Books on the honeymoon

[amabel]

you do relaise that what we know of Camilla's remarks about hunting come fromDiana?  who was pretty elastic with the truth

[sandy]

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

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[Curryong]

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.

[sandy]

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.

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.

[TLLK]

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.

: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...

[sandy]

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.

[amabel]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[amabel]

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?"

[royalanthropologist]

@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

[amabel]

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?

[royalanthropologist]

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).

[amabel]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[sandy]

Charles simply wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
Double post auto-merged: April 01, 2017, 11:55:21 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

[amabel]

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.

[sandy]

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.

@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

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[sandy]

Diana could not walk out early on without losing custody of the boys. That was the problem.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[amabel]

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..

[sandy]

Diana and Charles ended up having joint custody and dividing up the time spent with the boys.

[TLLK]

@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

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.

[LouisFerdinand]

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.