On his honeymoon with Princess Diana aboard the yacht Britannia, Prince Charles brought a novel by Sir Laurens van der Post. Seven books came on the honeymoon.
Should Charles have brought the books?
:booknerd: :booknerd: :booknerd: :booknerd: :booknerd: :booknerd: :booknerd:
^^^I don't have an issue with him bringing the books for his own enjoyment if he also spent time with her participating in activities that they both liked. However he did expect his wife to read them and participate in discussion with him on the subject matter. Had Diana indicated that she had an interest in Sir Van der Post's work then she could have joined him, but AFAIK she didn't share his interest in reading material.
^ Again an example of Charles and Diana not knowing each other very well, IMO. Yes of course Charles had a perfect right to bring a selection of favourite books with him on his honeymoon, although joining Diana at some deck activities like deck tennis or quoits would have been more interactive than a solitary activity like reading, I would have thought.
However, most couples when they first get together discuss personal interests and hobbies and what reading material, music, films, TV shows they like. If Diana in the early stages had expressed an interest in the life and philosophies of Laurens Van der Post or Freud then they would have already had some discussions on it had their courtship been a normal one. Instead there were a few dates (and heaven knows what they did talk about when alone during that time) and then an engagement.
Van der Post's philosophies are not something most twenty year olds would be interested in to be honest (I know I'm generalising here) but this seems to me to be a case of Charles, as an older man, fondly imagining that he could mould Diana's mind so she could share his interests and inspirations. If he had known her better Charles would have realised her mind didn't absorb abstract philosophies very well and would have left well alone.
That's not saying that Diana was an ignorant or unintelligent person. I believe she was extremely interested in her fellow humans beings, but she was instinctual not intellectual in her thought processes. This couple were just too too different to ever be a true meeting of minds, IMHO.
QuoteThis couple were just too too different to ever be a true meeting of minds, IMHO.
I absolutely agree and for this reason I doubt that their marriage would have survived. In the end I don't believe that they'd ever be happy with each other.
Sometimes Charles' behavior makes me shake my head :no:. What kind of man brings hard literature to his honeymoon. I mean, really??? That is just ridiculous. Honeymoons are for knowing each other...especially in the Biblical sense. They are not a reading opportunity. You can take books for holiday but in my case I end up not reading a single one as I am busy exploring the landscapes.
It used to be a sort of joke when a couple was given books to read on the honeymoon. One movie star wrote that as a joke someone gave her a copy of Gone with the Wind before she went on her honeymoon.
Double post auto-merged: January 19, 2017, 03:28:17 PM
Quote from: TLLK on January 19, 2017, 02:13:23 AM
QuoteThis couple were just too too different to ever be a true meeting of minds, IMHO.
I absolutely agree and for this reason I doubt that their marriage would have survived. In the end I don't believe that they'd ever be happy with each other.
I doubt it would have survived considering the husband wore his mistress's gift of cufflinks on the honeymoon and carried her photograph with him. It had nothing to do with books.
Double post auto-merged: January 19, 2017, 03:29:55 PM
Quote from: Curryong on January 19, 2017, 01:39:44 AM
^ Again an example of Charles and Diana not knowing each other very well, IMO. Yes of course Charles had a perfect right to bring a selection of favourite books with him on his honeymoon, although joining Diana at some deck activities like deck tennis or quoits would have been more interactive than a solitary activity like reading, I would have thought.
However, most couples when they first get together discuss personal interests and hobbies and what reading material, music, films, TV shows they like. If Diana in the early stages had expressed an interest in the life and philosophies of Laurens Van der Post or Freud then they would have already had some discussions on it had their courtship been a normal one. Instead there were a few dates (and heaven knows what they did talk about when alone during that time) and then an engagement.
Van der Post's philosophies are not something most twenty year olds would be interested in to be honest (I know I'm generalising here) but this seems to me to be a case of Charles, as an older man, fondly imagining that he could mould Diana's mind so she could share his interests and inspirations. If he had known her better Charles would have realised her mind didn't absorb abstract philosophies very well and would have left well alone.
That's not saying that Diana was an ignorant or unintelligent person. I believe she was extremely interested in her fellow humans beings, but she was instinctual not intellectual in her thought processes. This couple were just too too different to ever be a true meeting of minds, IMHO.
Van Der Post had a rather dubious private life. I think Charles liked him because VDP had a wife and a mistress and wrote about how great it was to keep a mistress. Right up Charles' alley.
The big thing they did not have in common was Camilla.
You know sometimes I want to defend Charles and spar with Sandy but then you hear about books on a honeymoon. :ugh: Charles must be the most unromantic guy in the world. I mean you have this beautiful bride and all you want to do is read van whatever. Come on
Well who knows how many pics of camilla were in those books. I think di liked to read books from jackie collins and will made fun of her for it.she doesn't strike me as the type to sit and read for too long. She was extroverted and wanted to speak to people, no matter if its the staff or a close friend unlike chuck.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on January 19, 2017, 04:10:17 PM
You know sometimes I want to defend Charles and spar with Sandy but then you hear about books on a honeymoon. :ugh: Charles must be the most unromantic guy in the world. I mean you have this beautiful bride and all you want to do is read van whatever. Come on
Well if it was a couple with a passion for Van der Post I'm sure that even they could probably find the time to discover a passion for... something else while on their honeymoon. :lol:
I don't think Vanderpost books or Jung were appropriate books to bring on the honeymoon Charles would have been more successful if he brought books such as they joy of s** to teach his innocent bride. :girlblush:
Ha ha. You people are too naughty. :lol: Poor Diana was short-changed. Your first marriage should be a wonderful experience. Then she went on to date cads, weaklings and cowards who never stayed the course. It was a tragic life on so many levels.
What were the titles of the seven books which Prince Charles brought on the honeymoon? :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:
Books by Van Der Post and I think some psychology books by Adler, Jung and others. Primarily VDP though
QuoteThen she went on to date cads, weaklings and cowards who never stayed the course. It was a tragic life on so many levels.
I'll agree with you on all but one, Dr. Hasnat Khan. IMHO he was honest with her regarding his reluctance to be with someone so famous and has been discreet after their relationship ended. :)
TLK. I agree that Hasnat Khan was the nearest thing to a serious romantic relationship and that he was discreet. However, if you really love someone you have to be prepared to make some sacrifices. He was not and yet he continued to pine for Diana. I hear that his marriage has not lasted. Being famous is not the end of the world, otherwise celebrities would never get married. It is so heartbreaking to know that Diana was so loved globally and yet romantically she always pulled the short straw. The contradiction must have driven her to tears.
Double post auto-merged: January 21, 2017, 05:16:24 AM
"some psychology books by Adler, Jung and others"
How romantic...NOT :eyes: I mean, fancy reading some psychoanalysis on your honeymoon. Charles is very eccentric in some ways.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on January 20, 2017, 05:04:39 AM
Ha ha. You people are too naughty. :lol: Poor Diana was short-changed. Your first marriage should be a wonderful experience. Then she went on to date cads, weaklings and cowards who never stayed the course. It was a tragic life on so many levels.
Dr. Khan contributed a whole lot more to society than Charles could ever dream. HE is an eminent heart surgeon. Actually IMO Charles behaved like a cad, weakling and coward who did not stay the course (his sloppy private life with married mistresses and his hangups attest to that--a wishy washy man thinks he can have it all, Charles although he tried to be "deep" did not have a clue). Diana could only begin to look seriously for someone after the divorce. She only was free for a year, so I don't think any judgments can be made. Jackie O. found true love after her second marriage ended when Ari died (though they were not getting along when he died).
