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.

Duch_Luver_4ever

Will Charles feel hurt that William and Harry are so open about love for late mum Diana - but he is barely mentioned? - Mirror Online

What say you all, are the boys snubbing Charles in they way they have barely mentioned him???

I liked this part...But it felt a little pointed when William, 35, said: "We feel hopefully this film will provide the other side, from close family friends, you might not have heard before, from those who knew her best and... want to protect her memory."

FWIW I think the mentioning of protecting her memory is a result of the last 20 years of, if not explicit editing, at least, deflecting,not mentioning,etc by the RF,compared to say other members after they passed, and the press and associated ppl wanting royal access, self censoring themselves, lest they incur the royals inferred, if not direct wrath, and corresponding lack of access.

Of course we have the usual PR reps comments, and I think Junor is used sometimes to leak out his feelings when he may not want them directly attributed to him. "They have turned out really well after the most terrible start in life. They have to credit their father with quite a lot of that. I think he might feel justifiably a little bit hurt, sad, that he doesn't feature. It didn't need to be much, just a nod to their father's presence."

She adds: "I'm sure his heart bleeds for them every day when he thinks of what they have lost, but I don't think this will help their relationship."

OF course if he felt put out enough, he could have had the project edited or scrapped, so there could be an element of stoking the flames here, but it will be interesting as the boys grow more comfortable using their adult "voice" so to say, especially William, now that hes married and with kids, he is able to see his parents marriage in a new light, and whether that will make him feel more sympathy or anger over Charles role will be very interesting to try and suss out from press clippings, body language, etc. as I found this part interesting....

"And despite their close bond, the princes may not have been able to talk openly to Charles about Diana.

Susan says: "I would have thought Prince Charles would find it difficult to talk to his sons about it because of his relationship with Diana."

I mean now that the boys have been able to have more control over what they read,seeing the tabs, books and videos that would have been either shielded from them in school or not yet written till after their moms passing, and seeing him married to Camilla, im sure it would be difficult to explain his role as both architect of his own misfortune,harming and ultimately driving away someone they they both loved so much, and by so many accounts they would have gotten from countless people, how lovable they found her as well.

If Harry gets married and has kids and it goes well, he seems less emotionally reserved, itll be interesting to see his future reaction.


"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.

Curryong

I haven't yet seen this doco. It is on Aussie TV this Sunday and I will sit down with my daughters and watch it.

However, I do tend to agree that both William and Harry will have found it difficult over the years to really discuss with their father all the elements of the sorrow, the frustration and yes, the built up anger they have almost certainly felt about their mother's life and her death.

In response to this I just want to put here something from Junor's latest biography of Charles. She discusses the Diana concert and memorial service of 2007, including the touchiness of Charles to the whole proceeding, especially seating arrangements.

'To avoid any awkwardness W and H had banned all senior members of the family from the concert. Instead they invited friends and cousins. Junor notes that 'Discussions about their mother between the Princes and their father had always been very difficult.' She quotes a friend of H and W. 'There is no doubt they love their father but from everything I've seen he is a complex man and difficult to be the son of sometimes, and his reactions to things aren't always as elevated as we might want them to be. Anything to do with their mother is really tricky. Their sensitivity about being seen to say anything about their mother is very noticeable. 'Talk about our mother? Oh God, we don't talk enough about our dad!'
'They are very careful of Charles's sensitivities and dance around them a lot. Like at the service. He was very sensitive about where he sat and what it said.' (She then goes on to give an anecdote about Charles making a meal out of where he and others were to sit. William gave up but Harry got impatient, phoned his father and told him where he was sitting. Even then the brothers were separated at the memorial service, perhaps because of 'sensitivities'. Harry sat with the Spencers and William with the Royals.) Someone on another forum described a clip from a video she saw in which Charles arrived at the memorial service, greeted  Harry, who was going to give the eulogy, and took the papers for that from him and looked them over!

Now, quite obviously the Princes were very young men in 2007. Things have changed a bit since. They are in their 30s, have their own households and aren't prepared totally to follow the BRF party line with regard to speaking in public about their mother. Over the past few years they have spoken less and less about their father and more and more about their mother, in spite of Charles's sensitivities on the issue.

