Prince Charles schooldays

[Curryong]

At Hill House School then at Cheam and Gordonstoun Charles exhibited some traits that his well meaning grandmother had fostered, self pity and a tendency to whine.

At Hill House in Knightsbridge Charles had difficulties in mixing with other boys. He had ability in reading and writing but struggled greatly with mathematics. He was there for only a short time.

Charles disliked Cheam, his first boarding school. According to his biographer Sally Bedell Smith he 'hugged his teddy bear and wept frequently in private. He was physically uncoordinated and slow and overweight. He had no talent for rugby, cricket or soccer. He was frequently out for a duck at cricket, and still struggled with maths.
He made no lasting friendships at Cheam during his five years boarding there.

At Gordonstoun Charles would cry his eyes out at weekends when he would frequently escape to the home of Captain Iain Tennant and his wife Lady Margaret. Captain Tennant was chairman of the Board of Governors at Gordonstoun. The Queen Mother also invited him to her home near Balmoral. This was a privilege not extended to Charles's fellow pupils.

At Gordonstoun his lasting friendships weren't with fellow pupils but with much older schoolmasters Robert Waddell and Eric Anderson. No lasting friendships with other boys.

You see a pattern developing through from Charles's earliest schooldays. A tendency to self pity, whining and weeping, escaping to more congenial and older companionship, separateness from those of his own generation. Bedell Smith describes Charles at the time he left Gordonstoun as 'socially awkward, emotionally immature, even as he appeared old before his time.' I'd say several of these characteristics lingered on into his manhood.

Charles went to Cambridge University because it was quite near Sandringham and its pheasant shooting according to SBS. He did not have the academic qualifications to attend the university. In his O levels at Gordonstoun he had had to twice take his maths exams. He got a B in history and a C in French in his A levels exams. Incidentally, he studied cello at Gordonstoun but was unable to read music which made for a problem.

While he was at Cambridge he received privileged living quarters- his own suite of rooms, sitting room, bedroom, small kitchen. Accommodation for his detective was given and a telephone to ring BP. Charles also got what no other student of his year level received, the attention of the Dean Rab Butler, who also assigned him special privileges. He got a Second degree at Cambridge and didn't fit in with the rest of the students there either, though he was assigned special 'friends', sons of the Dean of Windsor and the like.

After Cambridge and Aberystwyth came a less than stellar career in the Royal Navy. Coming soon.

[royalanthropologist]

Isn't it interesting then that that seemingly friendless pathetic school boy turned out to be the best and most effective Prince of Wales this country has ever had. Declared "Londoner of the Year" for raising over $2 billion for charity, started the Prince's Trust (one of the most influential charities), opened the Poundary village (described as a thriving community), championed the organic movement and turned the Duchy of Cornwall into the most profitable royal estate in UK. That friendless and whiny boy has bridged bridges with many people in the Middle East and established relationships with so many entrepreneurs. And of course, that boy who has a close circle of friends known as the "Highgrove Set". Hmmm...makes you wonder really about how he managed to turn things around.

That weak man defied the establishment and vocal opponents to marry the woman he loves and whom he should have married long time ago. And of course, he resisted the attempts to make him abdicate his right. That weak pathetic boy has turned out to be a lot stronger and far more effective than all his enemies put together. He resisted the pressure to stick with a famous, beautiful and wildly popular princess even when her friends and supporters tried to bulldoze him into "loving" her. Charles may not be so weak after all. The childhood story can be somewhat deceptive in my view.

BTW, I personally have never gloried in the neglect and bullying of school children. Such things ought to be condemned whether the victim is a Prince or Pauper. Schools that traumatize and stigmatize their pupils are not considered to be effective institutions.

[sandy]

Charles was born into the role. There are some University graduates who achieved on their own and worked hard to become entrepreneurs or inventors. Charles was wishy washy with Camilla. He met Camilla Shand yet did not even tell her to wait for him (he told his biographer that he was too young to marry). He did not marry her a long time ago, I think  a real man would have moved on and accepted that she married another man. He also was involved with another married woman Dale Tryon. He should have moved on once Dale and Camilla were married. Charles has a sense of entitlements because of who he is.  Nobody tried formally to "make" Charles abdicated. HE got to have his cake and eat it too. A weak and pathetic person does sleep with his friends' wives.  A real man also would try to work on his marriage and not discard the wife after she had children with him and provided heirs. I think it was not a plus for Charles to "resist pressure" to stay with Diana. If he felt that way he should have done her a favor and dropped her before they got engaged.  I see him as a very weak man. At least the Duke of Windsor did not "compromise" and settle for a suitable young woman to have his heirs while keeping his married mistress around. Charles never once accepted responsibility for what he did but blames others for his own choices.