Some books written by Laurens van der Post are:
The Dark Eye in Africa, The Seed and the Sower, A Story Like the Wind.
"The Seed and the Sower". Lol. How apt??? :hehe:
:lol: :teehee: :hehe: :goodpost:
Was The Seed and the Sower one of the books that accompanied The Prince and Princess of Wales on the honeymoon?
what does itmatter? We know he took serveral Van Der Post novels, and hoped that he and Di could discuss them. I don't think that the tiltes matter, the point was that he and she din't have the same interests and it only began to come out on the honeymoon that they were so differenet and that Diana couldn't really share in her husband's mental life.
As for her other admirers she had a few bad apples but I tink that overall Khan was a decent man and they might have worked out, Oliver Hoare was perhaps too sophisticated for her, and she over played her hand with him, perhaps expecting him to give up his marriage and leave his kids.
There was one part of Earl Spencer's speech I totally agreed with. Diana's married life was "bizarre" to say the least
@amabel. Charles was aware of his wife's concerns. The honeymoon would have been a perfect time to try and allay those concerns. Apparently he was quite capable of putting on a "show" when he wanted. That is why we have William and Harry. Why could he not put on a show during the honeymoon? Diana was just going through a tough time, with "appalling dreams" about Camilla in the night and abandonment during the day. I don't know about you but books and honeymoons don't seem to go well together. It is two or three weeks when you really get to know each other, not read some boring books. Had Diana been assertive at that point, she might have told him to put the books away and perform his duties as a husband; but sadly she was still in her "eager to please" phase.
I wonder what you all think but I have an idea that if Diana had put her foot down very firmly from the word go, things might have changed. e.g. "It is me or Camilla; I am not prepared to be a third wheel in my marriage" or "I want a real marriage, not a business transaction. You have to be there for me in person and emotionally". At least them there would be some ground rules. What do you think?
^ Diana worked through a lot of grief, anger and resentment to become quite assertive later on as we know, shouting and swearing at Charles in arguments, but at the beginning I don't think she was capable of it. She was as a bride tentative, eager to please, in awe of Charles, his position and his intellect, IMO. Apparently she did try and entice him away from van der Post once or twice but not successfully.
I don't think there are too many girls of just twenty in her position who would have turned into raging tigresses and start issuing demands. You're still pretty unworldly at that age and Diana had never had a career, never entered into negotiations over anything.
She was in love and perhaps didn't quite understand on the honeymoon just how deeply entrenched Camilla was in Charles's heart. He apparently kept reassuring her the 'friendship' with Camilla was all over. Perhaps Diana wanted desperately to believe it in a way a more worldly woman in her later twenties wouldn't have.
I've complained before in posts about the blind spots in Charles regarding others' sensitivities and feelings. He seems to have had been astonished that Diana was upset about the giving of the bracelet to Camilla and the his going to say goodbye to her personally. It was as if 'Well, I've assured her that all that is in the past. Why is she tearful about it?' And this was even before the honeymoon!
I've said before that most women wouldn't have put up with last farewells and gifts to 'special friends'. I certainly wouldn't have been so self-sacrificing but then, I've always been assertive.
So, I would say, rather than Diana having to fight for her man, why didn't this particular man show some sensitivity and some commonsense when dealing with the young girl who loved him? Forget about bracelets, just send a charming letter to your past mistress if you have to, and set yourself determinedly on a course in which there is no other woman in your heart or thoughts BEFORE you become engaged, if you have to marry someone you're not passionately in love with.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on February 25, 2017, 09:36:53 AM
There was one part of Earl Spencer's speech I totally agreed with. Diana's married life was "bizarre" to say the least @amabel. Charles was aware of his wife's concerns. The honeymoon would have been a perfect time to try and allay those concerns. Apparently he was quite capable of putting on a "show" when he wanted. That is why we have William and Harry. Why could he not put on a show during the honeymoon? Diana was just going through a tough time, with "appalling dreams" about Camilla in the night and abandonment during the day. I don't know about you but books and honeymoons don't seem to go well together. It is two or three weeks when you really get to know each other, not read some boring books. Had Diana been assertive at that point, she might have told him to put the books away and perform his duties as a husband; but sadly she was still in her "eager to please" phase.
I wonder
they had a LONG honeymoon, weeks on a yacht, and time in Balmoral afterwards. They weren't going to be having sex ALL the time..and No I don't think ti would have made any difference. I think that Diana wasn't interested in Charles's books, she may have gone along with it for a bit, but she very soon (once they were at Balmoral_) started to show temper and show a lackc of interest in things lke shooting that she ahd seemed to enjoy with him before.
I think that Charles did try to fit in with her, he took her on sunshiney holidays, he problaby cut back on the trying to get her to read his kind of stuff, and he stayed home with her and the kids. But it didn't work. She didn't like his preferred kind of life.. She began to "shout and scream" and he began no doubt ot think more and more about Camilla the more he realised that his wife was ill with the bulimia, that she was uninterested in his interests and was scared to an extent of her royal duties.
Double post auto-merged: February 25, 2017, 12:07:05 PM
Quote from: Curryong on February 25, 2017, 10:08:54 AM
^ Diana worked through a lot of grief, anger and resentment to become quite assertive later on as we know, shouting and swearing at Charles in arguments, but at the beginning I don't think she was capable of it. She was as a bride tentative, eager to please, in awe of Charles, his position and his intellect, IMO. Apparently she did try and entice him away from van der Post once or twice but not successfully.
I don't think there are too many girls of just twenty in her position who would have turned into raging tigresses and start issuing demands. You're still pretty unworldly at that age and Diana had never had a career, never entered into negotiations over anything.
She was in love and perhaps didn't quite understand on the honeymoon just how deeply entrenched Camilla was in Charles's heart. He apparently kept reassuring her the 'friendship' with Camilla was all over. Perhaps Diana wanted desperately to believe it in a way a more worldly woman in her later twenties wouldn't have.
I've complained before in posts about the blind spots in Charles regarding others' sensitivities and feelings. He seems to have had been astonished that Diana was upset about the giving of the bracelet to Camilla and the his going to say goodbye to her personally. It was as if 'Well, I've assured her that all that is in the past. Why is she tearful about it?' And this was even before the honeymoon!
I've said before that most women wouldn't have put up with last farewells and gifts to 'special friends'. I certainly wouldn't have been so self-sacrificing but then, I've always been assertive.
Sowho loved him? Forget about bracelets, just send a charming letter to your past mistress if you have to, and set yourself determinedly on a course in which there is no other woman in your heart or thoughts BEFORE you become engaged, if you have to marry someone you're not passionately in love with.
But how was he to do that? he had been pushed by Philp and circumstances, into courting and proposing to Diana. Who HAD, lets not forget, shown a fair amount of interest in his outdoors pursuits during the courtship. So Charles no doubt felt that he would always love Cam best but that he was fond of Di, that she seemed to love him and tat they had a certain amount in common and that he cuodl expect that love would grow.
I don't really know why he gave Cam a good bye present, (though I believe he gave presents to other friends at that time, perhaps because eh was intending to spend less time with them and to be home with his wife more)...
but I think that at the time, he saw Cam as a good Friend, he intended to go on being friends iwht her and Andrew PB, they lived nearby for goodness sake. If Diana really was bothered by the ongoing friendship and the past affair, why go out with Charles in the first place? Why not say something earlier, such as "I know that you and Cam were more than friends a while ago, do we have to see her all the time? is she still very close to you?£
Maybe it is just me but if I know that there is something that really bothers my spouse, particularly if she is a rather naive 20 year old; I would do everything I could to allay those fears. Yes Diana could have said no and called the whole thing off but I somehow think the resultant drama would have been intolerable. The whole thing was like a Greek tragedy with a life of its own. Once it took hold, nobody could stop it. Diana was just a naive girl walking through a dream with very little power to control it. I have been in those situations before: you know you are going to get ruined but somehow can't turn back.
I suspect that Diana was childish in the beginning but remember this is someone who is just out of their teens. They are entitled to be childish. The thing that disappointed was that Charles was not bothered to understand the situation and handle it better.
Although I defend Camilla on occasions here (to the fury of some of my fellow chat room members); I will never believe hers was a purely innocent relationship. Come on people? That crafty question about hunting gave it all away. The return cuff links were an outrageous provocation to the bride just like the cooing love letters. Camilla was determined to be the principal lady in Charles life. Diana would be the fertile broodmare for official occasions while she was the real wife. As Diana faltered, Camilla got even more ambitious. You can't ask an interested party for marriage guidance. They will tell you to dump their rival and go for them...simples!!!! :hehe:
you do relaise that what we know of Camilla's remarks about hunting come fromDiana? who was pretty elastic with the truth
I believe Diana. I do see something sinister in the way Camilla was "mentoring" Diana and later Charles admitted (in 1994) he married Diana preferring Camilla. Those photos of Lady Diana and Camilla spoke 1000 words. And also rather damning was Charles buying a property within driving distance of the Parker Bowles and Diana did not accompany Charles to those hunts.
Double post auto-merged: February 25, 2017, 09:21:04 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on February 25, 2017, 03:10:03 PM
Maybe it is just me but if I know that there is something that really bothers my spouse, particularly if she is a rather naive 20 year old; I would do everything I could to allay those fears. Yes Diana could have said no and called the whole thing off but I somehow think the resultant drama would have been intolerable. The whole thing was like a Greek tragedy with a life of its own. Once it took hold, nobody could stop it. Diana was just a naive girl walking through a dream with very little power to control it. I have been in those situations before: you know you are going to get ruined but somehow can't turn back.
I suspect that Diana was childish in the beginning but remember this is someone who is just out of their teens. They are entitled to be childish. The thing that disappointed was that Charles was not bothered to understand the situation and handle it better.
Although I defend Camilla on occasions here (to the fury of some of my fellow chat room members); I will never believe hers was a purely innocent relationship. Come on people? That crafty question about hunting gave it all away. The return cuff links were an outrageous provocation to the bride just like the cooing love letters. Camilla was determined to be the principal lady in Charles life. Diana would be the fertile broodmare for official occasions while she was the real wife. As Diana faltered, Camilla got even more ambitious. You can't ask an interested party for marriage guidance. They will tell you to dump their rival and go for them...simples!!!! :hehe:
Camilla was always in the drivers seat IMO. Diana did not "falter" she complained about Camilla. Camilla could never be a wife to Charles while married to another man.
I hate to be pedantic
@sandy but Diana did "falter". Divorce is the biggest faltering that can happen to a marriage. Once she was out of the way, Camilla started thinking beyond mistress to queen.
Amabel, I do get very tired of the argument that Charles was 'forced' by Prince Philip and 'circumstances' to propose to Diana.
Prince Philip's letter was described by someone who saw it as a very reasonable communication. He just pointed out the facts, that the press were at fever pitch, this very young girl Diana was coming under intense media scrutiny and it really wasn't fair to leave her dangling one way or another. So please don't take too much longer in making your mind up. It was not an ultimatum of 'you must marry this one, or else!' though Charles apparently chose to regard it as such.
Yes, the tabloid Press journos had fallen for Diana and were gasping for a Royal engagement. So? Is the Press to be a deciding factor in whether someone weds or not? Press furore dies down eventually.
And yes, I know the arguments about Charles feeling he was of an age when he should be married and Diana was eminently suitable etc etc.
However it was Charles's decision to propose in the end. If a 32 year old man hasn't got the intestinal fortitude to say to his father 'Please don't pressure me on this issue. I want to have time to make up my mind' and ultimately, to his parents, confide 'I don't love Diana. I'm just fond of her and that isn't a good enough basis for marriage.' then I feel very sorry for him and would say 'No backbone then?'
In the end, in marriage there are just two human beings, just a man and a woman, not a Prince and heir to the throne and his consort. If two individuals do not have sufficient interests in common, are not on the same page intellectually, and there is in addition a big age gap, then this is a disaster waiting to happen and I would expect a mature 32 year old to realise this.
Charles at that point needed to marry a much younger person. Those his age were married or "experienced" by then. So he looked for younger women. Amanda Knatchbull, granddaughter of Lord Mountbatten was much younger and CHarles proposed to her and was turned down. Charles just thought of finding the bride, marrying her and having heirs. He thought the rest would fall into place and appears to have had a "concept" of marriage not considering the ideas or feelings of his first wife. At 32, Charles was not forced. Philip said if he did not want to marry Diana, he should drop her. He did not threaten Charles. I do think Charles should have spoken frankly to Diana and not disguised Camilla as the "safe" married friend. Diana could have had a chance to drop out before the engagement was announced. Diana was only 19 when Charles asked her to marry her.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on February 25, 2017, 09:46:26 PM
I hate to be pedantic @sandy but Diana did "falter". Divorce is the biggest faltering that can happen to a marriage. Once she was out of the way, Camilla started thinking beyond mistress to queen.
Well let's put it that way. Charles AND Diana faltered because they got a divorce. It takes two. Camilla and Andrew "faltered" too.
QuoteIn the end, in marriage there are just two human beings, just a man and a woman, not a Prince and heir to the throne and his consort. If two individuals do not have sufficient interests in common, are not on the same page intellectually, and there is in addition a big age gap, then this is a disaster waiting to happen and I would expect a mature 32 year old to realise this.
:goodpost:
@Curryong. In the end this should have been the reason that Charles should have either not proposed to Diana or should have ended their engagement. This is the reason that I believe that their marriage would have ultimately ended in divorce with or without Camilla, Hewitt, Horae etc...
Charles wanted the marriage and did not see beyond having heirs. I think he was reluctant to break it off then people would wonder if there was not "something wrong" with him. Likewise if Diana had left him after the engagement. I disagree. Another woman around would doom any marriage. And Charles admitted he preferred Camilla when he married DIana. Charles dishonesty and Camilla not leaving the scene doomed the marriage. It's like saying a man would have lost his money anyway if someone stole his money. Charles should have told Diana EVERYTHING he expected and I mean everything.
Quote from: Curryong on February 25, 2017, 11:46:07 PM
Amabel, I do get very tired of the argument that Charles was 'forced' by Prince Philip and 'circumstances' to propose to Diana.
Prince Philip's letter was described by someone who saw it as a very reasonable communication. He just pointed out the facts, that the press were at fever pitch, this very young girl Diana was coming under intense media scrutiny and it really wasn't fair to leave her dangling one way or another. So please don't take too much longer in making your mind up. It was not an ultimatum of 'you must marry this one, or else!' though Charles apparently chose to regard it as such.
Yes,
In the end, in marriage there are just two human beings, just a man and a woman, not a Prince and heir to the throne and his consort. If two individuals do not have sufficient interests in common, are not on the same page intellectually, and there is in addition a big age gap, then this is a disaster waiting to happen and I would expect a mature 32 year old to realise this.
I think that he was forced by Circumstnaces. he was at the age he was expected by the public and by his family to get married. he's nto an ordinary man. he was expected to marry a Virgin and if he let Diana go, he would have had to start all over again with another girl who was a good bit younger than himself. It wasn't an ordinary marriage. He was fond of Diana. She seemed a good fit to him. How was he supposed toknow that they did not have sufficient interests in common? Diana was acting like she enjoyed the country life and sports, she met him when he was shooting, and watched him. She watched him fish, when they were up in Scotland. She seemed a sporty girl herself, more than an intellectual type so IMO he was quite entitled to thik that she really enjoyed that sort of lifestyle. He problaby reasoned that OK she hadn't done well at school but that didn't mean she wasn't intelligent. She was young and seemed to hang on his every word so there was time for her to learn more about the intellectual matters that interested him.
I don't mean that Diana deliberately deceived him, but I think she DID act like she shared all or many of his interests, and that she was eager to learn more. She convinced herself that she really liked all the sporty stuff, and that she was keen to know more about the things he read and talked about.
So he knew she was younger than him, but she had to be young. She was warm hearted, sweet and charming, and she seemed to share many of his interests. She wasn't Camilla but he knew he could not marry Camilla. so I think he was prepared to fall in love with her, and while he was a bit scared, he felt that he had to get married soon.. and that Diana was suitable. But when they marired, reality cut in, as it does. They both realised they were in a marriage and this was for life. And I think that freaked Diana out a lot.. She suddenly realised that she was stuck with this man, and this way of life, and a mad press attention. she didn't realy enjoy country life, and found herself in Balmoral for weeks on end, at the second part of the honeymoon. She found the RF too stiff and formal. She was still in love with Charles but she was finding him hard to understand and boring.. and she was increasingly suspicious of his relationship with Camilla. So she really freaked out. She was already bulimic and it got worse. SHe became moody and dififuclt, Charles shied away and was nervous of her.. and the disasters began.
How was he to know?! Diana made it clear early on (and the public knew) that she was afraid of horses after she had a fall as a child. She was also a lot younger and unless he was totally daft, he would know that she was a teenage girl and certainly a 32 year old and a 19 year old would have different interests. Diana was trying to get to know Charles and spend time with him so of course she'd go on walks with him and watch him fish and so on. Charles should have been in love with her not "prepared to" that is no basis for any marriage. And he admitted later that he preferred Camilla when he married Diana. It was a whole lot more than "interests." I think she realized Camilla was in the marriage for life. Diana was pregnant when she was in Balmoral in 1981 and had bad morning sickness. Who could possibly be avid to "stalk" when feeling nauseous. I think Charles was the "difficult one" and he IS an ordinary man. So Charles could have let Diana go and spared her misery. He could have moved on and he had done so before. Charles "Freaked out" because he thought Diana would put up with anything because he paid her the "honor" of marrying him.
So why did Diana continue to hate Balmoral even when she wasn't pregnant? and why did she go out with him and say she loved the country when she clearly didn't? if you watch someone shooting and fishing, and give the impression that you are enjoying it, then I think the person you are with is entitled to believe that you DO like shooitng and fishing and country life in general and that you're going to go on doing this. If she hated fishing and country sports, why not say "I'm only doing this to spend time iwht you Sir, actually it bores me to tears?"
@amabel. Diana was a complex woman with a good and bad side, not the sweet ingenue that some people like to sell to us or insist that we believe in. Alternative biographers are beginning to give us a nuanced view of her. Of course the devotees will immediately say Charles is paying all the journalists on earth to ensure that his dead wife's name is being besmirched. If anything written in this article is true (see below), Charles had no business marrying Diana and should have divorced her immediately before they even had children. It was a marriage made in hell; based on false promises, coercion, disrespect, abuse (sometimes even including violence), manipulation and at best very lukewarm feelings.
How Diana's instability sent Prince Charles into therapy | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4369674/Diana-s-emotional-instability-sent-Charles-therapy.html)
Yes I know that Diana was a complicated and unhappy young woman who sadly didn't get the right help for her problems. but its absurd to say that Charles should not have married her. He needed to get married she was a suitable girl and she seemed to be in love with him. how was he to know that she could not realy cope with the marriage and public life?
Yes the marriage was an unhappy one, but i'd harldy say it was a "marriage made In hell" and would discount the more lurid stories. all this stuff about Di hitting him with a bible has been mentioned before.. yes she could be stormy, she could yell and throw things.. so could he if pushed. It was certainly unhappy enough but I doubt if it was quite as bad as this article paints it.
but he DID marry her and there was no way that he could divorce her, as I'm sure you know. It took years before the queen was willing to allow a divorce...
As for the Valiim, on another thread we're told that Diana was prescribed Valium that did her no good, now in this we're told that she would not take it?
But what kind of marriage is that where at least one of the couple or even both spend most of the time crying, fighting, sulking, cheating, hitting each other and whingeing generally or even briefing the press against one another. It is a very unhealthy environment for anyone. Charles made a terrible mistake and an error of judgement. He should have stood his ground and refused to proposed no matter what the media wanted or even his father suggested. He should never have proposed, no matter what the pressure was. It is infinitely better to remain single than to go through such a rubbish relationship.
The thing about divorce shows English hypocrisy at its worst. The so called religious objections come from a Church whose first principle reason for existence was to allow Henry VIII to divorce an unwanted first wife and marry a second. To their credit, some clerics realized after Panorama that this was a hopeless marriage/relationship with no possible way out other than a divorce. People should never be forced to stay with partners they neither love nor get along with. A separation or divorce is the right solution to such traumatic relationships.
Double post auto-merged: April 01, 2017, 11:32:12 AM
I actually support the system where you have to actively renew your marriage every given period (maybe a year or five) otherwise it lapses and becomes an automatic divorce. It would ensure that people behave with more consideration to one another when married. That was a very, very bad marriage if what the author says is true (hard to verify at the moment since one of the principal parties is dead and has no right of reply).
how was he to know, when he proposed that Diana was so volatile and that she'd crack under the strain of marriage and public life? and he could not remain single. I'm sure you are aware that he was expected to marry and if he left it much longer, he was going to be a LOT older than his new wife.
The signs were there. Bulimia, mood swings, quarrels over Camilla etc. Besides Charles knew in his heart of hearts that this was not the woman for him; he loved another. That would have been the trigger not to propose and break it off. There would have been a media frenzy about the broken "engagement" but at least it would not have led to the crises that ensued. That mistake nearly brought the monarchy down. It was the single worst miscalculation that everyone in the Windsor clan ever made and I am sure they rue it to this very day.
Double post auto-merged: April 01, 2017, 11:51:33 AM
The need to marry immediately was also over-exaggerated by those who wanted a wedding at any cost. A man is capable of fathering children until the very day he dies. Age 32 is not being on the verge of retirement. There were also many, many women on earth he could have married (if you ignore the silly rules about virginity and aristocracy). That is not even considering Camilla who could have divorced APB and been with the man she loved. The rules about divorcees are about to be exposed for the hypocritical sham they are if and when Harry/Meghan tie the knot.
Charles simply wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
Double post auto-merged: April 01, 2017, 11:55:21 AM
Quote from: amabel on April 01, 2017, 11:35:07 AM
how was he to know, when he proposed that Diana was so volatile and that she'd crack under the strain of marriage and public life? and he could not remain single. I'm sure you are aware that he was expected to marry and if he left it much longer, he was going to be a LOT older than his new wife.
How was he to know that Diana would not want to share him with Camilla? Charles was too egocentric to think such a thing. She worked splendidly for the royals and she took to public life. It was Charles' idea of marriage which she did not like. He could have stayed single, there is a line of succession for that purpose
Once he was engaged it was a done deal, they could not break it off.
and I don't see how you can say "the signs were there". Diana's bulima problaby started during their engagement and got worse once she was married but I don't think that Charles knew about it till they were married and living together. As I recall they had one argumetn over Camilla, again when they were engaged.
I don't believe that either of them were truly facing that it was a mistake until they were married and on honeymoon. Dianas builimia got worse she became moodier and clearly hated Balmoral when before she had claimed ot enjoy it. she found the Royal family boring and stressful, and felt that she did not fit in.. and Charles clearly wondered where the girl who had seemed to love simple things and country life had gone..
Of course the marriage was unhappy, of course it was a mistake but it happened.. IMO there's no real point In saying "it shouldn't have happened.. Charles should not have proposed" etc. he did ad they got married. and even if ti was an unhappy marriage there were other ways that it could have gone,. They could have managed to make te best of it, and discreetly pursue other relationships, Or jus quietly led separate lives in private.
DIana should have tossed the ring at him and broke it off when she saw the Fred and Gladys gifts. It would have saved her a lot of grief.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 01, 2017, 10:56:16 AM
@amabel. Diana was a complex woman with a good and bad side, not the sweet ingenue that some people like to sell to us or insist that we believe in. Alternative biographers are beginning to give us a nuanced view of her. Of course the devotees will immediately say Charles is paying all the journalists on earth to ensure that his dead wife's name is being besmirched. If anything written in this article is true (see below), Charles had no business marrying Diana and should have divorced her immediately before they even had children. It was a marriage made in hell; based on false promises, coercion, disrespect, abuse (sometimes even including violence), manipulation and at best very lukewarm feelings.
How Diana's instability sent Prince Charles into therapy | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4369674/Diana-s-emotional-instability-sent-Charles-therapy.html)
Alternative biographers! HA! This sort of drivel has been written about Diana since 1998. Bedell Smith just rewrote her first Diana bashing book, Diana in Search of Herself. She will be well rewarded by Charles and Camilla and be seen giggling with Camilla at a reception.
Did CHarles pray before he paid calls on his friends' wives?
This book will call attention to what Charles is all about and that's not a good thing.
Oh how I wish Diana had done that. We would all have been saved a whole load of trouble. Divorce was the right thing to do and should have been done much, much earlier circa 1984. It was a disgrace to continue living in such a marriage.
Diana could not walk out early on without losing custody of the boys. That was the problem.
That is the crux of the problem. She should never have been put in a position where she could not divorce her husband amicably when it became clear that the marriage had broken down "irretrievably". The rules on not divorcing and custody after divorce are archaic and need some serious updates otherwise people stay in unhappy relationships to avoid losing their children.
there were no "rules" but obviously the 2 sons of the Prince of wales were going to have to spend time with hteir father and the RF, and she could not take them out of England without permission. Diana knew quite well that her marriage ot the future King "could not end in divorce", and that in fact was one of the atractions....for her..
Diana and Charles ended up having joint custody and dividing up the time spent with the boys.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 01, 2017, 10:56:16 AM
@amabel. Diana was a complex woman with a good and bad side, not the sweet ingenue that some people like to sell to us or insist that we believe in. Alternative biographers are beginning to give us a nuanced view of her. Of course the devotees will immediately say Charles is paying all the journalists on earth to ensure that his dead wife's name is being besmirched. If anything written in this article is true (see below), Charles had no business marrying Diana and should have divorced her immediately before they even had children. It was a marriage made in hell; based on false promises, coercion, disrespect, abuse (sometimes even including violence), manipulation and at best very lukewarm feelings.
How Diana's instability sent Prince Charles into therapy | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4369674/Diana-s-emotional-instability-sent-Charles-therapy.html)
IMO( and I believe that
@Curryong might agree with me) is that the DM has "cherrypicked" certain details from the upcoming biography because they know it will draw in plenty of clicks. There appears to be a group of about 6-8 very loyal Diana supporters and about an equal number of critics at the Daily Mail comment section. The editors know that this will bring a rush of people there to debate the details that they've opted to share.
I know that
@Curryong has reserved the book when it is released so I'm waiting for her review.
If Charles had not married Lady Diana, there would have been a different lady who would have become Princess of Wales upon her marriage to Charles.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 01, 2017, 05:17:17 PM
That is the crux of the problem. She should never have been put in a position where she could not divorce her husband amicably when it became clear that the marriage had broken down "irretrievably". The rules on not divorcing and custody after divorce are archaic and need some serious updates otherwise people stay in unhappy relationships to avoid losing their children.
I have to disagree in part regarding William and Harry. It was the 1990's and thousands of couples in the UK had gone through a similar situation. Yes it is true that by law the Queen would actually have custody of ALL royal children until their reached adulthood, but she was not going to remove them from their parents' residences. Andrew and Sarah had divorced with both of them caring for their daughters who were close in the line of succession. The children would have to be raised in the UK, but unless the parents were endangering their children the Windsors knew that the public would expect that the parents would rear them in their homes.
By the time Diana and Charles had divorced, their sons were in boarding school and spending the majority of their free time with their mother until her death in 1997. Had she lived, I do believe that they'd have stayed with her until they left Eton and reached their adulthood.
I do agree with you, TLLK, that the DM played one of their favourite games in picking some pieces out of Sally Bedell Smith's forthcoming biography of Charles in the hope of creating some controversy and gaining clicks.
They do this constantly with royals and celebrities. Knowing that Charles is none too popular with some members of the public and Diana is held in fond remembrance by others, while still more differ, they would be hoping for thousands of clicks.
We see the same thing in the DM with Middletons articles digging at Charles over the attention and time his grandmother gives to Prince George, on occasion as well. This rag would certainly have played that game hard in the Diana/Sarah years if online comments had been around!
I'm waiting for the biography to appear on my Kindle. I believe the due date is April 7th. Then I'll begin to read and see what it really contains!
DM is like an addiction to me. I know they are terrible but they have such wonderful pictures. I just keep clicking :hehe: I am a clickbait victim and need an intervention :no:
Quote from: TLLK on April 01, 2017, 11:03:44 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 01, 2017, 05:17:17 PM
That is the crux of the problem. She should never have been put in a position where she could not divorce her husband amicably when it became clear that the marriage had broken down "irretrievably". The rules on not divorcing and custody after divorce are archaic and need some serious updates otherwise people stay in unhappy relationships to avoid losing their children.
I have to disagree in part regarding William and Harry. It was the 1990's and thousands of couples in the UK had gone through a similar situation. Yes it is true that by law the Queen would actually have custody of ALL royal children until their reached adulthood, but she was not going to remove them from their parents' residences. Andrew and Sarah had divorced with both of them caring for their daughters who were close in the line of succession. The children would have to be raised in the UK, but unless the parents were endangering their children the Windsors knew that the public would expect that the parents would rear them in their homes.
By
yes exactly. the queen was never going to take the boys unless Diana's behiaviour became impossible.. and she knew that as senior royal children they had to be reared largely in England.
and Diana KNEW tat her marriage was supposed to remain intact, and IMO it was foolish of her to push things ot the point of a divorce. I think she'd have been better to remain formally married to Charles and not engage in her wars against him
Double post auto-merged: April 02, 2017, 08:47:54 AM
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on April 01, 2017, 10:29:55 PM
If Charles had not married Lady Diana, there would have been a different lady who would have become Princess of Wales upon her marriage to Charles.
Obviously... unless he didn't marry
I know what Bedell Smith's book contains. I read the book about Diana she wrote...more of the same.
@amabel. In my view, Diana never actually imagined that a divorce would happen. She had been accustomed to a queen who was passive and a prince who largely avoided her so she imagined that they would not react to panorama with anything but contemptuous regal silence. As a married woman, the queen may have understood Diana's argument that she should not be pushed out of her marriage but when Diana questioned the succession the queen had to act. Not to do so would have been akin to allowing treason to happen in her own household. No self-respecting monarch can allow that.
I do not even think that Diana was seriously questioning the succession. All she wanted was to get back at her husband for not loving her and effectively abandoning her for good. Bashir saw an emotional, paranoid, hurt, vengeful, confused and not particularly reflective woman; perfect fodder for a media scoop. Later on as Diana realized the implications of the interview, she started to panic. When ordered to divorce she procrastinated and was dismayed that her husband was very quick to accept the queen's order. It was confirmation (if any was needed) that Charles was thoroughly fed up with the marriage and wanted out at any cost.
That interview was a very big tactical error and Diana had been warned by all the people who had any real concern for her but she ignored them. It could satisfy her devotees and justify their ire but in the long run it meant that Diana was pushed out of the firm and soon began to flounder under the gaze of an emboldened press. Dodi was her final, tragic decision.
Its very hard to know what Diana was thinking. I assumed she was looking for a divorce at the time.. that she wanted out of her marriage, that she had new admirers and possible husbands In mind and wanted to get free of her marriage.
I find it hard to beleive that she was QUITE so stupid as to think that the queen would not react badly to Panorama and the remarks about Charles and the "top job".. that was a step too far..
but then I think that she DID take fright when the queen said that she was now putting her foot down and her ordering a divorce, so perhaps she was that silly that she did not realise that her interview would lead to the RF finally losing patience and cutting her loose.
Quote"I knew from her general demeanour, her fidgeting, that she was not at all confident about what she had done and that the full implications were dawning on her. So you had this mixture of anxiety and defiance. I think by the time of the broadcast, she deeply regretted it, not least because it did nothing to advance her cause."
Her former aide Patrick Jehpson's take on the interview.
Princess Diana 'deeply regretted' infamous Martin Bashir interview, former aide reveals (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/20/princess-diana-deeply-regretted-infamous-martin-bashir-interview/)
I think he's just writing a new take on the story, to make money. At first he insinuated that Diana had been proud of what she'd done and didn't think it was going to have negative implications but it horrified HIM, because he was hoping to keep her inside the RF and working with them. So who can saya which is the truth?
I think that she was happy with what she had done till after it aired and the queen stepped In, and she was then scared, and realised that she had indeed pushed the Q too far.. and that now she was about to be pushed out of the RF. And I think that she got frightened, and didn't really want to leave now that they were saying "Go". I think she began to realise that even if a lot of the public had liked her interview, the Upper classes and RF were mostly now appalled and hostile to her and that she was going to be left out in the cold, that she would no longer be treated as part fo the family or as a royal.. except when they were absolutely forced to acknowledge her.. and tat if she was divorced, Charles would be free to make Camilla his wife, if he could get the RF and queen and public to agree ot it.. as he evnetally did.
I don't think it was looked upon as "easy" for Charles to marry Camilla with both at the time having two living ex spouses. His grandmother loathed Camilla and did not tolerate her after Charles named her and Andrew Parker Bowles divorced her.
Once the Divorce had gone through, it was only a matter of time before Camilla would be acknowledged as Charles' consort. If Diana had remained married and "civilized" about the whole thing, Camilla would have remained a mistress and nothing more. As Diana pushed and pushed, she was actually opening doors for Camilla. A relationship that had been hidden to most but the upper classes was now widely acknowledged with many agreeing that the Prince of Wales deserved personal happiness with the woman he loved. The opinion polls of the time show that the only sticky issue was about queenship. That was resolved by that little con about "Princess Consort".
Diana (like some Spencers) was quite impulsive and emotional. She never did play the long game. To her a few good headlines and the moment of getting one over her husband was the height of her planning. She never thought 5,10,20 years down the line. Camilla just had to sit tight and watch the Princess of Wales self-destruct. Even today, Camilla still plays the long game. If she had been impulsive and emotional; she would have released her own biography and account but she knew very well that that would end her chances of every marrying Charles.
So Camilla just kept quiet, letting her detractors run themselves wild with fury but without the ability to seriously impede her progress to the crown. I don't think Camilla actually reads the negative comments written about her. It is like children having a tantrum when the adult is doing the laundry. The facts are that she is set for life now and she got the man. For example; it was reported that members of the Diana circle wrote her very angry letters immediately after the marriage. One of Camilla's lady's-in-waiting always sent back a polite but noncommittal response; thanking the writer for contacting the Duchess and saying nothing more. That strategy has taken Camilla from a minor member of the country set to being the second most senior woman of the United Kingdom.
Some might argue that Diana was more honest but ultimately it is a very cold, cold place outside the royal family. No amount of celebrity can ever compensate a person for the loss of royal status. HRH has a magic of its own. It closes and opens doors, no matter how famous you are. Diana realized this when the responses to Panorama started trickling in. Nicholas Soames was probably authorized to call her mad, outright; a very clear sign that Diana was to be cast adrift. Even one of Diana's sisters started distancing herself (married to the queen's private secretary). Panorama was a spectacularly bad error of judgment, only matched by the breathless naivety of Morton. It is incredible that a woman who was noted for her street-smart did not realize just how angry the queen would be at panorama.
well perhaps all this "Diana was street smart" and "had emotional intelligence" is nonsense. If she was so quick at working out peopl'es emotions, how come she didn't realise that her royal boyfriend was just out of an affair with another woman? how come she didn't realise that fliritng with a married celeb like Will carling was going to annoy his wife and that being a celebritity Julia Carlign would make a public fuss?
Impulsiveness, impulsiveness. That is why a calm mum was essential to Diana. At least she could get considered advice that she had to listen to, even if not taking it on board. Instead Diana got gurus and mind readers who fed every conspiracy theory they could find to her. They increased her paranoia with fantastic predictions, some involving the Prince of Wales dead. You do not do that when you want to see off a mistress. You make calm, considered strategic decisions. Diana was either too proud, too spirited, or too naive to be able to do that. Whilst married, she was protected by the ring. Once divorced, Charles had no real obligation to her and the press felt they could now tear into her without any fear of royal retaliation.
No way was Camilla going to go away even if Diana had the skills of Sherlock Holmes. Charles had and has his share of gurus. Diana was dispensable in that marriage.
Quote from: TLLK on April 01, 2017, 11:03:44 PM
By the time Diana and Charles had divorced, their sons were in boarding school and spending the majority of their free time with their mother until her death in 1997. Had she lived, I do believe that they'd have stayed with her until they left Eton and reached their adulthood.
Wasn't Diana, at one time, considering moving to Pakistan with Dr. Khan? Her sons would not be permitted to go with her. Also, I once read she was thinking of moving away from England on her own to avoid the rabid paparazzi. Again, her boys would have to stay behind. Are these two stories true?
@Mike. Diana kept toying with these rather silly ideas of living abroad but I never thought she actually meant to follow through on them. It was just a ploy to keep her press court interested and busy. She complained about the press but could not live without them. If Diana truly wanted to be a recluse, she had sufficient money to do so. Many celebrities have retired from public life and never been heard of again. However it was Diana herself who paradoxically insisted that she "would not go quietly". She wanted the limelight and the press duly obliged. It was a mutually beneficial relationship, not Diana as the victim.
Also I find it amusing that someone that was so devastated by her husband having a mistress would want to marry into a culture where polygamy is the done thing. I wonder what her devotees would say when Khan or even Dodi found a second, third and fourth wife. Diana was not thinking clearly or rationally at that time of her life so everything she did must be viewed within that prism. Her thought process was full of inconsistencies, false accommodations and double standards. Some of her most ardent fans continue that tradition to this very day.
As for the marriage not surviving because of Camilla, there are many many women who have seen off mistresses that are way more powerful and way more influential than Camilla was. Even the royal ladies themselves have managed to see off mistresses or alternatively keep them in their place (Queen Alexandra comes to mind in recent times). It is just that Diana wanted to force her husband to give up his mistress, love her unconditionally and took her battle to the press when he did not. He refused to be bulldozed in this way and became even more stubborn about making Camilla non-negotiable.
Later on Diana hinted that she wanted out (in reality Charles had left her around 1985 so it was all just a bit of drama over a lost cause). Like most things about Diana, she was inconsistent in her desire to leave the marriage as well. When the actual divorce was presented; she started to hesitate and even regret. Panorama itself is an exercise in self contradiction. She says she does not want a divorce but wants clarity from her husband. She says she is not bitter but then goes on to behave like an embittered ex wife. She says she is concerned about her husband's welfare then goes on to betray him in the worst way possible. That was classic Diana, inconsistent and complex to the very end.
Charles was glad to get out of that marriage, Diana was not. She was the one who was dumped, not the other way round. Some of her fans claim she was too good for him in order to get over that little inconvenient truth. I theorize that if the queen and Charles had ignored Panorama; Diana would have been quite happy continuing her role as the vengeful wronged wife. Divorce surprised her and took away that role. She would now be judged for her own new relationships/decisions and that did not exactly pan out well. That is why she and her fans kept going back to Charles as the root cause of why she was making so many mistakes even after the divorce.
Khan did not practice polygamy.
Mistresses knew their places in the days of Alexandra. They would not have dared to try to usurp the royal wife or trash her. Edward obviously did not leave ALexandra's bed after the heir and spare were born.
Diana was not dumped. She was no doormat.
Khan is a muslim. Muslims are allowed to practice polygamy (in some instances even positively encouraged when they no longer get on with the first wife). In a C&C situation, Khan would not have half the problems that Charles had in terms of formalizing his relationship. All he would have had to do was to marry his mistress and there was zilch Diana could have done about it.
It was ironic that someone who stated that she hated the "other woman" so much ended up falling for men whose religion not only allowed them to have other women but also marry them. Diana was in for a nasty shock if she thought the Khans would put up with any of the antics she had with Charles. Being spirited is never a good point for Muslim wives.
Charles dumped Diana, that has been the rallying cry of Diana supporters for over 20 years. Unless of course we are now arguing that Diana is the one that dumped Charles (that would entail losing her victim status). Diana was no doormat but being dumped does not mean you are a doormat. It just means your love interest has moved on without your consent.
Now as to humble mistresses... Mistresses who know their place like the ones that come to the death bed of their lover (Alice Keppel)? Or mistresses who leave hundreds crank calls for their married lovers? Camilla is nothing when compared to what mistresses have done for time immemorial. Diana herself is a descendant of a royal mistress. She herself became a mistress (albeit not a royal one).
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 03, 2017, 05:59:50 PM
Khan is a muslim. Muslims are allowed to practice polygamy (in some instances even positively encouraged when they no longer get on with the first wife). In a C&C situation, Khan would not have half the problems that Charles had in terms of formalizing his relationship. All he would have had to do was to marry his mistress and there was zilch Diana could have done about it.
It was ironic that someone who stated that she hated the "other woman" so much ended up falling for men whose religion not only allowed them to have other women but also marry them. Diana was in for a nasty shock if she thought the Khans would put up with any of the antics she had with Charles. Being spirited is never a good point for Muslim wives.
Now
sorry but absolute nonsense. Do you really think that Hasnat Khan was a nasty bully or that he was likely to practice polygamy? Yes it is permitted in Pakistan but only if the man has obtained the consent of his wife and is able to taek care of any other wives. Khan has lived much of his life In the west and is harly likely to be a traditional or very conservative Muslim
Not quite so nonsensical as it might seem at first. Diana went to see Khan's family, without his consent I gather. The visit did not go well. They were deeply religious and conservative. In any case I did not state that Khan was a bully, just that his religion allowed him to marry many wives. Indeed Charles "two wives" comments in Wales pale into insignificance when compared to the liberties allowed a Muslim man. I am yet to meet a Muslim woman who has successfully prevented her husband from marrying a second wife when he wanted to do so.
Is Khan divorced btw? I read something about that somewhere but not sure whether it is true. If that is true then he was not quite the "Mr. Wonderful" that has been sold to us in the fairy tale. Not a bully but also not the Barbara Cartland hero.
well seems to me you see him as unpleasant, in that you seem to be saying "Oh If Diana played her "spirited" tricks on him, he would soon slap her down"...
I simply can't see Khan as the sort of Muslim who would go in for polgyany which is probably dying out, and certnaly not practiced by westernised Muslims like hm. yes he's divorced. he married a woman who was considered suitable by his family, a Muslim, well bred and Pakinstani, I suppose as his family wnted him to, and it didn't work out. But if he was like you seem to imply, if he was unhapply married he would just tell his wife what was what and take a new one as well.
I can't see why his being divorced means that he's "not Mr Wonderful" or that he is some kind of bad person...
Divorce does not equate to being a bully of course. It just shows that his relationship with Diana could have broken (indeed it eventually did). I do not see Khan as being a bad person at all, far from it. My beef with him was when he gave an interview implying that the only problem in that marriage was Charles. Of course we know that it wasn't, if it was then Khan himself would never have broken up with Diana. They were not the perfect couple and he was a tad presumptuous to claim to know the real truth of a marriage based on a clearly biased account by his then girlfriend.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 03, 2017, 05:59:50 PM
Khan is a muslim. Muslims are allowed to practice polygamy (in some instances even positively encouraged when they no longer get on with the first wife). In a C&C situation, Khan would not have half the problems that Charles had in terms of formalizing his relationship. All he would have had to do was to marry his mistress and there was zilch Diana could have done about it.
It was ironic that someone who stated that she hated the "other woman" so much ended up falling for men whose religion not only allowed them to have other women but also marry them. Diana was in for a nasty shock if she thought the Khans would put up with any of the antics she had with Charles. Being spirited is never a good point for Muslim wives.
Charles dumped Diana, that has been the rallying cry of Diana supporters for over 20 years. Unless of course we are now arguing that Diana is the one that dumped Charles (that would entail losing her victim status). Diana was no doormat but being dumped does not mean you are a doormat. It just means your love interest has moved on without your consent.
Now as to humble mistresses... Mistresses who know their place like the ones that come to the death bed of their lover (Alice Keppel)? Or mistresses who leave hundreds crank calls for their married lovers? Camilla is nothing when compared to what mistresses have done for time immemorial. Diana herself is a descendant of a royal mistress. She herself became a mistress (albeit not a royal one).
Not all muslims practice polygamy. That is a falsehood.
Camilla broke precedent as a royal mistress, she got most of what the displaced wife had.
Diana could have had the option to put up and shut up. She didn't. In that sense she dumped Charles because she would not put up with his mistress(es)
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 03, 2017, 07:01:31 PM
Divorce does not equate to being a bully of course. It just shows that his relationship with Diana could have broken (indeed it eventually did). I do not see Khan as being a bad person at all, far from it. My beef with him was when he gave an interview implying that the only problem in that marriage was Charles. Of course we know that it wasn't, if it was then Khan himself would never have broken up with Diana. They were not the perfect couple and he was a tad presumptuous to claim to know the real truth of a marriage based on a clearly biased account by his then girlfriend.
I don't recall his giving an interview, but IMO he has talked vry little about Diana, unlike some of her lovers. and he didn't break up with her. TO the best of my knowledge she broke up with him, probably because she was seeing Dodi
Hewitt was the biggest blabbermouth.