Of course they still love their father and are cordial and polite to Camilla. However, I don't think anyone can deny that there are all sort of hidden and sometimes competing and contradictory undercurrents swirling about in the relationship between Charles and his sons. These are possibly unacknowledged between father and sons. Of course Will and Harry wouldn't ever say as adults what William as a six year old was reputed to have said to his father according to an onlooker. 'I hate you, I hate you, you make Mummy cry!' But maybe, just maybe over the years both sons have felt something akin to that.

It's all even more complicated by the fact that both men are still financially obligated to their father. Until William gets his paws on Duchy money Charles contributes mightily to the Cambridge household. He also gives Harry a reputedly generous annual allowance. There is truth in the old saying 'He who pays the piper plays the tune'.

Nevertheless, I'm very glad indeed that in this sad anniversary year William and Harry have felt free to participate in this tribute to their beloved mother.

michelle0187

It never occurred to me that charles would ever feel upset about the documentary excluding him. This documentary wouldn't have an effect on the relationship between him and his sons either.

Duch_Luver_4ever

#478
Sarah Vine: Charles will by hurt by his sons' documentary | Daily Mail Online

heres another article related to it, the whole relationship between the boys, their mother, father and step mother is downright Shakespearean at times. a couple excepts from it....

"It is almost – to my mind anyway – as if the boys are punishing him. For not giving up Camilla, for failing to love their mother and for ultimately, unwittingly contributing to her death."

"And by the way Diana, even in death, continues to shape perceptions of him as a royal and as a husband, and of how the destructive side of Diana howls after him down the years, haunting the present and exacting revenge in the cruellest way possible: through their sons.

Of course, Charles must bear some responsibility for this. His one great weakness as a royal is that, unlike his mother, he put his heart before his duty."
"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.

Curryong

That last sentence quoted, Duch_, is ironic when you remember that the Queen married for love and has loved Philip all her life since her teens. Whereas her son married a very young woman he didn't love but sort of hoped to, while remaining bound heart and soul to Camilla. In fact I'd suggest that one of Charles's great weaknesses as a Royal WAS marrying for duty and putting his head above his heart. If he hadn't the whole mess of his first marriage needn't have happened.

Trudie

How unfortunate for Charles that he chose Diana to give him his heirs. Diana was more than just a princess she was first and foremost a mother who loved and adored her children giving them something that lacked in the RF for generations. It is a shame that Charles feels the world must revolve around him and as adults his sons can see the utter selfish person he is. As for how Charles feels about his sons speaking out about their mother Well William let his feelings be known he wants to get the other side out by those who loved and knew her best and will protect her memory. As Charles made Camilla non negotiable his sons are making it clear their mother Diana is non negotiable.



royalanthropologist

I really do feel that this is just a case of people wanting to project their own feelings onto the royal family. I see no snub and do not expect the children to want to snub their father.   To my knowledge Charles has not complained that they are celebrating their mother.  This is not about him. Journalist and commentators are just coming up with "oh this must be a snub because they never said this". The tribute is for their mother and not a discussion about their parent's marriage.

In any case: I would caution any child that tries to act as a judge, jury and executioner of their parent's failed marriages. It always ends in tears.  I am quite sure William and Harry know what happened the last time a member of the royal family tried to use the media to get revenge on the prince of wales. If you invite the vultures to fight for you, don't be surprised when they begin to pick at your flesh.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

#482
William and Harry praising their mother is not all about Charles. I think there will be opportunity next year for Charles on his 70th birthday.



Quote from: Curryong on July 25, 2017, 02:49:04 AM
That last sentence quoted, Duch_, is ironic when you remember that the Queen married for love and has loved Philip all her life since her teens. Whereas her son married a very young woman he didn't love but sort of hoped to, while remaining bound heart and soul to Camilla. In fact I'd suggest that one of Charles's great weaknesses as a Royal WAS marrying for duty and putting his head above his heart. If he hadn't the whole mess of his first marriage needn't have happened.

I think his weaknesses were not being honest with himself and also the sense of entitlements. Charles wanted to have heirs and he did not pursue Camilla as wife material and said he wanted to marry at age 30. If he wanted heirs he would have had to marry the suitable girl (assuming he would have had the same idea of not being ready for marriage when he met  Camilla).  I think Charles felt he could have it all when he really couldn't. He was not living in Edwardian times when the wife was supposed to turn a blind eye. Chances are the wife would not put up with it.  He could have stayed on with Camilla eventually forced a divorce but there might have been the chance that she could not have more children so he could have heirs. I think his desire for legitimate heirs essentially took precedence. It was more than his marrying someone. He wanted heirs too. The Queen's situation was different, there was nobody else for her but Philip and although her parents had reservations about it (they did tell her to wait a year before getting engaged), she did not "settle" and Philip was a distant cousin of royal blood and his Uncle Mountbatten helped facilitate the marriage. Charles apparently did not see Camilla as "the one" back then  and he did  not see other people and bring her forward to his parents as the one he wanted to marry. He didn't. He did not even tell Camilla to wait for him. He dated others and proposed to others besides Diana. She married someone else. Philip waited for Elizabeth and she did not marry someone else. I think it was a different scenario. Charles also apparently wanted heirs. If he did not he may well have just been involved with Camilla until she divorced.

