Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1

Started by Duch_Luver_4ever, April 13, 2017, 04:12:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Curryong

#25
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.

royalanthropologist

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

Curryong

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.

sandy

#28
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.

amabel

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..

sandy

#30
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.

amabel

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.

sandy

#32
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

amabel


Curryong

^ 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.

amabel

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).

Curryong

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.

amabel

#37
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.

royalanthropologist

#38
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.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

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..

royalanthropologist

#40
@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.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Curryong

#41
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.

sandy

#42
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.

Duch_Luver_4ever

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

royalanthropologist

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

amabel

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.

royalanthropologist

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

amabel

#47
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..

Curryong

#48
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.

royalanthropologist

#49
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.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace