In 1995 when she visited Japan, Princess Diana curtseyed to the Emperor and Empress.
Princess Diana in Japan, 1995 - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agFWF5r1SBs)
:curtsy: :curtsy: :curtsy: :curtsy: :curtsy: :curtsy: :curtsy: :curtsy: :curtsy: :curtsy: :curtsy: :curtsy:
Her ballet training certainly gave her grace and balance. :)
Princess Diana curtseyed to King Juan Carlos of Spain.
In pictures: King Juan Carlos abdicates the Spanish throne | Diana and Princess diana (http://www.pinterest.com/pin/536350636858804956)
she did a lot more than "curtsey" to him :girlblush: :blowkiss: :lol: :thumbsup:
Careful. You might be attacked for mentioning sacrilegious things. :hehe:
Oh please, Diana was not involved with Juan Carlos. That's just gossip. Why would she get involved with a compulsive womanizer like him. It is not sacrilegious it's more Diana bashing. It's so bad that photos of Diana's curtsying turn into gossip. Not purpose of this thread. Next she'll be accused of bedding Clinton, bedding Elvis and be abducted by space aliens. More National Enquirer grist mill and Colin Campbell tall tales. What is the point of this idle gossip? Bash Diana, make her look bad? What exactly? Some take the gossip to the depths saying Juan sired William.
Double post auto-merged: September 27, 2017, 02:27:31 PM
So if Lady Colin's words are taken as gospel then I suppose we all have to believe the Queen Mum was born illegitimate. Diana was no Zsa Zsa racking up notches on the old bed post. She got involved with Hewitt later that year.
Double post auto-merged: September 27, 2017, 02:28:21 PM
Juan Carlos was a serial philanderer. And a lot older than Diana.
Double post auto-merged: September 27, 2017, 02:30:46 PM
Back on topic. Diana was a graceful, elegant woman and curtseyed very well.
Maybe it's me finding Juan Carlos deeply unattractive but I've never believed that he would be the type the young Diana would be attracted to. He's a slimy philanderer as far as I can see, and Diana falling for his charms to the extent of having her first child by him is IMO extremely unlikely.
It was Diana's misfortune that she was madly in love with her husband during those early years, and would hardly fancy a holiday fling with a much older Lotheario like JC. There may well have been an attraction on JC's part. That I can well believe, but 20year old Diana opting for an affair under the noses of her hostess, Queen Sofia, Charles, and JC's children (who were also present at the villa.) Not likely!!
I had understood that there were some issues between England and Spain regarding the route of the Britannia on the honeymoon. And the claims of Juan Carlos are contradictory. Some say 1986 then some say he was involved with Diana at the time she would conceive William which seems like something miraculous since he was nowhere near her.
QuoteThat I can well believe, but 20year old Diana opting for an affair under the noses of her hostess, Queen Sofia, Charles, and JC's children (who were also present at the villa.) Not likely!!
Yes I agree that it is unlikely that she had a fling with JC during that visit to Spain.
Well, to be accurate, the picture in question is from 1987, not the honeymoon. Yes there was some friction between Spain and UK over Gibraltar and he had boycotted the wedding. But by the mid 80s that was all patched up, thats the period of time im referring to
@Curryong not the honeymoon.
C&D were often separated during the holidays in Spain, Charles painting /riding/hunting in places like grenada and Diana near the water, which she enjoyed. Im sure you all recall the story of the photos of Diana/JC in a compromising position that were snapped up and the photog paid off to avoid them being published. By that time the marriage was on the rocks, she was looking for romantic reassurance, and JC would certainly know how to do that with his experience. Queen Sophia had long ago by then realized what he was like and suffered in silence.
Also look at pics of them together, I know shes flirtatious a lot but theres some serious chemistry between them that you dont see with her in other pics.
The photos never turned up. I don't think Diana went for anything in pants who paid attention to her. She was involved with Hewitt in 1987 and he never mentioned anything about JC. COlin Campbell is the one who is beating this allegation to death. I don't believe her and I think she makes up stories.
Why would Diana want a serial cheater, she wanted someone permanent in her life. NOt someone who racks up scores on his bedpost. Besides which he was a lot older than Diana. Diana was not that desperate. I think she should be given some credit for that.
The point is that the sleazy gossip encouraged even more tittle tattle by people who claimed Juan Carlos sired William. Diana is dead and can't defend herself.
I see no chemistry, just a womanizer used to flirting with anything in skirts.
Diana was more discriminating about who she got involved with than hopping into a bed with an older man well known to be a womanizer. No future in that for her.
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on September 27, 2017, 05:33:07 PM
Well, to be accurate, the picture in question is from 1987, not the honeymoon. Yes there was some friction between Spain and UK over Gibraltar and he had boycotted the wedding. But by the mid 80s that was all patched up, thats the period of time im referring to @Curryong not the honeymoon.
C&D were often separated during the holidays in Spain, Charles painting /riding/hunting in places like grenada and Diana near the water, which she enjoyed. Im sure you all recall the story of the photos of Diana/JC in a compromising position that were snapped up and the photog paid off to avoid them being published. By that time the marriage was on the rocks, she was looking for romantic reassurance, and JC would certainly know how to do that with his experience. Queen Sophia had long ago by then realized what he was like and suffered in silence.
Also look at pics of them together, I know shes flirtatious a lot but theres some serious chemistry between them that you dont see with her in other pics.
Okay I'll admit that there was some flirty chemistry, but
@Duch_Luver_4ever I truly believe that Diana would have not followed through on a dalliance with JC. I'll admit that in the 70's and 80's that he was considered to be a charismatic man. The fallout from this affair would have just been too awful to consider IMVHO. Keep in mind that Sofia's brother, Constantine the former King of Greece and his wife Anne Marie, who is the sister of Denmark's Queen Margrethe are a close friends of the BRF. This would have been seen as a huge insult to Sofia. I believe that Diana instinctively knew she would have hell to pay from ALL of the European Queens and Queen Consorts if that had ever happened.
I don't think Diana would have even remotely considered bedding the older womanizer. She was also involved with Hewitt at the time. I think that Diana did not go for "anything in pants."
There is some irony in this statement below by
@sandy"Diana was more discriminating about who she got involved with than hopping into a bed with an older man well known to be a womanizer."
Otherwise, my sympathies are with Queen Sophia. Because she was not a charismatic, beautiful young princess with a devout following of press sycophants and believers; her marital woes were largely ignored or taken as part of the deal. I am sure she would have appreciated even a fraction of the sympathy Diana received for her own failing marriage.
As for curtsying, Diana was good at it. She had no problem paying homage to foreign royalty. The people she disliked and disrespected was the BRF. I think the only time she actually made a hush of a foreign visit was that disastrous South Korean visit. Otherwise she was a picture of royal princess throughout her marriage, despite everything.
I don't believe that Diana and JC were lovers.
However, whether Sophia was beautiful, charismatic or not, it's not true that her marital woes have been ignore or underplayed in Spain or that she hasn't received supportive sympathy from the population.
It's a different sort of sympathy from the sort Diana received because there was no 'War of the Bourbons'. For better or for worse Sophia took her husband's cruel infidelities without speaking out publicly or flinching or demanding a divorce.
However, although JC was/is widely admired for helping to establish democracy in Spain, his behaviour towards his wife has certainly not drawn wide support. It's well known that he treated his marriage as an arranged match, left his wife's bed as soon as he could after the birth of their youngest child and has relentlessly pursued women for years. He had a permanent mistress for a long time.
His long-suffering wife has received huge sympathy and it's well known her son Felipe is very supportive. Miserable marriages are the same everywhere, and when a man virtually leaves his wife to get on with things while he spends time with a mistress, then public empathy tends to go to what the public sees as the wronged party.
My feeling is that even if Diana had done a Sophia and said nothing, public support would have naturally veered in her direction simply because the presence of Camilla would have become known, as such things generally do. So it's not guaranteed that in those circumstances Charles's reputation would have been any better in the 1990's than it was in reality.
True in as far as if Diana had adopted the Sophia coping mode, she would probably still be the princess of wales. People would talk about her beastly husband and the cruel mistress but there would be no divorce. Diana decided that she was not going to do that. If Charles was not going to be a "proper husband" to her, she was going to expose it all.
Of course every decision we make has consequences. Like I said in another post, she pushed the issue and finally got a clear answer but that answer did not give her much comfort. Charles basically said "Camilla is non-negotiable. I want a divorce."
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on September 27, 2017, 05:09:49 AM
she did a lot more than "curtsey" to him :girlblush: :blowkiss: :lol: :thumbsup:
What does that mean? I can't imagine how a Diana fan would believe that she was capable of such behaviour. She was stupid at times and very selfish but for one thing I hardly think she was likely to have an affair with a cousin of her husband who was alos a monarch.. and where an affair would have cuased an appalling scandal. Her affairs appear to have been largely with people who were "Not in" the Royal circle except for Olvier hoare.
Double post auto-merged: September 28, 2017, 06:42:26 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on September 28, 2017, 06:30:49 AM
True in as far as if Diana had adopted the Sophia coping mode, she would probably still be the princess of wales. People would talk about her beastly husband and the cruel mistress but there would be no divorce. Diana decided that she was not going to do that. If Charles was not going to be a "proper husband" to her, she was going to expose it all.
Of course every decision we make has consequences. Like I said in another post, she pushed the issue and finally got a clear answer but that answer did not give her much comfort. Charles basically said "Camilla is non-negotiable. I want a divorce."
Of course he watned a divorce. He was unhappy with her as she was with him.. but he would not have pushed for the divorce, until she made the marriage completely impossible. Then he DID decided that since his affair was publicly known anyway, since Diana was using the meida against him, what was the point of trying to keept the marriage going.. and I'm sure that before the queen agreed to a divorce he was eager to end his marriage.
Diana had affairs but she was not a nymphomaniac who jumped into bed with anybody who flirted with her.
HE made the marriage completely impossible. Why is Diana's side not considered, amabel. She was with a man who was more and more emotionally distant to her and had the mistress play hostess in Highgrove. HE used the media against her.Remember how Nicholas Soames slammed her publicly? ANd his friends leaked stories. Why is it that he is considered Superman and Diana such a "pest." She was a human being and she was rejected in a humiliating way. SHe could have walked away like many women would have done but she had to consider she might lose custody of the boys. CHarles should not have married Diana if he did not love her. He wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Diana was getting her side out for protection. COnsidering the medical letters recently revealed and Charles' friends leaking stories way back when, she did it as protection to get her side out there. I can hardly blame her.
Double post auto-merged: September 28, 2017, 11:53:59 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on September 28, 2017, 06:30:49 AM
True in as far as if Diana had adopted the Sophia coping mode, she would probably still be the princess of wales. People would talk about her beastly husband and the cruel mistress but there would be no divorce. Diana decided that she was not going to do that. If Charles was not going to be a "proper husband" to her, she was going to expose it all.
Of course every decision we make has consequences. Like I said in another post, she pushed the issue and finally got a clear answer but that answer did not give her much comfort. Charles basically said "Camilla is non-negotiable. I want a divorce."
Why should a woman live in a sham marriage. Sophia was not rejected sexually since she was not dumped early in the marriage. Juan Carlos had no Camilla in his life just one night stands and conquests. One of the mistresses did not play hostess in Sophie's home
How come Charles could not make sacrifices. Marriage is for two people. NOt a dictator of a husband who had to have his way or the highway.