Double post auto-merged: July 25, 2017, 11:02:39 AM


Quote from: Trudie on July 25, 2017, 09:18:55 AM
How unfortunate for Charles that he chose Diana to give him his heirs. Diana was more than just a princess she was first and foremost a mother who loved and adored her children giving them something that lacked in the RF for generations. It is a shame that Charles feels the world must revolve around him and as adults his sons can see the utter selfish person he is. As for how Charles feels about his sons speaking out about their mother Well William let his feelings be known he wants to get the other side out by those who loved and knew her best and will protect her memory. As Charles made Camilla non negotiable his sons are making it clear their mother Diana is non negotiable.

I am glad William and Harry took this opportunity. The documentary was a wonderful tribute to their mother and the part about her charity work and Landmine Campaign showed how successful she was with charity work and bringing attention to the Landmines. Several people she met (now grown up) had nothing but great things to say about her.  A highlight also was the charity auction for her gowns (William suggested the idea to her).

royalanthropologist

It was a great tribute and hopefully people will let it remain a great tribute. I got no negative vibes watching the clips and I would hope that commentators would have the decency not to try and inject negative vibes into what is essentially a tribute to a beloved mother who passed away.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Trudie

Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 25, 2017, 10:41:38 AM
I really do feel that this is just a case of people wanting to project their own feelings onto the royal family. I see no snub and do not expect the children to want to snub their father.   To my knowledge Charles has not complained that they are celebrating their mother.  This is not about him. Journalist and commentators are just coming up with "oh this must be a snub because they never said this". The tribute is for their mother and not a discussion about their parent's marriage.

In any case: I would caution any child that tries to act as a judge, jury and executioner of their parent's failed marriages. It always ends in tears.  I am quite sure William and Harry know what happened the last time a member of the royal family tried to use the media to get revenge on the prince of wales. If you invite the vultures to fight for you, don't be surprised when they begin to pick at your flesh.

I don't see it as William and Harry are trying to use the media to get revenge on their father. I see it as making Diana non negotiable in being trashed as she is no longer here to defend herself. In the 20 years since her passing Diana has been called a tramp though other than Charles she was with other men Hewitt, Khan and Fayed the rest is speculation and written about to gain money from certain authors with no proof other than what they say Hello Ken Wharfe and Paul Burrell. Diana had been labeled a basket case and damaged and this is only the beginning. Diana accomplished a great many things in her life her charity work was legendary and now Camilla is being given credit for paving the way in certain charities where as the reality is Diana was there first. Camilla has paved the way with Osteoporosis and Literacy both very important issues William and Harry are rightfully protecting her legacy from being rewritten by those who has a clear agenda to be in the good graces of The POW as he gets ever closer to the throne.



sandy

It just shows that it is possible to pay tribute to their mother without bashing anybody--William and Harry recognized Diana's achievements and praised her as a loving mother to them.. Junor and others have not learned this--they pay tribute by praising Charles and or Camilla but at the same time go in for Diana bashing. which is totally out of line IMO. Junor could have praised Camilla to the skies without demonizing the first wife.  Bradford managed in her biography  of Diana to give a balanced account without bashing any of the parties involved--criticisms but not bashing. I liked that William and Harry brought into the documentary the people that Diana had met (who were injured by land mines) who talked about Diana's contribution to the anti landmine campaign. I t hink Will and Harry were making the point that Diana was not the "damaged" and "nasty" person that Junor and others depicted her as. They were closest to her and certainly knew a lot more than Junor. I liked that Anne Beckwith Smith was featured on the program also. 

Duch_Luver_4ever

It will likely be a few days or so before its available online, i just wish it got uploaded as fast as other HBO fare (GOT, etc). Sounds like it will be something to be enjoyed, did they have Mary Robertson on as well? I always love her recollections of Diana.
"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.