump your fit, throw a tantrum and generally make it impossible to live together; do not anticipate that the marriage will survive. The other partner will just leave you to your own devices. However, if you discuss the issue together and come up with a workable plan; you might just be able to keep the marriage together.
And of course, inviting the public (or that part of the public that supports you) to pile onto your spouse is hardly going to persuade them that they should remain married to you. If you find that it is completely unworkable, an amicable divorce is preferable to a long drawn out battle that ends up harming you both and your children. Continuously complaining about how bad your husband is does absolutely nothing to restore the marriage. You are better off calling it a day.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 10, 2017, 04:22:38 PM
I predicted and fully expected the meltdown so it is not really that surprising. The fantasy and fiction has been going on for quite sometime. Someone had to break it. The reaction tells me that my message was understood and received. You can wish and justify and deflect but reality remains reality. If someone wants to leave a forum because people do not agree with her then...good luck and good bye. It is a free world.
This is an example of a post not being in the spirit of the forum. The forum is for friendly debate not gleefully stirring up a pot expecting a melt down and it really it appears that it brought you great happiness that a poster has decided to leave. It is the very tone of your posts that are off putting and not up for debate in a friendly way. IMO this is what I mean by mean spirited.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 11, 2017, 12:03:45 PM
That may well be true. However, your reaction to a major failing in your spouse will have an impact on the eventual outcome of the marriage. If you stump your fit, throw a tantrum and generally make it impossible to live together; do not anticipate that the marriage will survive. The other partner will just leave you to your own devices. However, if you discuss the issue together and come up with a workable plan; you might just be able to keep the marriage together.
And of course, inviting the public (or that part of the public that supports you) to pile onto your spouse is hardly going to persuade them that they should remain married to you. If you find that it is completely unworkable, an amicable divorce is preferable to a long drawn out battle that ends up harming you both and your children. Continuously complaining about how bad your husband is does absolutely nothing to restore the marriage. You are better off calling it a day.
Does that apply to Prince Charles also? Who was known to throw fits and lose his temper. And how can anybody work on a marriage when a third party is involved in "counseling" the husband. Of course the issue would have been better had the two talked about their expectations for the marriage. If Charles did not want to be exclusive with his wife he should have brought that up. Diana could have backed out before he proposed.
The option for Divorce did not exist back then. Plus if Diana had walked away she may well have lost much access to William and Harry.
Quote from: Trudie on July 11, 2017, 12:38:44 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 10, 2017, 04:22:38 PM
I predicted and fully expected the meltdown so it is not really that surprising. The fantasy and fiction has been going on for quite sometime. Someone had to break it. The reaction tells me that my message was understood and received. You can wish and justify and deflect but reality remains reality. If someone wants to leave a forum because people do not agree with her then...good luck and good bye. It is a free world.
This is an example of a post not being in the spirit of the forum. The forum is for friendly debate not gleefully stirring up a pot expecting a melt down and it really it appears that it brought you great happiness that a poster has decided to leave. It is the very tone of your posts that are off putting and not up for debate in a friendly way. IMO this is what I mean by mean spirited.
Context is everything. A section of Diana fans are so intent on confidently diagnosing others as cruel, callous, wicked etc. based on the fact that they do not give uncritical praise to Diana. We do not complain because frankly speaking it is not that important. When someone really responds in kind then they turn into snow flakes and complain about how their poor nerves are being tormented by the C&C fans who refuse to see the light (i.e.) that Diana was perfect and blameless whilst C&C were evil and to blame for everything. I am done with such indulgence. If someone posts a fairy tale (something that is not true), I will comment; their tantrums notwithstanding.
Double post auto-merged: July 12, 2017, 11:39:12 AM
Before deciding whether a post is cruel unfriendly, it might be a good idea to first consider what came before it. There are some posters here who are completely beyond all moderation in terms of their emotional attachment to this sage. It seems as if any disagreement about Charles and Diana is a personal insult to them. They prefer to wallow in a belated Diana pity party. I am sorry but that does not convince me. No amount of concession will ever convince these people so the best thing is to say what needs to be said.
Nobody is a snow flake on this board. Nobody throws tantrums. Why must this always get personal?!
I think this is getting to the level about projecting emotions and motives of other posters which is not the purpose of the discussion thread.
Certain facts were brought into the discussion when the contention was that Diana was ousted from the royal family. Not "emotion" Facts--like Diana got to stay in her royal residence (not a civilian residence), she was not "destroyed" she was very much looking forward to a new role and this is well documented. She was still called Princess Diana. Her son is destined to be a future King. If that is not being "royal" I don't know what is. Even if she remarried she would have still been a future King's mother. She could not be divorced by her royal sons and grandchildren.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 12, 2017, 11:34:48 AM
Quote from: Trudie on July 11, 2017, 12:38:44 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 10, 2017, 04:22:38 PM
I predicted and fully expected the meltdown so it is not really that surprising. The fantasy and fiction has been going on for quite sometime. Someone had to break it. The reaction tells me that my message was understood and received. You can wish and justify and deflect but reality remains reality. If someone wants to leave a forum because people do not agree with her then...good luck and good bye. It is a free world.
This is an example of a post not being in the spirit of the forum. The forum is for friendly debate not gleefully stirring up a pot expecting a melt down and it really it appears that it brought you great happiness that a poster has decided to leave. It is the very tone of your posts that are off putting and not up for debate in a friendly way. IMO this is what I mean by mean spirited.
Context is everything. A section of Diana fans are so intent on confidently diagnosing others as cruel, callous, wicked etc. based on the fact that they do not give uncritical praise to Diana. We do not complain because frankly speaking it is not that important. When someone really responds in kind then they turn into snow flakes and complain about how their poor nerves are being tormented by the C&C fans who refuse to see the light (i.e.) that Diana was perfect and blameless whilst C&C were evil and to blame for everything. I am done with such indulgence. If someone posts a fairy tale (something that is not true), I will comment; their tantrums notwithstanding.
Double post auto-merged: July 12, 2017, 11:39:12 AM
Before deciding whether a post is cruel unfriendly, it might be a good idea to first consider what came before it. There are some posters here who are completely beyond all moderation in terms of their emotional attachment to this sage. It seems as if any disagreement about Charles and Diana is a personal insult to them. They prefer to wallow in a belated Diana pity party. I am sorry but that does not convince me. No amount of concession will ever convince these people so the best thing is to say what needs to be said.
The difference between the Diana fans and long time posters are we do not call other posters snowflakes nor do we make personal attacks this is not in the spirit of the forum and how you are getting away with this is totally beyond me. As I have said it is the tone of your posts and these insulting remarks are making it quite clear it has to all be seen your way. Sorry but we can get our point of view across without such high school antics.
Will Charles feel hurt that William and Harry are so open about love for late mum Diana - but he is barely mentioned? - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/charles-feel-hurt-william-harry-10864252)
What say you all, are the boys snubbing Charles in they way they have barely mentioned him???
I liked this part...But it felt a little pointed when William, 35, said: "We feel hopefully this film will provide the other side, from close family friends, you might not have heard before, from those who knew her best and... want to protect her memory."
FWIW I think the mentioning of protecting her memory is a result of the last 20 years of, if not explicit editing, at least, deflecting,not mentioning,etc by the RF,compared to say other members after they passed, and the press and associated ppl wanting royal access, self censoring themselves, lest they incur the royals inferred, if not direct wrath, and corresponding lack of access.
Of course we have the usual PR reps comments, and I think Junor is used sometimes to leak out his feelings when he may not want them directly attributed to him. "They have turned out really well after the most terrible start in life. They have to credit their father with quite a lot of that. I think he might feel justifiably a little bit hurt, sad, that he doesn't feature. It didn't need to be much, just a nod to their father's presence."
She adds: "I'm sure his heart bleeds for them every day when he thinks of what they have lost, but I don't think this will help their relationship."