No, Diana would probably have been dumped anyway. Camilla would probably have moved into the home and flaunted her position as mistress and had nothing but scorn for the "mouse" of a wife and cackled to the Highgrove set about the ridiculous creature.
Camilla was the other woman and she should have left the scene. Diana the wife.
If Charles wanted the mistress he should not have married anybody and had his arrangement with the PBs go on and on until his mother relented and his grandmother died.
@sandy. People get dumped. Part of being an adult is learning to cope with rejection. If someone does not like you or love you, rejecting you sexually is not an illogical step. Charles no longer wanted to be with Diana and was with someone he preferred so he left the home. That was it. There was nothing Diana could do to help matters. If she had decided to put up and shut up, he would probably have remained a distant husband and in time he would have developed an affection that was sufficient enough to keep up the marriage.
Diana did not want to do that so he left. It is what it is. No use saying he should have put in more or should have tried this. He got tired of living with Diana. It happens and people split up.
Sophia found her formula and it worked for her. Likewise Queen Syliva and Queen Alexandra found theirs. Diana tried the avenging wronged woman routine and it did not quite work out like she wanted. Charles did not run back to her in fear of the press or of losing the throne. He just drifted further and further away the more she threw a stink about things. The ultimate stink was panorama and that is when he asked for a clean break.
When you marry someone, you ought to make an effort to understand who they are and what they like. Hoping that they will change for you is a bit ambitious. They can make a few adjustments but not fundamentally change. Diana wanted a changed Charles. It was never going to happen. Had he really been in love with her, perhaps he would have changed but he was not. The first sign of problems was his cue to leave.
When she presented her ultimatum, he chose the other woman and quit the marriage. Some women would not have presented an ultimatum but Diana was not like that. She wanted his full and unfettered attention. All her friends talked about Diana's demand for constant attention and unquestioning loyalty. Any time you wavered in your support, she cut you off. Perhaps she wanted that in her marriage, not taking account of the fact that hers was a very reluctant husband who only married her out of duty.
So, 'when you marry someone you ought to make an effort to understand who they are and what they're like.' Yes, you should. And when did Charles ever try to do that for Diana? He married at an a middle aged 32 and expected his bride (or Amanda or any young woman he married) to do all the adjusting that had to be done in the early part of the marriage.
And again you write constantly of how Charles got tired of Diana's ways because he was never in love with her. Well, it's a great pity isn't it, that in his great maturity and intellectual superiority at 32 he didn't come to that conclusion BEFORE he decided to marry without love, isn't it?
Quote from: Curryong on September 28, 2017, 06:21:26 AM
I don't believe that Diana and JC were lovers.
However, whether Sophia was beautiful, charismatic or not, it's not true that her marital woes have been ignore or underplayed in Spain or that she hasn't received supportive sympathy from the population.
It's a different sort of sympathy from the sort Diana received because there was no 'War of the Bourbons'. For better or for worse Sophia took her husband's cruel infidelities without speaking out publicly or flinching or demanding a divorce.
However, although JC was/is widely admired for helping to establish democracy in Spain, his behaviour towards his wife has certainly not drawn wide support. It's well known that he treated his marriage as an arranged match, left his wife's bed as soon as he could after the birth of their youngest child and has relentlessly pursued women for years. He had a permanent mistress for a long time.
His long-suffering wife has received huge sympathy and it's well known her son Felipe is very supportive. Miserable marriages are the same everywhere, and when a man virtually leaves his wife to get on with things while he spends time with a mistress, then public empathy tends to go to what the public sees as the wronged party.
My feeling is that even if Diana had done a Sophia and said nothing, public support would have naturally veered in her direction simply because the presence of Camilla would have become known, as such things generally do. So it's not guaranteed that in those circumstances Charles's reputation would have been any better in the 1990's than it was in reality.
I agree with
@Curryong that the Spanish press largely overlooked JC's infidelities for decades due to his popularity at home among the people and his broad appeal across all political parties. This was the man initially dubbed "Juan Carlos the Brief" because there was such a low expectation that the monarchy would be able to survive the post-Franco years. While people might not consider themselves monarchists, by and large they were "Juan Carlists." The press only turned against his behavior in recent years and he wisely chose to abdicate. For the time being, Felipe enjoys the approval of his nation and hopefully that will continue.
There have been stories in the past of Sofia and the children packing up and getting ready to leave JC over his philandering. At some point the couple reached their decision on how to continue publicly and how they'd live privately. I've always understood that Sofia spends many of her weekends in London with her brother and sister-in-law, though she may be dividing her time between Madrid and Geneva in order to see her grandchildren. During her early years in Spain she didn't choose to cultivate friendships among the aristocracy and the then Franco associated political elite, which was a wise decision IMHO. Allegedly Franco was waiting until a male heir was born to either JC and Sofia or one of the other pretenders before giving his final blessing as to who would be his successor. (Apparently he didn't like that Sofia had been raised as a member of the Greek Orthodox church.)
Sofia chose a different path than Diana because I believe that she had one goal in mind which was to see Felipe succeed his father as King. She's accomplished her main objective and now the couple largely live separate lives.
Because of the difference between time and societies, I don't know what the reaction of the British people would have been if Diana had chosen Sofia's way. (Spain was a more conservative society in the 70's and 80's than the UK in the 80's and 90's) I believe that she might have faced some criticism from women's groups for not divorcing her spouse (much like Hillary Clinton) but by and large I believe that the public would have been sympathetic.
I agree with
@Curryong entirely about Charles not making the effort to know her or give in to her demands. Marrying Diana was one of the stupidest things Charles has ever done. He let everybody down by doing that. Diana was not really a good match and he did not love her. Neither was he prepared to even tolerate her to keep the marriage alive.
Actually
@TLLK, I always felt a hostility to Hillary simply because she chose to stand by her man. Hillary was not about to let some intern destroy her life and they blamed her for not making more of a fuss. Diana played into the feminist agenda but paid a heavy price for it. In all probability she did not want the divorce and felt aggrieved that Camilla seemed to have gotten it all yet she was pushed out.
so why are you hostile to Hillary because she chose to ignore Bill's sily affairs, and cool to Diana because she Did NOT ignoire Charles' affair
Personally I think it is up to people how they want to arrange their marraiges...
HIllary knew that Bill's affairs were just about sex.. Diana knew that Charles had gone back to Cam because he loved her...
Perhaps I was not clear in my communication at
@amabel. I am not hostile to Hilary at all for the decisions she made. Rather I feel/sense that there is hostility from other women towards her. I think Hilary is a very pragmatic woman and I admire that. Sometimes you have to be pragmatic to win the long game. If you get too emotional about things, the decisions you make can hurt you in the long run.
Oh I am sorry, I thought you mean that you didn't like Hill C because she stayed iwht Bill. but I think she has stayed wit him partly out of ambition, he brought her near to the Presidency and she was able to use it as a springboard to run herself.. and parlty because she knew his affairs were just sexual and they didn't bother her that much.
But Diana I think could have at least had a friendly relationship with Charles if she'd settled for a half loaf. The RF did'nt mind her having affairs provided she was discreet, but she picked Hewitt who talked.. and then outed other affairs such as Hoare by her chasing after him when he left her. She had interesting work, she had her sons, she had her friends..and the public adored her (mostly) but she got into the whole thing with Charles and pushed herself out of the RF.. and they turned cool on her as did many of her own class..a nd her own erratic behaviour became public.. and that began to turn the British public against her...
I agree. Diana pushed until she got the wrong answer. She was not compromising and many people admired her for it but ultimately I think she was better off in the family. Getting out of the BRF started a downward spiral that ended in tragedy. I cannot ever imagine she would have been in Paris had she played the Sophia route of pragmatism.
Some of her decisions were puzzling to me at least. She was having affairs with not a hoot from the BRF then she decided to go for the wronged woman routine. Even then, they left her to her own devices but then she decided to take it up a notch with Panorama. Then when the final divorce came, she was quite sad about it. What did she honestly expect...that they would just let it pass again and welcome her back in the fold or that she could continue damaging them without a response? The whole thing was based on emotions, not strategy.
Wow, you guys were busy while i was at work and slept LOL. Lets see if I can catch up. I do respect your opinion on it
@TLLK but I also think that was part of the very reason he was attractive to her, in the same way Oliver Hoare was.
One could even argue theres a bit of that in the selection, if not necessarily the attraction to James Hewitt (both different imo) in that it was borne out of learning to ride, and all thats involved with that with Charles and the country life, and its use as a means to hook up with Camilla, etc. she might have delighted in the irony of that, even hewitt mentioned that Charles mentioned in hed have her hunting shortly.
As for some of the more histrionic comments, im not suggesting shes a nymphomaniac who'll chase anything, nor that she was looking for a great romance, and I think theres some projection of this persons opinion of JC vs the reality that Diana was attracted to older men in a father type role, being prominent was even better. On that score JC was exactly what shed be looking for to be reassured of her desirability in the wake of Charles going back to Camilla, and to also fight back at her husband with her choice of suitor.
I must say im must be onto something if I can get amabel and sandy to be on the same side of an argument LOL. As usual, I disagree with you, amabel, how does it make me any less of a Diana fan to suggest such a thing, compared to the things we know about(panorama, the morton book, hewitt, phone calls, the other topless photos in spain in 95, etc.),how much worse really is it? I find your defense of Diana disingenuous at best and quarrelsome at worst.
I just dont view her with blinders on, or in a dogmatic fashion like so many of you. She was a young, beautiful, desirable woman who deserved to be loved, and/or experience physical attention. While I do think shed have had a much stronger hand if she hadnt had affairs, once Charles made it clear Camilla was going to rule his heart, the case for her to be faithful flew out the window.
As for the while learning to love and trying to understand each other, the onus was on charles from a practical perspective, being the older, more mature person at the time of the marriage coupled with his knowledge of the royal system compared to Diana's, if one had to sort of bend to reach the other person. Also, and harder to pinpoint and I think the source of the hostility towards him, is that from an emotional, touchy/feely perspective he also should have as well given how she made not just men but everyone else feel(see the doc the boys did about their mum).
As for the whole standing by your man thing, Sofia vs Hillary, Ill have to concede to ppls Sofias knowledge as mine isnt strong, but my Hillary knowledge is very strong, and id wager that Sofia didnt have the raw, naked ambition for power and would be willing to do just about anything to gain and hold it like Hillary did. she stayed with Bill as he was the "connecter" he was the people person that had the charisma, she needed him to appear human, and he needed her strength and tenacity to keep away the mistakes Bill made. Check out "Clinton body count" or a recent movie "American Made" of one of his more famous bodies, Barry Seale.
I dont want to rehash 2016 and send the thread off in a tangent, but look up the case where she defended rapists and Juanita Broderick, what happened to Monica was chump change compared.
You guys are typing faster than I can get this out, I also agree with the "Half a loaf" as i've said before about the lack of ppl that should have educated her about that possibility. Its one thing if she still wanted to hold out for the whole loaf, but my issue was that no one told her that life could be anything less than a whole loaf of fairytale goodness and set her up for disaster.
I would like to call the attention to the "histrionics" of some of the commentators in the Daily Mail. Diana is trashed like she sleeps with everybody in pants and check out the DM comments. Yes, she is accused of nymphomania. Some make really crude comments which I will not repeat here.