[Trudie]

I have to agree with you Sandy however, Charles takes after the QM who was a very selfish and whiner who in times of crisis took to a sick bed and who herself felt entitled. The influence she held over Charles continues even to this day. I also have to say at Gordonstoun Charles did have one friend that lasts to this day and it just happens to be Norton Romsey now the 3rd Mountbatten of Burma his cousin

[Curryong]

Norton was in another year level to Charles at Gordonston, and according to the bios I've read they barely saw each other.

[royalanthropologist]

Well Charles no longer loved Diana and did not want to live with her @sandy. Many people tried to punish him for those two things but he refused to budge. Camilla became non-negotiable and he married her. That does not speak to me of a "weak wishy, washy man". It speaks to me of a man that has found what he wants and has the good sense to stick with it. Diana was not an absolute requirement for Charles to have children. He could have married and had children with any woman he wanted. She just happened to be the one he proposed to and she accepted. Their union was not some kind of eternal contract without which Charles could not have had children. That is just ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to suggest that Charles had to abdicate and go into exile simply because he could no longer get on with his wife. Divorce is a reality today and sometimes it is the best solution to a bad situation like the C&D marriage. I happen to think that Charles and the queen even made a mistake delaying the divorce that much. It should have happened in 1986 when the couple were unofficially separated. In that way, each would be free to do their own thing without trying to harm one another as they eventually did.

I have to say about QM: if someone asked me to choose between the two lifestyles (QM and Diana); I would definitely have chosen the QM. She moved from Earls Daughter, to Duchess of York to Queen to Queen Mother. All without a hint of a scandal or a string of lovers in tow or divorce for that matter. Diana might have done very well taking a leaf from the QM. Had she asked and listened to the QM, she might have understood her husband much better than she eventually did instead of trying to change him into an ideal he was not capable of achieving.  The QM was a grandmother, parent and confidant to Charles. She did what the QM and DOE could not or would not do. Charles has always been grateful for her role in his life and has constantly talked about how he missed her.

Finally I want to deal with this canard of "Charles was born into the role" or "nobody would listen or look at him if he was not POW". Everybody has some privilege of sorts and that privilege is no justification to denigrate their achievements in life. For example, a secretary living in Nottingham UK may buy her house and pay off her mortgage by 50. It would be unfair and ridiculous to counter her achievement by saying "Oh you would not have done that if you were not born in a wealthy country in which education is free and you have access to employment opportunities. It is only because you are a UK citizen that you are where you are. ". Those are circular arguments. Charles has turned a ceremonial role into one which has many, many interests and projects. If he can do that for the monarchy, it will be in a better place than his mother who has presided over making the role even more ceremonial than it was when she took over.

[Curryong]

The Queen Mother was a marvellous Queen Consoort. However, she was a completely different sort of personality to Diana and one who had had the benefit of having been brought up in a happy household with happily married parents.

What is more, she was married to a man who absolutely worshipped her, who would never in a million years have talked down to her, a man who totally supported her as she did him. He proposed to her twice and was only accepted on the third occasion. Bertie was desperately in love with Elizabeth and she was vitally important to him. She was his No. 1.

Elizabeth wasn't married to a man who felt that his father had forced him into marriage by issuing an ultimatum. She wasn't married to a man who said 'whatever love means' in his engagement interview. She wasn't married to a man who was tied to another heart and soul, but 'hoped he would grow to love' his bride.

When was Diana ever No 1 to Charles? When did he ever feel that she was a vital part of his existence.

No, Elizabeth didn't have lovers. She was happily wed to a man who adored her. Do you really think that if Diana had had the benefit of love like Elizabeth received from her husband and she knew it with every fibre of her being,  that there would ever have been lovers? Never in a million years.

Instead she got Charles, who decided that he was up against it, everybody wanted it but him, she was suitable and he might grow to love her. Yes, a great recipe for marital happiness and fidelity! 

[sandy]

Well Charles no longer loved Diana and did not want to live with her @sandy. Many people tried to punish him for those two things but he refused to budge. Camilla became non-negotiable and he married her. That does not speak to me of a "weak wishy, washy man". It speaks to me of a man that has found what he wants and has the good sense to stick with it. Diana was not an absolute requirement for Charles to have children. He could have married and had children with any woman he wanted. She just happened to be the one he proposed to and she accepted. Their union was not some kind of eternal contract without which Charles could not have had children. That is just ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to suggest that Charles had to abdicate and go into exile simply because he could no longer get on with his wife. Divorce is a reality today and sometimes it is the best solution to a bad situation like the C&D marriage. I happen to think that Charles and the queen even made a mistake delaying the divorce that much. It should have happened in 1986 when the couple were unofficially separated. In that way, each would be free to do their own thing without trying to harm one another as they eventually did.