OF course if he felt put out enough, he could have had the project edited or scrapped, so there could be an element of stoking the flames here, but it will be interesting as the boys grow more comfortable using their adult "voice" so to say, especially William, now that hes married and with kids, he is able to see his parents marriage in a new light, and whether that will make him feel more sympathy or anger over Charles role will be very interesting to try and suss out from press clippings, body language, etc. as I found this part interesting....
"And despite their close bond, the princes may not have been able to talk openly to Charles about Diana.
Susan says: "I would have thought Prince Charles would find it difficult to talk to his sons about it because of his relationship with Diana."
I mean now that the boys have been able to have more control over what they read,seeing the tabs, books and videos that would have been either shielded from them in school or not yet written till after their moms passing, and seeing him married to Camilla, im sure it would be difficult to explain his role as both architect of his own misfortune,harming and ultimately driving away someone they they both loved so much, and by so many accounts they would have gotten from countless people, how lovable they found her as well.
If Harry gets married and has kids and it goes well, he seems less emotionally reserved, itll be interesting to see his future reaction.
I haven't yet seen this doco. It is on Aussie TV this Sunday and I will sit down with my daughters and watch it.
However, I do tend to agree that both William and Harry will have found it difficult over the years to really discuss with their father all the elements of the sorrow, the frustration and yes, the built up anger they have almost certainly felt about their mother's life and her death.
In response to this I just want to put here something from Junor's latest biography of Charles. She discusses the Diana concert and memorial service of 2007, including the touchiness of Charles to the whole proceeding, especially seating arrangements.
'To avoid any awkwardness W and H had banned all senior members of the family from the concert. Instead they invited friends and cousins. Junor notes that 'Discussions about their mother between the Princes and their father had always been very difficult.' She quotes a friend of H and W. 'There is no doubt they love their father but from everything I've seen he is a complex man and difficult to be the son of sometimes, and his reactions to things aren't always as elevated as we might want them to be. Anything to do with their mother is really tricky. Their sensitivity about being seen to say anything about their mother is very noticeable. 'Talk about our mother? Oh God, we don't talk enough about our dad!'
'They are very careful of Charles's sensitivities and dance around them a lot. Like at the service. He was very sensitive about where he sat and what it said.' (She then goes on to give an anecdote about Charles making a meal out of where he and others were to sit. William gave up but Harry got impatient, phoned his father and told him where he was sitting. Even then the brothers were separated at the memorial service, perhaps because of 'sensitivities'. Harry sat with the Spencers and William with the Royals.) Someone on another forum described a clip from a video she saw in which Charles arrived at the memorial service, greeted Harry, who was going to give the eulogy, and took the papers for that from him and looked them over!
Now, quite obviously the Princes were very young men in 2007. Things have changed a bit since. They are in their 30s, have their own households and aren't prepared totally to follow the BRF party line with regard to speaking in public about their mother. Over the past few years they have spoken less and less about their father and more and more about their mother, in spite of Charles's sensitivities on the issue.
Of course they still love their father and are cordial and polite to Camilla. However, I don't think anyone can deny that there are all sort of hidden and sometimes competing and contradictory undercurrents swirling about in the relationship between Charles and his sons. These are possibly unacknowledged between father and sons. Of course Will and Harry wouldn't ever say as adults what William as a six year old was reputed to have said to his father according to an onlooker. 'I hate you, I hate you, you make Mummy cry!' But maybe, just maybe over the years both sons have felt something akin to that.
It's all even more complicated by the fact that both men are still financially obligated to their father. Until William gets his paws on Duchy money Charles contributes mightily to the Cambridge household. He also gives Harry a reputedly generous annual allowance. There is truth in the old saying 'He who pays the piper plays the tune'.
Nevertheless, I'm very glad indeed that in this sad anniversary year William and Harry have felt free to participate in this tribute to their beloved mother.
It never occurred to me that charles would ever feel upset about the documentary excluding him. This documentary wouldn't have an effect on the relationship between him and his sons either.
Sarah Vine: Charles will by hurt by his sons' documentary | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4723302/SARA-VINE-Charles-hurt-sons-documentary.html)
heres another article related to it, the whole relationship between the boys, their mother, father and step mother is downright Shakespearean at times. a couple excepts from it....
"It is almost – to my mind anyway – as if the boys are punishing him. For not giving up Camilla, for failing to love their mother and for ultimately, unwittingly contributing to her death."
"And by the way Diana, even in death, continues to shape perceptions of him as a royal and as a husband, and of how the destructive side of Diana howls after him down the years, haunting the present and exacting revenge in the cruellest way possible: through their sons.
Of course, Charles must bear some responsibility for this. His one great weakness as a royal is that, unlike his mother, he put his heart before his duty."
That last sentence quoted, Duch_, is ironic when you remember that the Queen married for love and has loved Philip all her life since her teens. Whereas her son married a very young woman he didn't love but sort of hoped to, while remaining bound heart and soul to Camilla. In fact I'd suggest that one of Charles's great weaknesses as a Royal WAS marrying for duty and putting his head above his heart. If he hadn't the whole mess of his first marriage needn't have happened.
How unfortunate for Charles that he chose Diana to give him his heirs. Diana was more than just a princess she was first and foremost a mother who loved and adored her children giving them something that lacked in the RF for generations. It is a shame that Charles feels the world must revolve around him and as adults his sons can see the utter selfish person he is. As for how Charles feels about his sons speaking out about their mother Well William let his feelings be known he wants to get the other side out by those who loved and knew her best and will protect her memory. As Charles made Camilla non negotiable his sons are making it clear their mother Diana is non negotiable.
I really do feel that this is just a case of people wanting to project their own feelings onto the royal family. I see no snub and do not expect the children to want to snub their father. To my knowledge Charles has not complained that they are celebrating their mother. This is not about him. Journalist and commentators are just coming up with "oh this must be a snub because they never said this". The tribute is for their mother and not a discussion about their parent's marriage.
In any case: I would caution any child that tries to act as a judge, jury and executioner of their parent's failed marriages. It always ends in tears. I am quite sure William and Harry know what happened the last time a member of the royal family tried to use the media to get revenge on the prince of wales. If you invite the vultures to fight for you, don't be surprised when they begin to pick at your flesh.
William and Harry praising their mother is not all about Charles. I think there will be opportunity next year for Charles on his 70th birthday.
Quote from: Curryong on July 25, 2017, 02:49:04 AM
That last sentence quoted, Duch_, is ironic when you remember that the Queen married for love and has loved Philip all her life since her teens. Whereas her son married a very young woman he didn't love but sort of hoped to, while remaining bound heart and soul to Camilla. In fact I'd suggest that one of Charles's great weaknesses as a Royal WAS marrying for duty and putting his head above his heart. If he hadn't the whole mess of his first marriage needn't have happened.
I think his weaknesses were not being honest with himself and also the sense of entitlements. Charles wanted to have heirs and he did not pursue Camilla as wife material and said he wanted to marry at age 30. If he wanted heirs he would have had to marry the suitable girl (assuming he would have had the same idea of not being ready for marriage when he met Camilla). I think Charles felt he could have it all when he really couldn't. He was not living in Edwardian times when the wife was supposed to turn a blind eye. Chances are the wife would not put up with it. He could have stayed on with Camilla eventually forced a divorce but there might have been the chance that she could not have more children so he could have heirs. I think his desire for legitimate heirs essentially took precedence. It was more than his marrying someone. He wanted heirs too. The Queen's situation was different, there was nobody else for her but Philip and although her parents had reservations about it (they did tell her to wait a year before getting engaged), she did not "settle" and Philip was a distant cousin of royal blood and his Uncle Mountbatten helped facilitate the marriage. Charles apparently did not see Camilla as "the one" back then and he did not see other people and bring her forward to his parents as the one he wanted to marry. He didn't. He did not even tell Camilla to wait for him. He dated others and proposed to others besides Diana. She married someone else. Philip waited for Elizabeth and she did not marry someone else. I think it was a different scenario. Charles also apparently wanted heirs. If he did not he may well have just been involved with Camilla until she divorced.