Yes, Diana had extramarital affairs. She sought comfort elsewhere beginning with Hewitt. But what I don't get is that a man flirting with Diana would have instantly made her leap into bed. Diana was a beautiful woman she had self esteem issues because of put downs by Charles and because he preferred another woman. When she got involved with Hewitt he made her feel desirable and during the relationship her friends said he was "good for him." I think it would be rather depressing to her self esteem to respond to a man who was a notorious womanizer. No future in the relationship at all and certainly Juan Carlos was not madly in love with her, she was just a "body" to him. She wanted more than that. She wanted a family and someone who loved her.
I agree 100 percent with you about Hillary.
Double post auto-merged: September 28, 2017, 10:10:32 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on September 28, 2017, 09:49:18 PM
I agree. Diana pushed until she got the wrong answer. She was not compromising and many people admired her for it but ultimately I think she was better off in the family. Getting out of the BRF started a downward spiral that ended in tragedy. I cannot ever imagine she would have been in Paris had she played the Sophia route of pragmatism.
Some of her decisions were puzzling to me at least. She was having affairs with not a hoot from the BRF then she decided to go for the wronged woman routine. Even then, they left her to her own devices but then she decided to take it up a notch with Panorama. Then when the final divorce came, she was quite sad about it. What did she honestly expect...that they would just let it pass again and welcome her back in the fold or that she could continue damaging them without a response? The whole thing was based on emotions, not strategy.
Diana's leaving the royal family did not lead to tragedy. She was in an accident and got killed. Unfortunately the "rules" in France kept her from getting to a hospital in time. JFK Jr, James Dean and others died in tragic accidents at a too young age. Diana's divorce did not lead to her accident.
Diana was looking forward to the future. Her friends said so. Of course a divorce is traumatic. To anybody. But she got busy with regrouping, she was dating Hasnet Khan and did so much in her last year of life.
Diana was not tossed out of the family she would always be involved in events involving the sons she had with Prince Charles.
Think about it. IF Diana had taken the Sofia route, she could never have left the sham marriage, she could have had affairs maybe a long term one. Suppose she fell in love with the man and wanted to marry and have a family with him. She was still young. I think she could have gotten depressed and felt hopeless if she were stuck in a marriage where the man increasingly showed contempt and he may even have housed Camilla in the same residence as Diana. Juan Carlos had no Camila in his life. He had many mistresses.
QuoteWow, you guys were busy while i was at work and slept LOL. Lets see if I can catch up. I do respect your opinion on it @TLLK but I also think that was part of the very reason he was attractive to her, in the same way Oliver Hoare was.
No worries
@Duch_Luver_4ever as it would be a dull place if we all agreed.
I agree that Sofia was not ambitious for herself in the same way that most politicians are, but I honestly believe that to Sofia/JC the return of the monarchy helped to move Spain away from Fascism and towards democracy. She'd witnessed the rise/fall of the monarchy in Greece and the return of the one in Spain. As mother to the heir, she was tasked with helping to raise Felipe to be a modern monarch who would ultimately do his best in his future role as head of state. IMO JC and Sofia should be satisfied that they achieved that goal in their lifetime.
Well, I didnt say that no one at all ever thought that about her, I would hope by now you would recognize the difference between here and the DM, and that when you respond to us here like that, it causes the conflict that happens here from time to time. If you would moderate your responses to the intended audience it would make everyones life here a lot easier. :flower:
You were responding to me/my posts in a way that implied that I thought that Diana was that way, and you should know by now thats not true. Despite our disagreements about number of stairs, etc. and other things in her life, I would hope you would understand my feelings about Diana and wanting the best for her, even though I can look at what happened and what she did with an objective eye.
Think back to for example the 86 holiday in spain, Diana is feeling not very attractive due to the bulimia and charles going back to Camilla (remember she knew that 5 years after the marriage that he went back like PP's advice). Hes seperated from her on the holiday except for photo ops, Hewitt may or may not have happened physically then, but shes at least entertaining the idea of sleeping with another man.
Then heres this charismatic man whos has power, prestige, etc. and shes in an atmoshpere where he is the top dog. Who knows what hes saying to her, but its not a stretch and certainly not a lie if he said how beautiful she was. Those old Cartland books rattling in her head....
Obviously im not a woman, but even I can see where she would find that appealing. It doesnt make her a bad person if she wanted a fling. god knows she gave up her late teens early twenties, I think given C&C, she was entitled to one or two.
As for the divorce, the accident, life after Charles, etc. Unless she got Hillary to invest in the futures market for her(look up that scandal/Diana was bang on with her assessment of Hilary/glad theres something we agree on :friends:) she wasnt going to have the money to keep the press away, be secure, etc. and thus free to marry just anyone.
Hasnat was a pipe dream, especially given his immature and petulant behaviour for again, a supposed older mature man :thumbsdown: . She needed to marry a Teddy or forget Dodi, she needed Mohammad Al Fayed/Gulu Luvani/ etc. to keep her in the lifestyle she would need to keep all the nutters & press away.
Its unfortunate, but practically she was better off staying married and having royal protection, and lifestyle, while finding her own version of Camilla. Also she was 36 by the divorce, and past her peak of child bearing, yes her health and medicine could have allowed to likely have a child for another 10 years but with risks she knew well from her friend Rosa Monkton, so the second family was likely a dream unless it was going to be step children.
We dont like to think that our choices have lasting effects, but sadly, her walk down the St. Pauls had sealed her fate in terms of unlimited choice being taken off the table, and once the WoW heated up, her choices got very few and far between. Ill say it again, if someone had stepped in and did their duty to her while she was growing up, a lot of this wouldnt have happened, or shed have gone in with open eyes, and proper expectations, and wouldnt have upset the apple cart.
Hi
@TLLK saw your post as im making this, I do agree with you on the whole move of Spain away from fascism, as most of my Spanish knowledge is from the civil war period (although im a pro Catalonia separatist). Despite JC's faults she should be pleased she was part of Spain getting rid of fascism. I think shes a great example of female power in the sense that (im assuming) she took the long game of making sure he son was well placed to have the throne, and saw a bigger prize than just having her husbands loyalty, that whole hand that rocks the cradle thing.
While the Spanish and English situation were very different, it would have been interesting given Dianas thoughts on Williams role, if she and Sofia ever talked about that.
QuoteAlso she was 36 by the divorce, and past her peak of child bearing, yes her health and medicine could have allowed to likely have a child for another 10 years but with risks she knew well from her friend Rosa Monkton, so the second family was likely a dream unless it was going to be step children.
Disagree. Many women after-35 can have healthy children. And it's not just a benefit of the famous/rich women.
And of course Diana would not have been a first time mother if she had another baby with the hypothetical second husband. She already had two children. She could have had children at 40 and over. She might have had just one or two more children with the second husband.
Caroline of Monaco had her youngest child aged 42. It happened in 1999. IIRC Queen Sylvia had her youngest child Madeleine after 35 - it was in early 1980s!
Im not saying it was guaranteed she have a hideously disabled baby, just that the odds were much higher, look up the stats on it, spare me the one off examples. Also by the time she found, was sure, married, got pregnant and delivered a baby would have been at least 38, likely over 40.
There were few men with the means, that were available, and would be a good romantic match and then to top it off a good father, it was a tall order to fill.
There were many more men who could have given her emotional and physical support, but without having the burden of keeping her safe and secure and in the lifestyle she was accustomed to.
@Duch_Luver_4ever- 36 wouldn't be considered too old for Diana who was already the mother of two, but yes the risk of certain genetic disorders does increase over 35. And yes there are more mothers having children at a later age, but I wouldn't be surprised if some especially the over 40's are having help via IVF, donor eggs etc... There are more options available for couples who are experiencing difficulty with fertility now than there were 20 years ago.
Yes it would have been interesting to see what might have occurred between the Wales and their children had Diana chosen an option like Sofia.
Exactly, thats all i was saying, and given the resources she had, she would have access to top notch care, but for someone looking to and perhaps a bit over eager to start her new life after 16 years with "the germans" it would be a big strain on whatever new serious relationship she might have had, vs when she was 20 and had "all the time in the world" so to speak.
Imagine if a relationship lasted a couple years and didnt end in marriage and kids, it would be a much bigger thing to recoup from then vs 20 or even 30, thats what im talking about. Aslo to consider like you said, had she taken the Sophia route, it might have been feasible that theyd have had more kids, as the level of conflict would have been far less, and all that really would have been needed from Charles would have been the "donation" LOL.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on September 28, 2017, 09:49:18 PM
I
Some of her decisions were puzzling to me at least. She was having affairs with not a hoot from the BRF then she decided to go for the wronged woman routine. Even then, they left her to her own devices but then she decided to take it up a notch with Panorama. Then when the final divorce came, she was quite sad about it. What did she honestly expect...that they would just let it pass again and welcome her back in the fold or that she could continue damaging them without a response? The whole thing was based on emotions, not strategy.
They opted for the usual response which was to avoid getting pulled into a war with her, and to try and treat her with "total ignoral".. and hope the public would get fed up with her and hse would lose her platform for complaining. But she went a step too far,with Panorama and the queen decided that the damage doen by a divorce would be less than te damage done by the war of the waleses going on. And they cut her loose..
They didn't approve of her affairs but they were willing to tolerate them, provided she was discreet and put up a fornt of pleasant behaviour in public with Charles and in private at family gatherings. that's how you're supposed to play it as a royal if you have a bad marraiage. Diana didn't know what she wanted, whether she wanted to get free of the RF nad be a "normal person" again and be free to remarry or get away from them or to stay in the RF and hope that she could find a role as "Queen Mother" to William. however, Its unlikely, even had Charles given up his position, that Diana would have favoured as an adviser to her son, among the family. THey were aware of her volatile side and I think as time passed the public became aware of it and were less sympathetic. And in any case her time of being "queen mother" was likely to be very far in the future. So Diana floundered around, didn't know what she wanted and eneded up divorced, treated as an outsider and left to find her life outside the RF...
Charles took a step too far with his Dimbleby interview and book. Trashing his parents, forcing the PB divorce by his blabbing about his cheating, and he should have just limited the interview to his work as Prince of Wales, as the interview was supposed to be. He blamed DImbleby and courtiers for his making the confessions which showed a lot about his character or lack of it. Diana responded to it. And if the Queen had not intervened I think there would have been another riposte from Charles (although there have been many responses from his circle even after Diana died).
William would make the call about his mother when he became King. Why wouldn't he be able to get advice from his mother had she lived?
The other issue is Charles having more and more contempt for his wife.
Charles has a volatile side and a temper. He was not superman and he floundered about himself. I would not speak for the 'public'. Many did and do not like Charles and his own actions.
Diana knew she did not want to be in a marriage where the husband had contempt for her, the mistress was calling the shots and there was no real future. Having affairs would not solve anything, she wanted a real marriage and family not affairs where there could not possibly be any sort of future.
She was not an outsider. She died one year after the divorce. Too soon to doom her to misery. She was carving a role for herself. What "floundering"? She did more in her last year than many do in ten years. Selling her gowns for charity and the anti Landmine Campaign and planning her future. Her friends did not say she was "floundering." She would always have been an insider having things to say about her sons' upbringing along with Charles, and appearing at events involving their sons.
If they did not "approve" of her affairs then they should not approve of Charles. The QUeen heard complaints about C and C before Diana came along and did nothing about it.
Charles did not behave "pleasantly" in front of his wife. Why not blame him for it? Why is Diana the one blamed for everything?
Princess Diana's first curtsey to Queen Elizabeth II as The Princess of Wales
Princess Diana's First Curtsy To Queen Elizabeth II As The Princess... News Photo | Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.com/license/52100355)
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on September 28, 2017, 10:48:47 PM
Well, I didnt say that no one at all ever thought that about her, I would hope by now you would recognize the difference between here and the DM, and that when you respond to us here like that, it causes the conflict that happens here from time to time. If you would moderate your responses to the intended audience it would make everyones life here a lot easier. :flower:
You were responding to me/my posts in a way that implied that I thought that Diana was that way, and you should know by now that's not true. Despite our disagreements about number of stairs, etc. and other things in her life, I would hope you would understand my feelings about Diana and wanting the best for her, even though I can look at what happened and what she did with an objective eye.
Think back to for example the 86 holiday in Spain, Diana is feeling not very attractive due to the bulimia and Charles going back to Camilla (remember she knew that 5 years after the marriage that he went back like PP's advice). Hes seperated from her on the holiday except for photo ops, Hewitt may or may not have happened physically then, but shes at least entertaining the idea of sleeping with another man.
Then heres this charismatic man whos has power, prestige, etc. and shes in an atmoshpere where he is the top dog. Who knows what hes saying to her, but its not a stretch and certainly not a lie if he said how beautiful she was. Those old Cartland books rattling in her head....
Obviously im not a woman, but even I can see where she would find that appealing. It doesnt make her a bad person if she wanted a fling. god knows she gave up her late teens early twenties, I think given C&C, she was entitled to one or two.
As for the divorce, the accident, life after Charles, etc. Unless she got Hillary to invest in the futures market for her(look up that scandal/Diana was bang on with her assessment of Hilary/glad theres something we agree on :friends:) she wasnt going to have the money to keep the press away, be secure, etc. and thus free to marry just anyone.
Hasnat was a pipe dream, especially given his immature and petulant behaviour for again, a supposed older mature man :thumbsdown: . She needed to marry a Teddy or forget Dodi, she needed Mohammad Al Fayed/Gulu Luvani/ etc. to keep her in the lifestyle she would need to keep all the nutters & press away.
Its unfortunate, but practically she was better off staying married and having royal protection, and lifestyle, while finding her own version of Camilla. Also she was 36 by the divorce, and past her peak of child bearing, yes her health and medicine could have allowed to likely have a child for another 10 years but with risks she knew well from her friend Rosa Monkton, so the second family was likely a dream unless it was going to be step children.
We dont like to think that our choices have lasting effects, but sadly, her walk down the St. Pauls had sealed her fate in terms of unlimited choice being taken off the table, and once the WoW heated up, her choices got very few and far between. Ill say it again, if someone had stepped in and did their duty to her while she was growing up, a lot of this wouldnt have happened, or shed have gone in with open eyes, and proper expectations, and wouldnt have upset the apple cart.
Hi @TLLK saw your post as im making this, I do agree with you on the whole move of Spain away from fascism, as most of my Spanish knowledge is from the civil war period (although im a pro Catalonia separatist). Despite JC's faults she should be pleased she was part of Spain getting rid of fascism. I think shes a great example of female power in the sense that (im assuming) she took the long game of making sure he son was well placed to have the throne, and saw a bigger prize than just having her husbands loyalty, that whole hand that rocks the cradle thing.
While the Spanish and English situation were very different, it would have been interesting given Dianas thoughts on Williams role, if she and Sofia ever talked about that.
Perhaps you should go read about this trip in Ken Wharfes book. That holiday was just that a holiday and no she didn't have an affair with JC if she had Wharfe would have been sure to put that in his book and he wasn't shy in alleging Diana slept with Hoare because he spent a night at KP and could have stayed there as just a guest after all he was a close friend of Charles and had offered up his services as a marriage counselor. I don't think Diana was a saint but I don't allege or hint that she had an affair with JC in fact in the 90's it was alleged that Diana had designs on Prince Felipe not his father.
I remember his take of the trip, and yes she was candid with him about Oliver, but she also had little choice, with Ken responding to the smoke alarm with him outside her room with just a towel on smoking a cigar.
I have to say I have a completely take on this one. The moment Diana was abandoned by her husband, she had every right to find love wherever she could find it. I find it so depressing that in this day and age, women who like sex are somehow ostracized as being S***s. Diana was effectively a free agent and could do as she pleased. It is nobody's business, including the queen.
My only problem with her was going for married men after the stink she had raised about C&C. Other that all her unmarried lovers were fine by me. She was having fun and making up for lost time. Charles would only bring himself to the plate once every three weeks so it was not as if she was saturated with romance in her own marriage. The woman had a right to live as she wanted.
Diana did not cheat on Charles until he cut her loose and made it clear that he preferred Camilla and left her bed (after he got his heirs). She was not running around on him while he was not having the affair with Camilla. Hoare thankfully never spoke of the nature of the relationship with Diana and probably never will. He is still with his wife so no marriage was broken up.
Carling denied an affair took place.
Diana was in effect leading a separate life from Charles after he ditched her for Camilla. And he never really was out of touch with Camilla the entire time he was married to Diana.
Charles even encouraged Diana to invite a guest to a party both were attending, he obviously knew about Hewitt and did not raise a fuss when she invited him.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on September 30, 2017, 06:32:20 PM
I have to say I have a completely take on this one. The moment Diana was abandoned by her husband, she had every right to find love wherever she could find it. I find it so depressing that in this day and age, women who like sex are somehow ostracized as being S***s. Diana was effectively a free agent and could do as she pleased. It is nobody's business, including the queen.
My only problem with her was going for married men after the stink she had raised about C&C. Other that all her unmarried lovers were fine by me. She was having fun and making up for lost time. Charles would only bring himself to the plate once every three weeks so it was not as if she was saturated with romance in her own marriage. The woman had a right to live as she wanted.
:goodpost: thats my thoughts on both parts
@royalanthropologist she lost a lot of the goodwill and high ground with some of the choices(or rumored choices) Barry, Oliver, Will,Dodi,Bryan were all either married or engaged/seriously attached (we've already talked about Juan Carlos so ill leave him out :lol: ). Had she stuck to unattached men, she wouldnt have had to do panorama.
Quote
My only problem with her was going for married men after the stink she had raised about C&C. Other that all her unmarried lovers were fine by me.
:nod: I agree.
@sandy. It is no use denying those affairs. Pretty much everybody in the know agrees they happened. That in my view was Diana's only mistake in terms of lovers. As far as I am concerned she could take her pick of single men she liked.
The royals would have no business trying to control her life. She had desperately wanted to be the perfect wife for them and they threw it back in her face. Thereafter she could do as she pleased. Even saying Dodi was unsuitable for the royal family was a bit rich in my view. If Charles had taken on Camilla (who was once considered unsuitable) then so could Diana take on Dodi.
The "Muslim step children" thing was just ridiculous as if they were still trying to control her life. You can't reject someone and then try to tell them who to love. Even if it was a fling, it was her fling and God she was entitled to it after that starvation diet in her marriage.
are you seriously comparing Dodi fayed (with his father in the background pushing him forward?) To Camilla??
I don't care what lvoers Diana took . it was her business, but if she complained that Charles had hurt HER desperately, by pursing a friendship with Camilla durng the early years of the marriage how come she did the same to Jul Carling??
and if she was so unhappy that Camilla was sleeping with Charles, within a few years, how come she did the same thing to Diane Hoare?
No they are not comparable and I did not intend to suggest that they were. My point was that Diana was a free agent after being abandoned in the family home. She could love anyone she like in any quantities and number she liked. My only criticism was when she was linked with married men. Other than that, I make no moralistic judgement about how many lovers she had. That seem a sticking point for some people who call her names because she apparently had 6 or 7 lovers in her lifetime. That figure is quite tame for most modern women at 36 years of age.
well true that the RF could not do anything about her marrying Dodi, if she had wished to. But I think that it would have been a very bad thing for the RF to be connected however nebulously to the Fayed family.. and I'm sure they weren't happy iwht it. And it would also have been very bad for Diana. I think her reputation would have suffered, the more that was known about Dodi, I think that the public would have really cooled on her had she married into this nouveau riche family, with the ambitious, ruthless and vulgar MAF at its head.
I don't mind what lovers she took, it was up to her. If she had affairs with married men fine, but make sure the wives were complacent.. and while I think D Hoare was complasaint up to a point, she didn't like the Diana affair because she was afraid that it would end iwht Hoare leaving her for Diana, and she put a stop to it.
ANd Diana was stupid to complain about C and Camilla doing the very things she did herself. She "interfered" in other women's marriages.. and tried to break them up...
She went on pursuing Hoare after he had ended his affair with her and returned to his wife.. and that blew up in her face and she was seen as hypocritical.
And whiele I don't think that Dodi's girlfriend was his fiancée, he clearly had a relationship iwht her that predated his starting one with Diana, and I think he tried to juggle the two at first.. at least. Diana may not have cared because she didn't intned the Dodi affair to be a serious one... but it didn't look good for her that she was involved iwht a man who was lightweight, selfish and irresponsible.. and who was still involved with another woman. Had she married him, I think that a messy divorce would have been in the offing within a few years and that would have looked even worse for her reputation with the British public,
HOare had a longer term relationship with another woman pre Diana. Diane Hoare most likely felt that there was little chance that Diana would have bolted and lost custody of her children. Also, Diana and Hoare probably both realized they could not up and divorce their spouses without serious repercussions, including Diana's losing custody.
Dodi's father was a friend of John Spencer so there was a history there. The royals knew this too.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 01, 2017, 06:48:48 AM
@sandy. It is no use denying those affairs. Pretty much everybody in the know agrees they happened. That in my view was Diana's only mistake in terms of lovers. As far as I am concerned she could take her pick of single men she liked.
The royals would have no business trying to control her life. She had desperately wanted to be the perfect wife for them and they threw it back in her face. Thereafter she could do as she pleased. Even saying Dodi was unsuitable for the royal family was a bit rich in my view. If Charles had taken on Camilla (who was once considered unsuitable) then so could Diana take on Dodi.
The "Muslim step children" thing was just ridiculous as if they were still trying to control her life. You can't reject someone and then try to tell them who to love. Even if it was a fling, it was her fling and God she was entitled to it after that starvation diet in her marriage.
No I am stating facts. Hoare never confirmed or denied an affair and probably never will. He's still with his wife, in any case. So no marriage was broken up (fact). Diana never spoke publicly about what went on and it went with her to her grave. It is a fact based on observations of Jephson and Wharfe that HE pursued Diana and she was not a stalker. He should be held accountable especially since the Prince was his friend yet Diana is the only one blamed.
Carling denied there was an affair.
Diana was only dating Dodi. The nature of their relationship went with them to their graves.
QuoteShe went on pursuing Hoare after he had ended his affair with her and returned to his wife.. and that blew up in her face and she was seen as hypocritical.
@amabel-Good point.
Hoare just broke up with diana when his former chauffeur open up about their affair to a tabloid in march/1995. when he moved back to his wife in 1994 they continued seeing each other. this timeline is in every diana bio (ie sarah bradford book, sally b smith book etc). their mutual close friend elsa bowker told all this stories to Diana biographers. but she said what led to the break-up was the chauffeur opening his mouth.
I am sometimes hypocritical so I would not be too harsh on Diana. The thing is that Hoare was such a glaring volte face on the wronged woman thing she had on her side. Most people were very sympathetic with Diana. Even someone like PM felt she was misunderstood. It is the occasional hypocrisies and pushing things too far that made some people reconsider. She was very angry with Camilla for breaking the "girl code" and then joined right in. I would like to think it was a mistake and that she would not want to intentionally inflict pain on another woman.