I have to say about QM: if someone asked me to choose between the two lifestyles (QM and Diana); I would definitely have chosen the QM. She moved from Earls Daughter, to Duchess of York to Queen to Queen Mother. All without a hint of a scandal or a string of lovers in tow or divorce for that matter. Diana might have done very well taking a leaf from the QM. Had she asked and listened to the QM, she might have understood her husband much better than she eventually did instead of trying to change him into an ideal he was not capable of achieving.  The QM was a grandmother, parent and confidant to Charles. She did what the QM and DOE could not or would not do. Charles has always been grateful for her role in his life and has constantly talked about how he missed her.

Finally I want to deal with this canard of "Charles was born into the role" or "nobody would listen or look at him if he was not POW". Everybody has some privilege of sorts and that privilege is no justification to denigrate their achievements in life. For example, a secretary living in Nottingham UK may buy her house and pay off her mortgage by 50. It would be unfair and ridiculous to counter her achievement by saying "Oh you would not have done that if you were not born in a wealthy country in which education is free and you have access to employment opportunities. It is only because you are a UK citizen that you are where you are. ". Those are circular arguments. Charles has turned a ceremonial role into one which has many, many interests and projects. If he can do that for the monarchy, it will be in a better place than his mother who has presided over making the role even more ceremonial than it was when she took over.

I would like to add that George VI before he courted Elizabeth had a married mistress. IN the authorized biography by Shawcross, George V talked to his son about the mistress and suggested that he give her up. George was not ordered or anything like that he decided to give up his married mistress. So he went into the courtship with Elizabeth with nobody else on the side. HE did love her and she loved him. He was man enough to give up the mistress. And he did, no keeping her on as a "friend" or hostessing Elizabeth. Charles OTOH did not stop contacting his mistress to the detriment of his courtship of Diana and any hope of being totally committed to her.

If Charles only wanted children from Diana and knew he did not love her, he had no business marrying her. DIana was not some 'commodity' he purchased from a store and if he was not 'satisfied' he could return her. Marriage is supposed to be based on commitment and love between a couple.

And no DIana did not have a 'string' of lovers. Charles rejected her because he was not "satisfied" with her.  DIvorce was discouraged back then for the couple. So Charles even though he could have had his children with "anyone"  married DIana and chose to. Knowing he did not love her. Elizabeth and Bertie did not go into the marriage in that spirit. They loved each other.

[royalanthropologist]

I have never been persuaded by this notion that all Diana's problems were rooted in her bad marriage @Curryong. Yes the QM had a good marriage but she made it work. You have to make your marriage work. It just can't be a case of saying that because the other person does not love me, every mistake I make in my life is down to them. Saying that Diana must be absolved of all responsibility for her actions because it was all caused by Charles is as ridiculous as reversing that idea and saying that all Charles' actions must be excused because it was all brought on by an unreasonable wife/bad marriage. There are many people who have bad marriages and they don't all end up like Diana.

Also this idea raised by @sandy that: "Marriage is supposed to be based on commitment and love between a couple". That is an idealized version of marriage. Had Diana not wasted her time reading too many Barbara Cartland novels, she would have realized in that the reality of marriage is very different from the heroes of that book. People marry for many reasons including love, sex, money, security and even immigration status. Diana had very good advance warning that this man was nowhere madly in love with her. She knew it and even wanted to pull out of the wedding. It is her own family that encouraged her to continue with the marriage, knowing very well that Charles' heart was only lukewarm towards her. 

[Curryong]

No not all Diana's problems can be put down to her bad marriage but that marriage and Charles's actions within it plus becoming a Royal exacerbated them.

And most couples do marry for love and believe they will stay committed to each other. Most people don't marry for money or immigration status. And a marriage resulting from one partner being committed in his heart to another woman is on the back foot from the beginning.

You never care to admit that Charles's feelings for Camilla affected his marriage to Diana. It's always Diana's fault where you're concerned or Charles's and Camilla's love comes before everything, even two couples' marriages and four innocent children.

[royalanthropologist]

I admit that Charles' feelings for Camilla did help the marriage to disintegrate.  When you love someone, you can put up with their foibles and even low moments. When you don't really love them or are  merely tolerating them for duty's sake ; any mistake in their part becomes justification for you to leave. That is what happened with C&D. I doubt that it is all smooth sailing with C&C today but the big difference is that they love one another and make compromises in order to accommodate each other. That never happened with Diana. It was my way or the high way.

