Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1

[royalanthropologist]

@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.

[Curryong]

^ 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!

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[amabel]

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

[sandy]

@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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[Trudie]

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.

[Curryong]

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

[sandy]

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)

[royalanthropologist]

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:

[Curryong]

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.

[sandy]

If only Princess Margaret had tipped off Diana.
Double post auto-merged: June 20, 2017, 04:36:27 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.

[Trudie]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[Trudie]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[Curryong]

^ 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.

[sandy]

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

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[Curryong]

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.

[Trudie]

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.

[sandy]

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

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.

[amabel]

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?