I don't think she cared. I think when she wanted a man, she went after him and ignored any obstacles.
and yes it was something that began to sour a lot of the public on her. She had had a lot of sympathy for "being honest enough to say that her marriage had failed" and even "brave enough to admit that she had had a lover herself ".. but when it came out that she had been involved with at least 2 married men, and hadn't been too worried about whether their wives were annoyed by it, people began to cool on her. She lost sympathy.
Quote from: dianab on October 01, 2017, 03:32:23 PM
Hoare just broke up with diana when his former chauffeur open up about their affair to a tabloid in march/1995. when he moved back to his wife in 1994 they continued seeing each other. this timeline is in every diana bio (ie sarah bradford book, sally b smith book etc). their mutual close friend elsa bowker told all this stories to Diana biographers. but she said what led to the break-up was the chauffeur opening his mouth.
@dianab-Thank you for sharing this information regarding Diana/Oliver Horare affair timeline.
Quote from: amabel on October 01, 2017, 05:13:00 PM
I don't think she cared. I think when she wanted a man, she went after him and ignored any obstacles.
and yes it was something that began to sour a lot of the public on her. She had had a lot of sympathy for "being honest enough to say that her marriage had failed" and even "brave enough to admit that she had had a lover herself ".. but when it came out that she had been involved with at least 2 married men, and hadn't been too worried about whether their wives were annoyed by it, people began to cool on her. She lost sympathy.
She could not realistically have married Hoare. Two divorces and all that.
Carling denied an affair. You can't make sweeping statements about "people" cooling on her. There are others who did not "cool on her" .
Hoare never stated what happened between them and Diana did not say so in her lifetime.
I have little sympathy for Hoare because he was no innocent party stalked by Diana. He was a very willing participant which Diana critics appear to ignore.
QuoteI have little sympathy for Hoare because he was no innocent party stalked by Diana. He was a very willing participant which Diana critics appear to ignore.
I have yet to see anyone here praise or speak positively about Hoare for cheating on his wife with Diana who was a married woman. (However if you have read of any such affirmations for his behavior, I'd be interested in reading it.) As far as I can tell both Diana and Oliver were both willing participants during their affair. The trouble seems to come later when the affair was coming to an end.
She wouldnt have done the panorama interview if people hadnt "cooled" on her (even I had to admit I was disappointed a time or two in that period). She needed to address some of the bad press she was getting from some of her choices, but people also have to consider, basically a lot of her adult development stopped at age 20 with her marriage and family starting so early. Then after the separation, she had to pick up from where she left off in say 93-94 when she took her time off from her diary to regroup, add to that 12-13 years of living as a royal didnt help either.
A lot of the issues with Diana in that period mirrors the RF, in that they wanted to be seen as the "moral family" but also wanted the freedom to do as they pleased so they tapped themselves. Diana wanted to have the benefit of the "wronged woman" and then she trapped herself and threw away that position a bit with the dalliances with married men.
Its a shame that had she either been older, or taught like she should have by her family/friends, guys like Oliver were really the "best" choice in that they had as much to lose over the affair being exposed as she did (its why Charles so frequently did the same with married women). There could have been an amicable pairing off, C&C, D&O, and APB and Olivers wife to whoever they fancied, and so on and so on.
As far as "sympathy" for Oliver, at least give him credit for playing the game they way it was expected to be played, although low marks for the chatty help LOL. I dont think really should think of him any worse that any other of the parties involved. In fact hes shown great restraint with his tongue and kept Diana out of trouble over the calls, so he may not be a prince charming, but hes no James Hewitt either. :flower:
The Panorama interview was in effect a response to Charles own interview over a year before. I don't recall Diana being "unpopular" ca. that time period. Charles turned many people off with his confession of adultery and the consequence of his forcing the PB divorce.
Diana was wronged. Charles tossed her aside after he got the heir and spare. I doubt she'd have looked at another man if Charles had dropped Camilla. Charles was messing around with married women and he never got the thrashing Diana got for her alleged affairs (Carling denied the affair and Hoare never confirmed or denied it) with the married men. It was all oh so civilized for Charles, the two men involved stepped aside so Charles could have affairs with their wives. The Tryons even went on a vacation with Charles during which Charles had quality time with Lady Tryon. Charles was seen out in public socializing with the PBs while he was involved with Mrs PB.
If Mr Hoare had complained to the police about the Diana, the dirt would have been dished on him publicly. So he kept out of it, I think he realize he was no innocent in it. His wife also held the purse strings in the marriage.
QuoteShe wouldnt have done the panorama interview if people hadnt "cooled" on her (even I had to admit I was disappointed a time or two in that period). She needed to address some of the bad press she was getting from some of her choices, but people also have to consider, basically a lot of her adult development stopped at age 20 with her marriage and family starting so early. Then after the separation, she had to pick up from where she left off in say 93-94 when she took her time off from her diary to regroup, add to that 12-13 years of living as a royal didnt help either.
:goodpost:@Duch_Luv. :thumbsup:
Yes and I'm going to add that the trauma that Diana and Charles Spencer suffered due to their parents' divorce certainly had an impact on their emotional development. IMO they both seemed to have stalled at some point and had difficulty in maintaining interpersonal relationships.
However I'm still disappointed in the manner that these adults: Charles, Camilla, APB, Diana, Oliver Horare, etc.. behaved toward each other and their spouses during these years. <_<
If Charles did not do his unfortunate documentary the year before, I doubt there would have been a Panorama interview. She was said to be angry over it and it was only a matter of time before she'd give her own interview.
Jane and Sarah were also children of divorce and have been married for years to their only spouses. I think blaming Diana's family background is a cop out since it helps give Charles a free pass. It is the excuse used by the Mountbatten sisters and Junor and others.
What about Prince Charles the way he goes on about poor him and his poor childhood, maybe he had the stalled emotional development. He certainly botched his first marriage and his affairs with his friends' wives was nothing to write home about. And his pursuing a woman who looked like his nanny speaks volumes.
How on earth could Diana "maintain an interpersonal relationship" with a man who married her only to get heirs and also had a mistress around. She stayed 10 years in that marriage she also believed Charles loved her. He admitted later he did not. Any man who marries a woman in that spirit has issues. I am sorry Diana and her family are blamed even saying she was "stalled" I think Charles "stalled" into a self entitled selfish man.
Camilla and APB had an "open" relationship when they dated. I don't understand why Camilla is pitied for it, the two just continued their interpersonal relationship they had while dated into the marriage. Their solution was for Camilla to bed the Prince and his to be free to see others. If she disliked it so much she could have divorced APB.
Diana was not Unpopular in 1994. Charles was unpopular because of his confessions and was the subject of jokes because of the Camillagate tape.
Charles apparently is bitter and cooperates with people who bash his late ex wife. He never accepts any sort of blame.
She may or may not have given another one in time, but the timing and the questions in this interview were designed to do damage control from some of the stories over the last year or two before then(Oliver, the calls, blaming her staff for them, Hewitts book, Will Carling, the topless photo scandal, etc). So had some of those things not happened, she would have either been able to do one later, or had less to do with digging out of some of the problems she was in at the time, and more effective as a PR weapon against Charles with less damage to herself.
I didnt say Diana was unpopular, just that her popularity was waning because of those events, and where it was her main weapon against the RF, she needed to protect it.
As far as her being angry, that kind of plays into what
@TLLK was saying, comparing Sarah and Jane to Diana and Charles is like apples and oranges. By the time the divorce happened, S&J were already in boarding school, and had both parents in their formative years, unlike D&C did. Even Diana said the divorce affected her and Charles more with them being older and away. Also Johnnys compensation by showering them with presents and such, made them materialistic, although none of the four children lacked, but it also affects ones relations with ppl.
So their intact marriages cannot be used as an argument that none of the children were damaged by the divorce. I dont want to speak for TLLK but it seems to me that shes not saying its all Dianas fault or that Charles is given a free pass, what I took from it was that the parents divorce affected D&C ability to maintain interpersonal relationships, not just romantic but in general. Both of them have had more stormy relations with ppl than S&J (or at least what we know of) and I think big part of that is the family situation that they had when they grew up vs what D&C had.
It doesnt give Charles a free pass to do whatever he wants, but it didnt give Diana the tools she needed to be able to deal with it better, she was left rudderless growing up and learned about romance and men from Cartland books rather than her mother, which is a shame cause if anyone could have taught her about dissatisfaction in marriage and being used as a brood mare it was Frances.
We all know Charles failings as a husband, and they are LEGION, but the issue I was discussing was that either her lack of development and choices led her into a position that damaged her that could have been avoided, even if Charles was going to be a cad.
Its like I said before, if someone steals your wallet you leave on a park bench, theyre bad, but also the family that didnt teach you to not to do, is at fault as well.
The photograph was shown of her with straps down in a bikini top and she was lying face down. It was not as explicit as Kate's photos.
I don't think her popularity was waning. But it was the time of CHarles giving "his side" which appeared to backfire on him. Notably with the PB divorce. I read that both Wharfe and Jephson loathed Hoare.
Carling denied an affair took place.
Charles family supposedly was "secure" but Charles confessions showed he had issues with his parents. Even though the Queen Mother thought the sun rose and set on Charles he fretted over his parents. He even had his siblings complain about these "confessions." But Charles by his own confessions shows he had issues with his upbringing and he turned to mentors, some not so reputable. Diana's parents divorced but it was not as if she was "worse off" than Charles considering Charles confessions of unhappiness. Who could deal with Diana's situation. If she had been Jane Doe, she could have seen Charles wearing those cufflinks and walked away from it. As the Princess of Wales and future mother if his heirs she was in difficult situation.
Frances did not want to interfere and told this to her biographer. She saw the pitfalls but kept them to herself. Diana was only 19 when Charles courted her, she had no "benchmarks" to compare Charles with. That's what Charles wanted, an inexperienced woman who had no past.
Even if Diana came from a home where the parents were married for years and provided a stable environment I don't think Diana would have been "more prepared" for a situation with a high maintenance self centered man. Stephen Barry did not even think Charles needed to marry.
QuoteSo their intact marriages cannot be used as an argument that none of the children were damaged by the divorce. I dont want to speak for TLLK but it seems to me that shes not saying its all Dianas fault or that Charles is given a free pass, what I took from it was that the parents divorce affected D&C ability to maintain interpersonal relationships, not just romantic but in general. Both of them have had more stormy relations with ppl than S&J (or at least what we know of) and I think big part of that is the family situation that they had when they grew up vs what D&C had.
It doesnt give Charles a free pass to do whatever he wants, but it didnt give Diana the tools she needed to be able to deal with it better, she was left rudderless growing up and learned about romance and men from Cartland books rather than her mother, which is a shame cause if anyone could have taught her about dissatisfaction in marriage and being used as a brood mare it was Frances.
We all know Charles failings as a husband, and they are LEGION, but the issue I was discussing was that either her lack of development and choices led her into a position that damaged her that could have been avoided, even if Charles was going to be a cad.
Its like I said before, if someone steals your wallet you leave on a park bench, theyre bad, but also the family that didnt teach you to not to do, is at fault as well
:goodpost: Thank you
@Duch_Luver_4ever. Yes, I do believe that Diana and her brother Charles were left "rudderless" after the divorce because when it came to interpersonal relationships as both struggled with them as adults.
