How The Duchess of Cornwall Won Our Hearts

[cinrit]

Diana was not a huntress and their dates did not consist of Diana shooting things--she would walk with Charles in Balmoral, watch him fish and hunt. The man knew she was not big on hunting. Some fairness please.

Well, for the sake of fairness, how was he supposed to know that when she initially went with him willingly?

Cindy

[amabel]

Diana was not a huntress and their dates did not consist of Diana shooting things--she would walk with Charles in Balmoral, watch him fish and hunt. The man knew she was not big on hunting. Some fairness please.

Well, for the sake of fairness, how was he supposed to know that when she initially went with him willingly?

Cindy

She did watch him shooting.  James Whittaker mentions IIRC her watching him shoot at Althrop, and she watched him fishing at Balmoral.  She did not shoot herself, some women do but most don't... and she didn't hunt because she had fallen off her pony and lost her nerve.. but she watched Char pursue his country sports quite happily.  I think if she hadn't, he woud not have been interested in her.. Other girls he Had taken out didn't like Balmoral and showed their boredom and were dropped or dropped out of their relationships.  The fact that their relationship lasted proves that she did show a reasonable interest in his country sporting...

[sandy]

Jecca is a woman and hunts. Camilla hunted. There are royal women who do hunt. Even the Queen.

Charles goal was to have heirs with Diana I doubt his first priority was watching her follow him on hunting trips.Of course he was interested in her because: she was fertile, she was blue blooded, and had no past.  If he had a woman who adored hunting but was not blue blooded and/or not fertile she probably would not have made his list.
Double post auto-merged: October 04, 2014, 10:54:25 PM

Diana was not a huntress and their dates did not consist of Diana shooting things--she would walk with Charles in Balmoral, watch him fish and hunt. The man knew she was not big on hunting. Some fairness please.

Well, for the sake of fairness, how was he supposed to know that when she initially went with him willingly?

Cindy

Charles knew she did not hunt. Everybody did. Diana had morning sickness on the honeymoon at Balmoral which would put a damper on her wanting to watch Charles stalk game.

well Charles did his share of pretending presenting Camilla as the Safe Married Friend.  Call that honest?

[TLLK]

Diana was not a huntress and their dates did not consist of Diana shooting things--she would walk with Charles in Balmoral, watch him fish and hunt. The man knew she was not big on hunting. Some fairness please.

Well, for the sake of fairness, how was he supposed to know that when she initially went with him willingly?

Cindy

She did watch him shooting.  James Whittaker mentions IIRC her watching him shoot at Althrop, and she watched him fishing at Balmoral.  She did not shoot herself, some women do but most don't... and she didn't hunt because she had fallen off her pony and lost her nerve.. but she watched Char pursue his country sports quite happily.  I think if she hadn't, he woud not have been interested in her.. Other girls he Had taken out didn't like Balmoral and showed their boredom and were dropped or dropped out of their relationships.  The fact that their relationship lasted proves that she did show a reasonable interest in his country sporting...

AFAIK they met or reconnected when Charles was at a shooting party and she was there in the field.

[cate1949]

Diana did ride - there are a few photos of her riding with the Queen

At some point the post mortems are besides the point - Camilla's status when Charles becomes King is not a question of popularity or how we feel about her behavior - it is a matter of state and as such will be handled with the concerns of the state in mind - hence she will be Queen consort.  Anything otherwise is a blow against the prestige of the crown - Camilla having to curtsy or give place of precedence to the other European royals - her lower status being a constant signal that she was involved in an adulterous relationship and hence a constant reproof against Charles too.  That simply won't be allowed so Camilla will be Queen - the diplomatic and national prestige issues being too great to allow an indulgence to people's distaste about her (and Charles) past.

I think Diana had problems that go beyond being young and immature - problems that were exacerbated by the pressures of royal life and a philandering husband.  I find it so tragic she did not get the opportunity to resolve those issues and find a satisfying life for herself - see her sons grow up too.   But I also cannot see condemning Charles forever -or placing all the blame on him. 

[amabel]

Diana did ride - there are a few photos of her riding with the Queen

At some point the post mortems are besides the point - Camilla's status when Charles becomes King is not a question of popularity or how we feel about her behavior - it is a matter of state and as such will be handled with the concerns of the state in mind - hence she will be Queen consort.  Anything otherwise is a blow against the prestige of the crown - Camilla having to curtsy or give place of precedence to the other European royals - her lower status being a constant signal that she was involved in an adulterous relationship and hence a constant reproof against Charles too. 
I think Diana had problems that go beyond being young and immature - problems that were exacerbated by the

she did ride, but she wasn't that keen on it, I think she occasional tried riding to please the Queen or Charles, and of course she got James Hewitt to teach her to ride again, and went with him.. !
but She just wasn't really into the country sports, but I think that as a daughter of Altrop  she was accustomed enough ot them to see them as a background for meeting visitors and she certainly watched C shooting and fishing and playing polo.  She presumably didn't given any sign of distaste for it or I don't think he would have pursued their relationship because he expected a certain interest in his favourite sports from any serious girlfriend.
I agree about Cam's status in that as Charles' wife, she's going to share his status.  I think the Queen has a bit of a problem not with her per se but the fact that she was C's Mistress for a time and was "caught at it". but if adultery was to be such an issue, she's hardly the only woman with a few affairs in her life who is close to a throne.  If Di had remained Married to Charles, had they gotten over their differences and reached the time when they were king and queen, both of them would have had affairs in their past..
And anyway Cate I don't believe that the public cares any more apart from people who were ardent Di fans.  Most people aren't religious and while they might not entirely approve of Cams having been C's mistress, their attitude is that "it all happened years ago, they're happily married, the boys are OK with her, what's the point of going on about things that happened in the past?"  and don't see any problem with Cam having her husband's status..

[Canuck]

Very good post, cate.

[Limabeany]

I don't see how being head of the Church can be reconciled with half a life lived on immoral standards. Especially the way Charles and Camilla went about it. It's absurd.

[HistoryGirl]

It's been an issue since the establishment of a secular head of the church. Very difficult moral question.

[amabel]

It is an issue, but after all other Supreme governors of te church have hardly been perfectly moral, sexually, what about Edw VII?  Or Ed VIII? or George IV? and its not unknown for clergymen to have divorces and remarry... Besides, that is something that may not be around for much longer... and the C of E has indicated that its OK with Charles marrying Camilla.

[HistoryGirl]

I know that's why I said it's been an issue since secular heads have been in place. Perhaps another change may occur, perhaps not.

[amabel]

its not just an issue with secular  heads.  there have been clerical heads of churches who were hardly angelic in their conduct.

[HistoryGirl]

And they were likewise attacked for it.

[amabel]

really? Do you mean the Reformation? I think it is probably foolish to have a secular supreme governor of the C of E, but if there is one, it is also foolish to expect them to behave in the same way as  a clerical head might. 

[HistoryGirl]

Which is the problem when you are head of the church. I've always found it to be problematic and the question has been around since Henry VIII created the Church.

[Curryong]

To be fair, though, Charles has said that he wants to be Defender of Faiths rather than the title of supreme head of the Church of England, and he has certainly been vocal in his support of persecuted Christians in the Middle East.

The holder of the title Defender of the Faith is the secular head of the Church of England, which may very well be uncoupled from its role as the State church in a decade or two. Secular heads SHOULD lead exemplary lives and in modern times most have done so, Victoria, Georges V and VI and the Queen.

[HistoryGirl]

It might be a good idea as defender of the faith, but he would have to stipulate exactly what that would entail.

[cinrit]

The first Defender of the Faith was married six times, and beheaded two of those wives.  Just wanted to put that out there, though we all know. :P

Cindy

[DaisyMeRollin]

^ I laughed. If you toss in German and Italian principalities, and even some infamous papal characters throughout history, we have quite the buffet of people ordained by God doing a shoddy job of "defending the faith".   :wacko:^

Charles's more agnostic approach is a tad more honest, I guess.

EDIT: I forgot to mention Tsars and Tsarinas of the Russian Orthodox Church.