[Curryong]

Oh, so Charles did 90% of the compromising in the Wales marriage and Diana compromised very little is your assertion now? Diana made plenty of compromises, but she challenged him as well.

If Camilla wants to constantly inflate the Great Man's ego, incessantly flattering him and telling him how wonderful he is and how brainy and how no one compares to him, that's up to her. No wonder she needs Raymill so frequently, and it's certainly nothing I would want to be doing 24/7. Just listening to the Cammilagate tapes sickened me. 'Your great achievement is to love me!' No wonder he like this marriage! Perfect for someone with massive insecurities who needs to be given constant praise.

[sandy]

I have never been persuaded by this notion that all Diana's problems were rooted in her bad marriage @Curryong. Yes the QM had a good marriage but she made it work. You have to make your marriage work. It just can't be a case of saying that because the other person does not love me, every mistake I make in my life is down to them. Saying that Diana must be absolved of all responsibility for her actions because it was all caused by Charles is as ridiculous as reversing that idea and saying that all Charles' actions must be excused because it was all brought on by an unreasonable wife/bad marriage. There are many people who have bad marriages and they don't all end up like Diana.

Also this idea raised by @sandy that: "Marriage is supposed to be based on commitment and love between a couple". That is an idealized version of marriage. Had Diana not wasted her time reading too many Barbara Cartland novels, she would have realized in that the reality of marriage is very different from the heroes of that book. People marry for many reasons including love, sex, money, security and even immigration status. Diana had very good advance warning that this man was nowhere madly in love with her. She knew it and even wanted to pull out of the wedding. It is her own family that encouraged her to continue with the marriage, knowing very well that Charles' heart was only lukewarm towards her. 

So what is your"reality" of marriage, I ask you. That people don't marry for love and commitment? That "maybe" if they marry they might "fall in love" with the partner later. And if the partner is "disappointing," then he or she is dispensable.  Diana did not have "advance warning" because she thought Charles married her because he loved her.  She though Charles an honorable man and would indeed marry her because he was committed to her and love her.

The whole thing could have been avoided if Charles had not proposed to her if he knew he did not love her and preferred someone else. He knew the score. He should have only married if he could fully commit and not be lukewarm about it. And she was only 19 when he was proposed not some woman who had been around the block a few times so to speak.

Diana gave up the Cartland books BTW.  It is irrelevant that she read books probably supplied to her by her step grandmother, the writer herself.  Charles read books by a man who thought it good to have mistresses and had one himself (Van Der Post) so it seems to me he was a cynic who should not have married anybody at all if he thought mistresses should be part of a marriage. I think Charles was in the wrong about what marriage should be. Not Diana.
Double post auto-merged: August 06, 2017, 10:10:24 AM

I admit that Charles' feelings for Camilla did help the marriage to disintegrate.  When you love someone, you can put up with their foibles and even low moments. When you don't really love them or are  merely tolerating them for duty's sake ; any mistake in their part becomes justification for you to leave. That is what happened with C&D. I doubt that it is all smooth sailing with C&C today but the big difference is that they love one another and make compromises in order to accommodate each other. That never happened with Diana. It was my way or the high way.

No if you don't love someone, you should not propose to them. If Charles felt that way he could have broken off the relationship.  He wanted heirs, he got them. I think that's what he wanted out of the marriage. Charles was "together" with Camilla when she was a wife and mother of someone else. Charles was out for himself. 

[royalanthropologist]

Charles gave every indication that he was not that into Diana, that is precisely why she was anxious and jittery about the wedding; at one point considering pulling out. That belies the assumption that "she thought Charles married her because he loved her". She knew very well that he didn't and that is why she was anxious. It was not as if she suddenly realized that he was in love with Camilla after the wedding vows. She had known it and mistakenly thought she could see Camilla off.

The reality of marriage is that it works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. You make of your marriage what you want it to be and if the other person does not fit into your vision; you divorce. Some people marry for love and commitment. In this case neither of the party loved or was committed to the other. Diana had fantasies and tried to live them out by projecting them on Charles. Charles had another person he was in love with and tried to tolerate Diana enough to make the marriage work for dynastic reasons. When things could no longer work, he checked out.

And Diana should have realized that absolutely everyone is dispensable. If the marriage is not working, they will walk away or start acting up. Diana convinced herself that this was a man who would never, ever divorce; sadly her patchy education did not remind her of the fact that royals do divorce and can become quite nasty about it if the other party denies them a divorce.