Sandy, There are pics online of her with no top on the bench she was lying on with no bikini top
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/6d/29/db/6d29dbe527f5ccd8eb62969e8d27f120.jpg
of course because theyre available shes just on her stomach, the other pics were purchased before they could be printed (not the first time thats happened in Spain...perhaps Juan Carlos to the rescue again :flower: sorry had to troll the ladies on that one).
But thats why theyre not as explicit as Kate's, she didnt have the clout to get them bought up like Diana, also the documentary about her year off mentions she left over the worry of the topless pics being printed as well.
Saying Frances didnt want to interfere doesnt make it right, thats even worse to say she saw the pitfalls and kept her mouth shut, what the hell kind of mother is that? Then she has the cheek to call Diana all sorts of horrible names that last year. That doesnt help your "case" at all, it may explain it, but thats exactly the kind of things she and others in the family should be answerable for.
She WOULD have been more prepared in that she would have had a higher self esteem and wouldnt have sought to get it from the situation she thought she was getting with Charles, while it still would have been unpleasant, she would have had more resources to either weather it better, or not be so keen to get all her satisfaction from Charles. She wouldnt have been so pressured to find someone, anyone who would listen to her. Choosing Barry and Hewitt were more acts of desperation with men who were handily nearby, not chosen after a thoughtful selection of their suitability to be a long lasting secure relationship for her.
Thats what a better family situation would have gotten her, shed have either still been alive and married to Charles or left under much better terms for herself. the only reason you cant or wont see it, is you want to apportion total blame on Charles, when some of that blame rests with others around Diana as well.
Just saw your post while i was writing
@TLLK, glad to hear I was on the right thought process with your posts, thanks again for your insights.
Double post auto-merged: October 03, 2017, 05:53:22 AM
Postscript, so while I was finding the link for the pic in the post, heres another one showing no straps from that day in spain again ....shes on her back, no worries (https://i.pinimg.com/736x/8e/dd/bb/8eddbbea9e73c0bc8d55795403756b01--diana-spencer-lady-diana.jpg ) and this one comes close but is still decent https://i.pinimg.com/736x/54/c6/20/54c6200ebb27da5e553cf040fdbbabc0.jpg
I came across some other info that suggests that its likely not the first time she tanned in that way. You may not recall when I had first joined I had posted about a picture of Diana and Jane at night by a pool in which they were skinny dipping.
Well I found some supplemental info on it, apparently it was auctioned off a while ago: (obviously I wont link to the photo but you can find it with some googling). excepted text from the site....regencystamps dot com lot 100.
""PRINCESS DIANA 1979-80 SINGULAR NUDE COLOR JAPANESE MAGAZINE PHOTO
All > CELEBRITY SLEUTH > Top 40
Return To Catalog
Watch this lot
This lot is closed for bidding. Bidding ended on: 12/5/2015
Unearthed in an obscure Japanese publication on a 'figure-finding mission' to Tokyo, this rare 8"x10" color image of a nude teenage Diana Spencer includes her older sister Jane alongside, hidden up to her chest in water. Princess Di was said to enjoy 'sunbathing topless on the roof garden at Kensington Palace, swimming in the nude at Highgrove (another royal residence) and skinny-dipping in the pool at Windsor Castle with Princess Margaret.' Rumors of this revelation first surfaced in journalist James Whitaker's column in Nov. 1984: 'An underground photo purporting to show Princess Diana in the nude is being offered for sale,' the British royal insider wrote. 'The color photograph shows a girl sitting naked on the edge of a swimming pool in which two men are playing. I saw the picture yesterday and...she bears an uncanny resemblance! And another girl in the picture looks even more remarkably like Diana's sister Jane!!' Sniffed Buckingham Palace predictably: 'We have no reason to believe there is such a photo.' They do NOW! Without a stitch, young Diana's top tan-lines add to the allure. Looks like shot was taken at night.""
The internet is full of pics that havent been in magazines, im sure you all have seen the pic in the bahamas where Charles grabs Diana's chest while theyre sunbathing in suits, again let google be your guide. Just cause it wasnt in the tabs or a mag, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
I dont take any joy having to find this stuff, I much prefer her in casual, adorable clothes, but some of you keep trying to say im wrong, well id suggest ppl that cant/dont want to hear less than perfect news about Diana should take my info at face value and let it go, as in proving it, there always seems to be more and worse stuff out there.
I did not say it was "right" what Frances did, I just reported what she told an interviewer for her biographer.
An underage photo of young Diana makes it worse if this is Diana. The photo could also be a fake. Why would people take a photo of Diana before she became famous--they should have been arrested. There are stories of people filming and taking pictures of women in rest rooms and they get arrested. It's not a reflection on the women but the peeping toms. There are cases of high school teachers who drill an hole and take photos of teenage girls in locker rooms. The girls don't get demonized but the teacher does.
An uncanny resemblance does not mean it's Diana. this is National Enquirer fodder. IMO.
Charles and Diana and the senior royals were incensed over the photos taken of them in January 1982. It was supposed to be a private time for two people. So he grabs her chest? They were on honeymoon in a supposedly private area. Diana and Charles did not do this in an X rated film or in a public area. So they did not "sin".
It is not a reflection of Diana and/or Charles but of the paparazzi who are the ones who should be trashed.
It's not as if Diana was a stripper or a Kardashian.
I am curious why do you think this makes Diana less than perfect? And not blame the paparazzi.
Charles got caught with Camilla a few times but they were not married to each other. Diana's chest was grabbed by her husband.
Diana finally sued over the "gym" photos of her exercising.
Joan Crawford the actress actually was said to make X rated films and in the nude. This is a different story than of a married woman cavorting with her husband on a private beach.
Double post auto-merged: October 03, 2017, 02:57:25 PM
Diana only realized the full extent of the situation she was in after the wedding.
How could anybody have any self esteem when treated?
Double post auto-merged: October 03, 2017, 03:13:47 PM
when treated the way Diana was. It was a no win situation.
Jackie Onassis reportedly has some nude photographs out there from sunbathing. She was also stalked by Ron Galella. And she sued Galella.
Double post auto-merged: October 03, 2017, 03:18:43 PM
Yes, the blame does lie (partially) outside of Charles. His mother and father and aunt and grandmother knew all about Camilla but just watched and condoned the marriage. Even the Archbishop who married them knew. So where is their accountability. Charles had to have those heirs. But ultimately, he was the one who made the decisions knowing the full story. He knew he did not love Diana but wanted heirs and had no intention of stopping seeing or contacting Camilla. I have always said that the royals knew it all but condoned the marriage anyway. Even a man of the clergy who knew, condoned the marriage.
I am presenting no "case" Duch, I am just reporting what I read about Diana's mother and did not editorialize over it.
Quote from: TLLK on October 02, 2017, 04:10:16 PM
:goodpost:@Duch_Luv. :thumbsup:
Yes and I'm going to add that the trauma that Diana and Charles Spencer suffered due to their parents' divorce certainly had an impact on their emotional development. IMO they both seemed to have stalled at some point and had difficulty in maintaining interpersonal relationships.
However I'm still disappointed in the manner that these adults: Charles, Camilla, APB, Diana, Oliver Horare, etc.. behaved toward each other and their spouses during these years. <_<
According to Prince Charles, his parents gave him a traumatic childhood too. With him never feeling loved and wanted by them (well known as Anne was favorite of Philip and get on better with the Queen than Charles)... just finding parental affection in his nanny, grandmother and 'uncle' Mountbatten. The Queen and Philip left scars that shaped the character of Charles (according to HIMSELF)... as Johnnie and Frances did with youngest kids Diana & Charles S
QuoteIt is not a reflection of Diana and/or Charles but of the paparazzi who are the ones who should be trashed.
I agree
@sandy and it's a shame that too often that the public figure is the one who is "trashed" with people referring to them by all sorts of vulgar names.
Quote from: sandy on October 02, 2017, 10:17:48 PM
The photograph was shown of her with straps down in a bikini top and she was lying face down. It was not as explicit as Kate's photos.
I don't think her popularity was waning. But it was the time of CHarles giving "his side" which appeared to backfire on him. Notably with the PB divorce. I read that both Wharfe and Jephson loathed Hoare.
They were employees FGS! BTW Diana loathed Wharfe for spying on her and talking to press behind her back as his then boss Colin Trimming said in Diana's inquest and Patrick Jephson confirmed that on his book.
Jephson in his book, never said he loathed Hoare or knew anything about their affair beyone the gossip at KP and seeing his car there... in his book it's quite obvious as he loathed his then boss Diana and as she ruined his good chances with the BP.
I dont think her topless scandal was that big back then... at least, late 1995, nobody even cared, the War of Waleses was about other things. BTW i dont remember the topless pics making Diana look bad in press but as she had no privacy... The Kate & Harry pics really were crass IMO
Wharfe did not like Hoare, and thought him a bad influence on Diana. Jephson expressed disapproval but Charles did not come out of his book unscathed and Jephson told the "shopping isn't it darling" story.
The topless photos were but a footnote in books about Diana. Maybe a paragraph or less.
Kate and William photos were a lot lot worse.
Even Sophie had a "topless" albeit blurred photo of herself.
"I dont think her topless scandal was that big back then... at least, late 1995, nobody even cared, the War of Waleses was about other things. BTW i dont remember the topless pics making Diana look bad in press but as she had no privacy... The Kate & Harry pics really were crass IMO"
We have never seen the topless pics, because the ones where she was shot topless from the front were bought up and the negatives destroyed. The pics in the links are ones in the tabloids. The ppl that did the doc on her "off" year seemed to think it was a lapse in judgement, and as the mother of the heir to the throne, and with her prior experience with the press snapping her on holiday, she should have exercised better judgement. Yes, the press are worse for chasing her, again, its the whole thing about leaving your wallet unattended on a park bench thing, yes its wrong to take it, but the person leaving it out should have known better.
I dont think Diana's a "sinner" or some such, just that it wasnt very good judgement, the things that disappointed me was more the connections real or alleged with married men, doing what she protested was done to her, along with throwing her staff under the bus over the calls.
(edited) [gmod]Use the point NOT the ball. [/gmod]
Now when she left that day there is both still and video of her decolletage quite sunburned, so unless she spent the entire time holding her chest to keep them covered, then she must have been sunbathing topless with photographers around.
I highlighted the honeymoon and other photo to indicate that its not only the photos that get published are the entirety of what they were up to during that time. I have no moral issue with the picture of C&D, its quite funny, actually.
As to the other picture, Whittaker HAD to say it bears a resemblance to avoid getting sued, frankly im amazed they printed anything at all in those days, considering they sad on the various affairs they all had for so many years. Since we cant agree on stairs, or video or audio recordings from Diana herself, im not going to waste any time on it with you, but given the photo technology at that time, it would be very difficult to do and having both Diana and Jane in the photo and its a posed picture (ie the subjects know theres a camera there) and not a "hole in the wall" picture greatly ups the percentage that its genuine.
As far as Frances, you may not realize it but you are making a case, we all know what Frances ideas were about being hands off, but by saying it and nothing else, its perceived as a defense of what she did. Even with all the mentioning of how Charles family treated him, we all know that and it certainly played into how he behaved, but it has nothing to do with how prepared Diana was to take on a husband, especially one that behaved like Charles did. It seems like youre totally incapable of seeing anything the members of Diana's family did wrong by her, when they really did her a big disservice in helping her navigate the life she chose.
Kate and William won the lawsuit despite the "they should have known better" argument.
I reported what Frances said. Period.