Double post auto-merged: July 25, 2017, 11:02:39 AM
Quote from: Trudie on July 25, 2017, 09:18:55 AM
How unfortunate for Charles that he chose Diana to give him his heirs. Diana was more than just a princess she was first and foremost a mother who loved and adored her children giving them something that lacked in the RF for generations. It is a shame that Charles feels the world must revolve around him and as adults his sons can see the utter selfish person he is. As for how Charles feels about his sons speaking out about their mother Well William let his feelings be known he wants to get the other side out by those who loved and knew her best and will protect her memory. As Charles made Camilla non negotiable his sons are making it clear their mother Diana is non negotiable.
I am glad William and Harry took this opportunity. The documentary was a wonderful tribute to their mother and the part about her charity work and Landmine Campaign showed how successful she was with charity work and bringing attention to the Landmines. Several people she met (now grown up) had nothing but great things to say about her. A highlight also was the charity auction for her gowns (William suggested the idea to her).
It was a great tribute and hopefully people will let it remain a great tribute. I got no negative vibes watching the clips and I would hope that commentators would have the decency not to try and inject negative vibes into what is essentially a tribute to a beloved mother who passed away.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 25, 2017, 10:41:38 AM
I really do feel that this is just a case of people wanting to project their own feelings onto the royal family. I see no snub and do not expect the children to want to snub their father. To my knowledge Charles has not complained that they are celebrating their mother. This is not about him. Journalist and commentators are just coming up with "oh this must be a snub because they never said this". The tribute is for their mother and not a discussion about their parent's marriage.
In any case: I would caution any child that tries to act as a judge, jury and executioner of their parent's failed marriages. It always ends in tears. I am quite sure William and Harry know what happened the last time a member of the royal family tried to use the media to get revenge on the prince of wales. If you invite the vultures to fight for you, don't be surprised when they begin to pick at your flesh.
I don't see it as William and Harry are trying to use the media to get revenge on their father. I see it as making Diana non negotiable in being trashed as she is no longer here to defend herself. In the 20 years since her passing Diana has been called a tramp though other than Charles she was with other men Hewitt, Khan and Fayed the rest is speculation and written about to gain money from certain authors with no proof other than what they say Hello Ken Wharfe and Paul Burrell. Diana had been labeled a basket case and damaged and this is only the beginning. Diana accomplished a great many things in her life her charity work was legendary and now Camilla is being given credit for paving the way in certain charities where as the reality is Diana was there first. Camilla has paved the way with Osteoporosis and Literacy both very important issues William and Harry are rightfully protecting her legacy from being rewritten by those who has a clear agenda to be in the good graces of The POW as he gets ever closer to the throne.
It just shows that it is possible to pay tribute to their mother without bashing anybody--William and Harry recognized Diana's achievements and praised her as a loving mother to them.. Junor and others have not learned this--they pay tribute by praising Charles and or Camilla but at the same time go in for Diana bashing. which is totally out of line IMO. Junor could have praised Camilla to the skies without demonizing the first wife. Bradford managed in her biography of Diana to give a balanced account without bashing any of the parties involved--criticisms but not bashing. I liked that William and Harry brought into the documentary the people that Diana had met (who were injured by land mines) who talked about Diana's contribution to the anti landmine campaign. I t hink Will and Harry were making the point that Diana was not the "damaged" and "nasty" person that Junor and others depicted her as. They were closest to her and certainly knew a lot more than Junor. I liked that Anne Beckwith Smith was featured on the program also.
It will likely be a few days or so before its available online, i just wish it got uploaded as fast as other HBO fare (GOT, etc). Sounds like it will be something to be enjoyed, did they have Mary Robertson on as well? I always love her recollections of Diana.