True, and IMO Khan was problaby her most decent ad kindly lover, who genuinely loved her and wanted the best for her. And she and he had a shared interest in charity work and helping sick people...
HIs main fault as a boyfriend was that he didn't want to hurt his family by marrying out of his culture and religion, but possibly that was a way of protecting Diana because he felt that she coud not have ever adjusted to life away from the west, or to life as a middle class doctors wife.
So while he kept refusing to take their affair to the next level, he still loved her and was not able to make a break with her. My understanding was that she was the one who broke the affair off.
when he didd make a marriage that his parents considered suitable, it wasn't happy and ended in divorce..(So I don't know where this idea that he might practice polygamy came from, as he was obviously quite westernised and would probably be horrified by such an idea).
He never gave a thought to polygamy. I don't get the insistence that he would do this. I also doubt that Khan would ever publicly trash Prince Charles. He talked about his relationship with Diana for the inquest not hearsay about Prince Charles.
I don't remember any interview he gave attacking Charles. He talked at the inquest because he had to, and as I recall he said that SHE had broken off the affair and he thought that she was involved iwht another man, that perhaps she had met a man on her holdiays that she wanted to be free to date.
and he has very occasionally spoken to the press, if pushed, and said as little as he could. I don't believe that he ever blamed anyone for the end of the marriage, or criticised Charles.. can someone point to any quotes?
And I agree that it is highly unlike that he would practice polgamy.. when his shrort lived marriage didn't work out he got a divorce. He obviously loved Diana very much, and I can't imagine that if he and she ahd married that he would have been a bullying husband who said "if you start being stroppy and acting up, I'm taking another wife." Or "I'm not putting up with you being a disobedient wife."
Ok, again. Just the facts.
Khan was Pakistani, Islamic, and so...none of that matters because....
Khan was not interested in marrying PD or even ever being seen in public with her on his arm in daylight. The relationship never went that far and was never going to go that far.
Kahn, we all can say never sold her out.
I am sure he is happily married to some White English girl!
The topic thread, books on the honeymoon. Odd.
It the bride and groom like some author or some topic, ok.
Charles Fred and GladysCamilla most likely had their own little book club of two... CamillaGladys gave FredCharles some books
Something to go along with their parting gift exchange of bracelets.
Fact remains, always goes back that CamilaGladys and FredCharles set out to demean, destroy a young's girls, hopes, dreams, love for her husband, etc.
No, why do you say this. Khan isn't married, he married a girl from his own culture as his parents wished and he ended up divorced. why would he marry a "white Girl" when he clearly dd find it hard to break away from his familys expectations.
and no they didn't "set out to demean her expectations" what does that mean? they had an affair, it eneded. Diana adn Charles married and as this topic shows had very little in common and did not like the same kind of reading material.
My post about Khan being married..I said, I guess he is... I said that because many men of means from Other (N.African, MidE.) marry British women.
I stand by the rest of my post. Khan and PD had a secret affair of late night dinners, her place being sneaked in, under cover of the nght ....
it ended. yeah, too bad. It was the only healthy, for lack of a better word, relationship she had with a man.
Dodi, Daddy's boy. No.
Childish sell out, ginny woman Hewitt.
PC Fred who saw her as her broodmare and once that was done, twice, we know, enough of that.
PC and PD had a lot in common. Maybe they they did not have everything in common, but they had a lot in common. The one major thing they did not have in common was Camilla being her sister-wife.
I agree. And couples do not necessarily read exactly the same types of books. The man might enjoy mystery novels and the woman might like historical fiction, it does not make them "incompatible."
Thanks, newsflash everyone!!!!!
Guess what!! :ahhh:
Believe it or not, BUT LADY DIANA FRANCES SPENCER/Princess Diana could read at an adult level.
She mastered Reading at a level or a college graduate of 22 yrs. old. She had Reading and comprehension skills.
I am SHOCKED SHOCKED about this revelation, though it will be disputed here and I am sure the press will one day say, she could not read and therefore could not relate to the bookworm, PC.
Sorry, sorry. I am a bit mean here. Moody. Another day and yet to start a real diet to reduce. Maintaining is easy. Losing is hard.
Job hunting? Ehhh!!!! Uncertain of my future. Family member terminally ill.
Just life stuff.
I lovelove reading and posting here and I like the debates too.
I am just at the point now of when all of our fav subjects come up (PC, Camilla, PD), I will refer to Camilla as the sister -wife PD did not want, accept, did exchange vows with, etc.
Some of us have fav terms like broadmare. Mistress. Upsurp.
Well mine is going to sister-wife. Anyone wanting to use it, please do so. :partaay:
It is nasty...sharing one's husband. Ehhhh!!!
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on April 11, 2017, 07:38:55 PM
My post about Khan being married..I said, I guess he is... I said that because many men of means from Other (N.African, MidE.) marry British women.
I stand by the rest of my post. Khan and PD had a secret affair of late night dinners, her place being sneaked in, under cover of the nght ....
it ended. yeah, too bad. It was the only healthy, for lack of a better word, relationship she had with a man.
Dodi, Daddy's boy. No.
If you looked him up or read previous post yhou would know that he was very much influenced by his family wanting him to marry a woman from their culture. That was why he and Dians' relationship was secret, that and the fact that she was married for part of it. he knew that she would get flak over a relationhip with a Muslim, and he himself flet that he could not marry someone outside his culture. So I don't kow why you said such a thing.
Diana was inspired by her friend Jemima Khan who had married a Muslim and was encouraged that since their marriage was working (although they divorced sometime after Diana's death) she could make a go of a marriage to someone from another culture/faith.
Quote from: amabel on April 12, 2017, 05:05:00 AM
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on April 11, 2017, 07:38:55 PM
My post about Khan being married..I said, I guess he is... I said that because many men of means from Other (N.African, MidE.) marry British women.
I stand by the rest of my post. Khan and PD had a secret affair of late night dinners, her place being sneaked in, under cover of the nght ....
it ended. yeah, too bad. It was the only healthy, for lack of a better word, relationship she had with a man.
Dodi, Daddy's boy. No.
If you looked him up or read previous post yhou would know that he was very much influenced by his family wanting him to marry a woman from their culture. That was why he and Dians' relationship was secret, that and the fact that she was married for part of it. he knew that she would get flak over a relationhip with a Muslim, and he himself flet that he could not marry someone outside his culture. So I don't kow why you said such a thing.
I did not know that. So , what a loser he was too then. A grown adult man and a big doctor, could not stand up to Mommie and Daddy. When was he planning on cutting the ties to his parents ? Sad.
YESYES, when he was younger, correct, he went along with the culture of a suitable marriage and got divorced. Was he young? Much younger then? Is he still single...waiting for the Mommie and Daddy to die?
Do you all know for sure that he is very much into his culture...time when he was with Diana?
Dodi would have married Diana. He did and was not ashammed to be seen with her. His father wanted that friendship to work.
Maybe I have it wrong then. Dodi was the real man , closest one to a man she ever had and Khan, though he did not sell her out, was another dud.
I think you don't seem to know much about Khan.. and I'm not really going to spend time repeating myself. he love Diana, but was uneasy about a marriage because he was expected to marry a woman of his own class and culture and religion. He may well have been right in some ways and felt that Diana, an Englsh woman of higher birth, who was much richer and had been married to a future king, could ntot have settled as a middle class doctor's wife, or fit inot the culture of his nation.
Dodi - do you know nothing about Dodi? He was sleeping with and engaged to antoehr woman, but was willng tocourt Diana because his father paid the bills and he himself had never been able to hold down a job.