Im not suggesting W&K shouldnt have won their lawsuit, its totally unrelated to this, but had better judgement been exercised, the whole trial wouldnt have been necessary.
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on October 03, 2017, 07:33:32 PM
"I dont think her topless scandal was that big back then... at least, late 1995, nobody even cared, the War of Waleses was about other things. BTW i dont remember the topless pics making Diana look bad in press but as she had no privacy... The Kate & Harry pics really were crass IMO"
We have never seen the topless pics, because the ones where she was shot topless from the front were bought up and the negatives destroyed. The pics in the links are ones in the tabloids. The ppl that did the doc on her "off" year seemed to think it was a lapse in judgement, and as the mother of the heir to the throne, and with her prior experience with the press snapping her on holiday, she should have exercised better judgement. Yes, the press are worse for chasing her, again, its the whole thing about leaving your wallet unattended on a park bench thing, yes its wrong to take it, but the person leaving it out should have known better.
I dont think Diana's a "sinner" or some such, just that it wasnt very good judgement, the things that disappointed me was more the connections real or alleged with married men, doing what she protested was done to her, along with throwing her staff under the bus over the calls.
[gmod]- Edited - Please stop making it about each other[/gmod]
Now when she left that day there is both still and video of her decolletage quite sunburned, so unless she spent the entire time holding her chest to keep them covered, then she must have been sunbathing topless with photographers around.
I highlighted the honeymoon and other photo to indicate that its not only the photos that get published are the entirety of what they were up to during that time. I have no moral issue with the picture of C&D, its quite funny, actually.
As to the other picture, Whittaker HAD to say it bears a resemblance to avoid getting sued, frankly im amazed they printed anything at all in those days, considering they sad on the various affairs they all had for so many years. Since we cant agree on stairs, or video or audio recordings from Diana herself, im not going to waste any time on it with you, but given the photo technology at that time, it would be very difficult to do and having both Diana and Jane in the photo and its a posed picture (ie the subjects know theres a camera there) and not a "hole in the wall" picture greatly ups the percentage that its genuine.
As far as Frances, you may not realize it but you are making a case, we all know what Frances ideas were about being hands off, but by saying it and nothing else, its perceived as a defense of what she did. Even with all the mentioning of how Charles family treated him, we all know that and it certainly played into how he behaved, but it has nothing to do with how prepared Diana was to take on a husband, especially one that behaved like Charles did. It seems like youre totally incapable of seeing anything the members of Diana's family did wrong by her, when they really did her a big disservice in helping her navigate the life she chose.
[gmod]Edited[/gmod] using Frances hands off approach as a defense for Diana being ill equipped to take on the marriage with Charles. The truth is Johnnie Spencer was ill equipped to parent Diana and Charles S during their formative years Nannies didn't prepare the upperclass children regarding what was expected of them. The custody of the two youngest Spencers was born out of spite after years of ill treatment Frances left the marriage not her children and that the man she had her affair and later married was a non aristocrat her snobby mother stepped in also out of spite to punish her.
As for Charles Sandy had very valid points in her post just where was the accountability?
Well it sure looks that way when I said this "It doesnt give Charles a free pass to do whatever he wants, but it didnt give Diana the tools she needed to be able to deal with it better, she was left rudderless growing up and learned about romance and men from Cartland books rather than her mother, which is a shame cause if anyone could have taught her about dissatisfaction in marriage and being used as a brood mare it was Frances.
We all know Charles failings as a husband, and they are LEGION, but the issue I was discussing was that either her lack of development and choices led her into a position that damaged her that could have been avoided, even if Charles was going to be a cad.
Its like I said before, if someone steals your wallet you leave on a park bench, theyre bad, but also the family that didnt teach you to not to do, is at fault as well."
Her response to it was to state her piece about Frances, whereas if shed have indicated that "its no defense, but" or "i know Frances should have did better, but" and then stated about Frances being hands off, it would have come across more clearly that she wasnt intending it to be a defense of what Frances did.
You wont get any disagreement from me about Charles being accountable for his actions in the courtship and marriage, but just as important was the lack of responsibility the family showed in equipping Diana for a husband, if it hadnt been Charles it could have been someone else that something as bad as he did, or worse.
I find it interesting that in the wake of the womens lib movement and female empowerment and all that, so many women especially, (sorry but have to call it as I see it) today seem to be ok with Diana being allowed to walk into this dreadful situation, as long as the victim card can be played.
Its like the saying "would you rather be happy, or right?" ppl seem to rather Diana be "right" in being a victim, rather than her having the chance to be "happy" so to speak, by her family giving her the tools to recognize what a cad Charles was, and have the tools to either go ahead with it in a more satisfactory manner, or to have called it off for someone else, but they let her have stars in her eyes, and it came back to bite her, when it didnt have to.
I agree with you Duch_. Whatever the circumstance surrounding Frances leaving Johnny, having an affair in the first place and then a horrendous divorce taking place, it seems pretty clear that the two youngest Spencer children were tremendously traumatised by their mother leaving and their parents' divorce.
Of course, being the child of divorced parents is almost always unpleasant, but the effects of this one left Diana at least with issues of not ever feeling good enough, of failure, of abandonment, which were unfortunately exacerbated by boarding school and an academic system that didn't pick up in those days on any mild learning disability.
Then Frences removed herself with Peter to a remote Scotyish island and to Australia, and Johnny met and married Raine, a woman Diana loathed and couldn't confide in, and things continued to just drift, it seems to me. Poor Diana, she was just left rudderless from her early years and it was just so unfair on her!
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on October 03, 2017, 07:33:32 PM
As far as Frances, you may not realize it but you are making a case, we all know what Frances ideas were about being hands off, but by saying it and nothing else, its perceived as a defense of what she did. Even with all the mentioning of how Charles family treated him, we all know that and it certainly played into how he behaved, but it has nothing to do with how prepared Diana was to take on a husband, especially one that behaved like Charles did. It seems like youre totally incapable of seeing anything the members of Diana's family did wrong by her, when they really did her a big disservice in helping her navigate the life she chose.
I agree with you. The fact Frances 'didnt care' for her young daughter going through the hell with bulimia and PPD, shows her as a selfish mother, at best. Diana was barely 21/22 when she was going through all that. By all the accounts, Charles never forbidden Frances of being around Diana. In fact, they were told get on very well in 1980s. Including in late 1980s, when there was lots of speculation of Diana wanting a divorce. Ken Wharfe in his bio wrote as Charles get on well with Frances during the late 1980s.
So The Queen and Philip caused the same issues on Charles.
Obviously if Frances had looked for a lawyer instead of a lover she'd have had much better chances during the custody. Yes, I understand her reasons for fell for another man, but she wasnt giving a thought about her kids. She divorced Johnnie because she wanted being with Peter, not because she wanted to be free of a abusive husband. IMO as Frances as the Queen have/had a similar lack of 'maternal gifts', lets put in this way
Frances did not want Charles attending her funeral so she put it in her will that he not be there. They stopped getting along at Harry's christening when Charles moaned that he was not the daughter he wanted. Frances told him he should be glad he has a healthy child (recalling the time her baby died soon after birth). Charles gave her the cold shoulder. They were wary of each other after that. Although, they had sort of a stand off when he invited her (after Diana died) to spend time with William and Harry. She must have not been that soft on Charles if she barred him from her funeral.
Frances's mother who was an ardent royalist sabotaged Frances' attempts to get custody. Her mother Lady Fermoy wanted the children in close proximity to the royals (next to Sandringham) and did not want her grandchildren mostly in London with their mother. I think John Spencer being abusive caused the estrangement. Peter ultimately let Frances down also.
Apparently, Frances did not help Sarah when she went through rejection by the Duke of Westminster and had anorexia
Double post auto-merged: October 04, 2017, 12:45:30 PM
Quote from: Curryong on October 04, 2017, 04:26:01 AM
I agree with you Duch_. Whatever the circumstance surrounding Frances leaving Johnny, having an affair in the first place and then a horrendous divorce taking place, it seems pretty clear that the two youngest Spencer children were tremendously traumatised by their mother leaving and their parents' divorce.
Of course, being the child of divorced parents is almost always unpleasant, but the effects of this one left Diana at least with issues of not ever feeling good enough, of failure, of abandonment, which were unfortunately exacerbated by boarding school and an academic system that didn't pick up in those days on any mild learning disability.
Then Frences removed herself with Peter to a remote Scotyish island and to Australia, and Johnny met and married Raine, a woman Diana loathed and couldn't confide in, and things continued to just drift, it seems to me. Poor Diana, she was just left rudderless from her early years and it was just so unfair on her!
Diana was vetted by the royals and Charles' friends. And they knew about her vulnerability. So to me it makes it even more cruel for Charles to knowingly marry her when he did not love her. Diana seemed to be coming into her own living with her friends in London and working. If Charles wanted an "arrangement" he should have gotten somebody who was not naive and thought she would be going into a happy marriage.
Charles also was not equipped to go into this sort of marriage because he had more of a "cold blooded" approach to it. Get those heirs and "train" the wife to fit in with his lifestyle. Just like APB was OK with C and C then certainly Diana should be. It shows how out of touch and self centered and did not see the first wife's point of view.
Double post auto-merged: October 04, 2017, 12:52:55 PM
Prince Harry’s Birth Started The End Of Princess Diana And Prince Charles’ Relationship (https://www.inquisitr.com/4422728/prince-harrys-birth-started-the-end-of-princess-diana-and-prince-charles-relationship/)
The story of Frances and Charles
Double post auto-merged: October 04, 2017, 01:04:41 PM
another problem was that Charles was treated as sort of a mythical figure by the Spencers. John Spencer was delighted with the engagement and was interviewed. Lady Fermoy (although she did an about face when things were not going well in the Wales marriage) wanted a royal match. Apparently they thought what was good to advance the family would be great for Diana. Frances for one reason or another hid her misgivings from Diana whether she had her own ambitions (the grandmother of a future King) or was oblivious or in denial or did not care was known only to her. She told her biographer it was time for Diana to get married. And from her own bad experiences with an older man, she could have seen the warning signs. Her mother was ambitious for her to make a "good match" and John Spencer gave up his possible future fiancee to marry Frances.
The royals were gleeful too that Charles would "settle down" and there be no abdication crisis. Even though they knew about Camilla and condoned the marriage to Diana.
Ken W wrote in his book as Charles and Frances get on very well in late 1980s... she visited them in Highgrove because she wanted they made up... she was against a divorce... herself said she wanted Diana puttting up with Charles and Camilla, oh as she put that remaining married... she also admitted as she was against Diana having boyfriends... what a lovely, supportive mother... without the affair you can bet she'd had better chances in custody mess... i read she wanting take the kids away (from their father) to Scotland also couldnt help her case... Frances wasnt the first mother who lost the custody of her kids because she was having a affair outside her marriage, it happened to many women in 1960s/early1970s
According to the Sarah Bradford book, Frances helped Sarah when she went through anorexia (there were lots of details about this episode in book)
Quote from: Curryong on October 04, 2017, 04:26:01 AM
I agree with you Duch_. Whatever the circumstance surrounding Frances leaving Johnny, having an affair in the first place and then a horrendous divorce taking place, it seems pretty clear that the two youngest Spencer children were tremendously traumatised by their mother leaving and their parents' divorce.
Of course, being the child of divorced parents is almost always unpleasant, but the effects of this one left Diana at least with issues of not ever feeling good enough, of failure, of abandonment, which were unfortunately exacerbated by boarding school and an academic system that didn't pick up in those days on any mild learning disability.