[sandy]

Diana did ride - there are a few photos of her riding with the Queen

At some point the post mortems are besides the point - Camilla's status when Charles becomes King is not a question of popularity or how we feel about her behavior - it is a matter of state and as such will be handled with the concerns of the state in mind - hence she will be Queen consort.  Anything otherwise is a blow against the prestige of the crown - Camilla having to curtsy or give place of precedence to the other European royals - her lower status being a constant signal that she was involved in an adulterous relationship and hence a constant reproof against Charles too.  That simply won't be allowed so Camilla will be Queen - the diplomatic and national prestige issues being too great to allow an indulgence to people's distaste about her (and Charles) past.

I think Diana had problems that go beyond being young and immature - problems that were exacerbated by the pressures of royal life and a philandering husband.  I find it so tragic she did not get the opportunity to resolve those issues and find a satisfying life for herself - see her sons grow up too.   But I also cannot see condemning Charles forever -or placing all the blame on him. 

Diana never rode to the hunts. When Fergie came into the family she was constantly riding with the Queen. I only saw one photo of Diana on a horse next to the Queen. 

I don't see placing all the blame on Diana. I think Charles is reprehensible in bringing her into a sordid situation. He wanted heirs and he married her for expediency's sake. Better for him not to have married maybe down the road he could have still married Camilla. There was a line of succession in place. Unless he found a woman who'd marry for money and prestige and agree to the terms of the marriage (including Camilla) he should not have married anyone knowing he could not be faithful to her.
Double post auto-merged: October 05, 2014, 10:44:28 PM

To be fair, though, Charles has said that he wants to be Defender of Faiths rather than the title of supreme head of the Church of England, and he has certainly been vocal in his support of persecuted Christians in the Middle East.

The holder of the title Defender of the Faith is the secular head of the Church of England, which may very well be uncoupled from its role as the State church in a decade or two. Secular heads SHOULD lead exemplary lives and in modern times most have done so, Victoria, Georges V and VI and the Queen.

I think he should not be Defender of Faith. I don't think it appropriate. If he wants to drop the Defender title altogether that might be an option.

[TLLK]

^ I laughed. If you toss in German and Italian principalities, and even some infamous papal characters throughout history, we have quite the buffet of people ordained by God doing a shoddy job of "defending the faith".   :wacko:^

Charles's more agnostic approach is a tad more honest, I guess.

EDIT: I forgot to mention Tsars and Tsarinas of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Good point Daisy. Now a question, wasn't Henry VIII originally given this title from the Pope due to his support of the RC church against the "heresy " of the new Lutheran faith? I was under the impression that he chose to retain the title even after his break with Rome. Though I have to say that Henry still seemed more like a devout Catholic to me even after his break. He seemed to vacillate between the two depending on his whim and his current wife.  :P
Double post auto-merged: October 06, 2014, 03:05:50 PM

To be fair, though, Charles has said that he wants to be Defender of Faiths rather than the title of supreme head of the Church of England, and he has certainly been vocal in his support of persecuted Christians in the Middle East.

The holder of the title Defender of the Faith is the secular head of the Church of England, which may very well be uncoupled from its role as the State church in a decade or two. Secular heads SHOULD lead exemplary lives and in modern times most have done so, Victoria, Georges V and VI and the Queen.

Could he be attempting to state that he sees the need to protect the rights of citizens to worship in a way that they see fit and to downplay the need for a state church in the UK?

[Canuck]

Could he be attempting to state that he sees the need to protect the rights of citizens to worship in a way that they see fit and to downplay the need for a state church in the UK?

I agree that was his intent, and I think it's a good one. 

[sandy]

If people don't want a state Church then maybe Charles could just not be Defender of Faith. I doubt religions would rely on Charles for their defense. They have their own religious leaders to look to. Why would Charles have to downplay the state Church? I thought there was already religious freedom? I think Charles is just getting above himself.  I hope he does not become Defender of Faith.

[TLLK]

The HoS has been the secular head for centuries now and this is a new way to expand on the traditional title. IMO he's acknowledging the changes in British society and wants people to know that he'll defend their rights to believe or not to believe.

[sandy]

The people already have religious freedom. I find Charles "defending" them totally superfluous. They have their own leadership.