In any case being divorced is not the end of the world. Many people get divorced. You get on with your life and find someone else. At the very least Diana had children from the marriage and a half decent income to live on. It was not as if she had been left destitute and estranged from her children.  Diana just acted up because it hurt her ego that someone had said no to her. That she had been rejected by Charles, no matter what she did or said. That was her gripe, not that she was in love with him as a person. All her books and interviews are filled with complaints about him. She never loved him or knew him at all. It was all a childish fantasy that went wrong.

Neither you Sandy nor anybody else can dictate why and how people should marry. You can't say "he should not have proposed to her if he was not prepared to love her forever". That is unrealistic. Charles had his own reasons for the proposal and Diana had hers for accepting. Love was not part of their reasons (BTW someone saying that "I love him" does not mean that they did. Actions speak louder than words). I suspect he wanted to fulfill his duty of providing heirs and she wanted to be Princess of Wales/queen later.  Both had options to stop the whole thing and break it off but they didn't. That means that for a time at least, the marriage suited them.
Double post auto-merged: August 06, 2017, 10:42:24 AM

@Curryong. It works for them. Charles did not like what Diana was offering in terms of support but he likes what Camilla does. That may be sickening to you but it works for them. People have choices. Sometimes when I do relationship counseling I tell people this: you can either accept or leave your spouse. Trying to change them is just going to push them away. There is a difference between advising and "challenging". Diana had problems with authority and took every opportunity to defy, insult, denigrate and pull down her husband. She may have had very good reasons to do that but he did not like it and left.

By her own words on tape,Diana was even trying to challenge the influence of the matriarchs of the family (Queen and QM). That is a recipe for disaster if you are a princess of wales. Royalty works through rules, protocols and status. The wife must defer to the royal husband. It is what it is and Diana ought to have known that very well, having been around royals.

As for percentages of compromises. Both parties never compromised because it no longer suited them. Charles had his heirs and Diana was the Princess of Wales by 1984. Her mistake was in believing that her position was secure forever and she could do absolutely anything to provoke the other royals without consequence. His mistake was in believing that Diana would keep quiet about everything and find a lover to keep her occupied.  Once they both realized their mistaken assumptions, the divorce was concluded.

[sandy]

I am expressing my opinion, who said I was "dictating anything" nor is this a hotline to Charles and company.  I think marriage should not be gone into in a cynical way. Did Diana have the same "warranty" that Charles had, that she could return him if she were not "Satisfied." If Charles wanted that sort of thing he should have gotten a pre nup for Diana to sign. If she agreed to the terms. Nobody should marry if they don't love the partner. A recipe for disaster and it could all have been avoided.

Diana did not challenge anything. Even if she had wanted to.

Diana did not want to put up with the marriage after Charles ditched her. She was only 23. Charles mistake was marrying Diana knowing he did not love her. He my have thought that because of who he is, he could have it all--wife, heirs mistress. I think he was and is very spoiled.

At 19 Diana saw things differently. He was marrying her because he loved her and she was the one he chose over Camilla (who would be consigned to history). She indeed told this to Morton. I believe her.

[royalanthropologist]

If Diana thought Charles was in love with her then she was even more deluded that I previously assumed. In any case, why was she worried throughout the wedding when she was certain he was in love with her? Speaks to me of a school-girl type fantasy that is brought down to earth by reality.

It may be very hard on Diana but the reality is that Charles got what he wanted...everything. As some people put it "he had his cake and ate it too". He made a dynastic marriage, had his heirs, married his true love and retained his place in the succession. Of course there were a few bumps along the road but in the end he actually got it all.

[sandy]

Diana was 19 and had little experience. Had she dated for a few years I think she would have been a lot more savvy. The trouble was that Mountbatten advised Charles to marry an inexperienced girl before she meets someone else. Charles appeared to follow that formula.

From that description, I think Charles wanted several wives. Charles is made to sound like some sort of "superior being" who takes on one woman to marry and have his heirs and visit one or more other women because "he's entitled." Charles apparently thought what was right for him. In that case, I think a prenup would have been in order. It was the late 20th century not the 1500s. I don't think Camilla was his true love because he married someone else had other serious relationships and did not pursue Camilla as a bride in the seventies. And he knew she could up and marry Andrew Parker Bowles. But he said nothing to her about a future together. I don't think that screams true love.

[SophieChloe]

[gmod]Hells Bells will you ALL STOP attacking each other! Keep it On Topic and Please stop ascribing each other's motives. If this continues I will have no other option but to remove posts. Come on Guys..... :flower:[/gmod]

[LouisFerdinand]

At Cheam School Charles was "Charles" to his fellow students. He was "Prince Charles" to the members of staff. Charles was to address the members of staff as "Sir".