Then Frences removed herself with Peter to a remote Scotyish island and to Australia, and Johnny met and married Raine, a woman Diana loathed and couldn't confide in, and things continued to just drift, it seems to me. Poor Diana, she was just left rudderless from her early years and it was just so unfair on her!
:goodpost: Thank you
@Curryong and
@dianab for your ingishts and info, and thank you
@sandy for admitting the Spencers had an agenda that didnt necessarily coincide with Diana's best interests and their misgivings in preparing her. Given she knew she had to "keep herself tidy" and told the photog at Janes wedding she was going to marry at Westminster Abbey or nothing, she was thinking quite hard about marrying a royal, but her family let her have dangerous expectations for such a wedding that both families wanted, it was very careless on their part.
I can see why people are unwilling to take the heat off of Charles for the issues with the marriage, and dont want to look anywhere else, but im looking at it from Diana's best interests. I did/do love her, and didnt want her to have a care in the world, and the Spencers have their part to play, even Diana said as much when she talked about people pulling and people pushing in the same direction when she said both the RF and her family wanted the wedding to go through, regardless of what both parties wanted, to be honest, and fair to Charles as well.
With time, she might have grown out of her romantic fantasies about marriage and men had she been allowed to marry at an older age, and people would have thought better about the whole thing if both families had sat down with the two of them and laid it all out, then Charles could have made his feelings known either about Camilla, or if he wanted to play it close to the vest, just say that he intended to take a lover, and that Diana should be prepared to do so as well after the kids were born, if she needed anything he didnt or couldnt provide. At least then Diana could go in with open eyes, if she still wanted to, or could have left him.
Obviously a meeting like that wouldnt have been made public, but given what both families stood to gain, it would have been worthwhile. However, theres a bit of hindsight in that, the RF thought divorce wasnt an option, so why risk Diana "bolting" before the wedding, once she was in, it was too late, and the supply of suitable virgins was very small. They hadnt bargained on Diana's incredible connection with the public via the media and her strength and resolve. (although things maybe didnt go as planned, im so proud of her for those qualities)
Sadly the Spencers felt the same as well, eyeing the dynastic advantages over Diana's wellbeing. Now Johnny would have either seen it as a boy or maybe still believed in the old style thinking of women born were a burden to be married off as well as possible, and to focus on the male heir, so one can see where his thinking came from, although i dont agree with it, and it ended up ruining a lot of the families royal connections, I suspect it will be several lifetimes before the two families risk a marriage again, if ever.
Seems both families didnt know than a "mouse" can indeed roar :flower:
It was a combination of the Spencers and Windsors having unrealistic expectations. The Queen Mum worried over another abdication crisis and Lord Mountbatten began to criticize Charles for his lifestyle fearing he'd become another Duke of Windsor (he died in 1979 but the idea of marrying an "Amanda type" was instilled in Charles, Amanda had turned him down so he looked for a similar bride). The marriage of Charles to Diana seemed to bring great joy to the royals and Diana's family. The Queen Mum breathed a sigh of relief that Charles was married off. Though she and her daughter seemed to ignore the possible threat of Charles keeping on his mistress. It was just get Charles married and have heirs.
Charles should have explained to Lady Diana what he expected from her and I mean all. He may have found someone else if Diana had not agreed to the terms (maybe someone else would like the luxuries and perks and ignore Charles extracurricular activities).
Quote from: dianab on October 04, 2017, 02:33:41 PM
Ken W wrote in his book as Charles and Frances get on very well in late 1980s... she visited them in Highgrove because she wanted they made up... she was against a divorce... herself said she wanted Diana puttting up with Charles and Camilla, oh as she put that remaining married... she also admitted as she was against Diana having boyfriends... what a lovely, supportive mother... without the affair you can bet she'd had better chances in custody mess... i read she wanting take the kids away (from their father) to Scotland also couldnt help her case... Frances wasnt the first mother who lost the custody of her kids because she was having a affair outside her marriage, it happened to many women in 1960s/early1970s
According to the Sarah Bradford book, Frances helped Sarah when she went through anorexia (there were lots of details about this episode in book)
Had Frances had a better attorney she might have pled emotional abuse or something of that nature.
So why did she help Sarah and not Diana? How the doctor (Dr. Lipsedge) was selected has never really been covered. And why not Frances and Sarah refer Diana to Lipsedge ASAP. Sarah seemed to remove herself from Diana apparently.
Apparently Frances was very unrealistic about the C and D marriage or she did not get enough information about it.
Since the father was the primary care giver, he did very little for Diana and Charles in their mother's absence. He just got excited about his daughter marrying the Prince of Wales. He could have done something to. Although, down the road his stroke and the recovery perhaps put a great deal of limits on him. He was said to just reassure Diana saying things like "every couple has difficulties and be patient." or something like that. Had he lived he may well have backed the Prince of Wales.
The royals did look down on Frances because she was a "bolter (despite the royals having divorced people in the family) and talked about the "bad Fermoy blood."
QuoteSo why did she help Sarah and not Diana? How the doctor (Dr. Lipsedge) was selected has never really been covered. And why not Frances and Sarah refer Diana to Lipsedge ASAP. Sarah seemed to remove herself from Diana apparently.
Just Frances could respond that to you. But it's written in many Diana bios (including Morton book IIRC).
Your St Frances was named in Shand-Kydd divorce then she saw had no chances to fight anymore for her kids. As I said it was part of issue of hers losing the custody' kids
I did not say she was a Saint. No, I did not say that. So why do you insist? My questions were not exactly praiseworthy of her. I also criticized Sarah who did seem remote from Diana (maybe there was a time when they were closer). The mystery is why Dr Lipsedge was not called in for Diana right away. It could have saved a lot of grief.
Frances was no saint but neither were Peter and John, her respective husbands. And certainly not her mother Lady Fermoy. Despite the "love at first sight," involved in both of her marriages (John ditched another woman to marry Frances). I don't think either of her marriages were for the long haul. Although the first produced several children.
John Spencer was not entirely blameless in the breakup. which still does not make Frances a saint.
The fact is her own mother Lady Fermoy turned against her which I find unnatural. She also turned against Diana. Fermoy I think was the worst one in that family. Maybe the one who had the most ambitions for her family getting a royal connection.
QuoteThank you @Curryong and @dianab for your ingishts and info, and thank you @sandy for admitting the Spencers had an agenda that didnt necessarily coincide with Diana's best interests and their misgivings in preparing her.
Yes thank you to all who have shared their knowledge and insight during this discussion. :thumbsup:
What agenda did the Spencers have?? IMO they were not a very united family. the parents were divorced and at odds. THe children were busy with their own lives and were not at all likely to be "Pushing" Diana inot marriage iwht a royal.
Naturaly, if she did find a royal suitor they were pleased, it was a boost for the family to marry into the RF, most upper class famliies would be the same.
And once Di was engaged to Charles, they would certainly have told her that she could not back out of it. If she had told the queen she wanted to break off the engagement, or if Charles had said the same thing, the Queen would have told him exactly the same thing.."the wedding is planned, its all arranged and there's no way out now."
I happen to think there is a lot of revisionist and sentimental history being written here. The Spencers (all of them including Diana) wanted to be associated with the royals. They had long harbored pretensions to royal blood. There is an oft repeated lie that they "are more royal than the royals"; a complete absurdity considering the fact that right up to Queen Mary; British kings typically married other royalty. How an earl's daughter can be more royal than a prince is a testament to the fantasies in this sad story.
They all wanted the marriage. It was an arranged marriage made for dynastic and PR reasons. Such marriages have worked before because the couples knew their respective roles. The wife would keep quiet about things and the husband would keep the mistress in the background. She too would also be excused for a few discreet affairs.
In this case Diana decided to go public and Charles insisted that the mistress was non-negotiable. Just because people do not talk about their problems in the press does not mean that every royal marriage is a happy never ending tale of romance. It is just that (unlike the Waleses), the other royal couples are discreet and mature. They do not blurb to all and sundry about their private problems. The myth of unending romance is just a fantasy...not real.
no they didn't "harbour pretensions" to royal blood nor as far as I know did they ever say (nor did anyone say about them) that they were more royal thn the royals.
Of course any aristocratic family woudl have peole in it who would feel that it was a coup to marry a snenior royal, as indeed it is. Do you think kates family weren't pleased when she snagged the POWs son?
but many upper class people think that there isn't that much good to be had from marrying a royal, that the publicity and lack of privacy is a definite minus and that wealth and status dotnt compensate for it. THe only people who arranged the marriage were Charles and Diana.
IMO the Spencers weren't that concernred abut their youngest daughter. Of course they were pleased when she did make this grand match, and they did make use of it, her mother for "notice" and her father and stepmother for financial reasons. But they didn't do anyting particular to push Diana into it.
Oh I have had that statement many times in documentaries and on forums about Diana being "more royal than the royals". It is those pretension that actually gave Earl Spencer the courage to give his famous speech. He was trying to poke the Windsors in the eye but they behaved as if nothing happened. Of course later, he felt the royal chill as he was bound to. Even today he sometimes comments on them but they say nothing in return.
It may have been C&D that did the final deed (proposal, acceptance, marriage etc) but the match had already been conceived and approved by QM and her lady in waiting Fermoy who happened to be the bride's maternal granny. Of course later on Fermoy is said to have made a deathbed confession and apologized to Charles and the royal family for not telling them about the problems that existed prior to the marriage. Now, that is a woman I would like to hear from. She probably had a lot to say about things but was curtailed by being effectively in the employ of the royals.
My point was that this was no love match and the hopes for a fairytale were never based in reality. Charles was never madly in love with Diana at any point in his life and neither was she. They were just two people caught up in the excitement of the moment. The papers at the time were at fever pitch about the possible marriage. A bit like Harry and Meghan but on a much grander scale. Charles was a fool not to resist the pressure and tell them that this was not what he really wanted. His father's "dump or marry" missive was the perfect opportunity to clarify matters.
I also find it rather sad that Charles needed to be prompted by his father to marry and then needed to be prompted by his mother to divorce. Where is the backbone?
No evidence for any of this. as for your points about Charles... he was at an age when he needed to get married.. and Phil pointed this out to him.. I don't believe he was very keen on marriage in general at that stage of his life.. but he knew it was his duty. And he certnaly could not divorce without his mtoehr approving it, as I'm sure you know..
time.com/4913806/princess-diana-anniversary-family-history/
After Eulogy, It's Venerable Spencers Versus `Upstart' Windsors - tribunedigital-chicagotribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-09-09/news/9709090173_1_9th-earl-spencer-princess-diana-charles-and-diana)
Double post auto-merged: October 05, 2017, 02:57:36 PM
All the same I have to say that if I had been Charles, I would have been much firmer with his parents. You tell them what is what instead of dithering and hoping it will all sort itself out.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 05, 2017, 02:11:42 PM
Oh I have had that statement many times in documentaries and on forums about Diana being "more royal than the royals". It is those pretension that actually gave Earl Spencer the courage to give his famous speech. He was trying to poke the Windsors in the eye but they behaved as if nothing happened. Of course later, he felt the royal chill as he was bound to. Even today he sometimes comments on them but they say nothing in return.
It may have been C&D that did the final deed (proposal, acceptance, marriage etc) but the match had already been conceived and approved by QM and her lady in waiting Fermoy who happened to be the bride's maternal granny. Of course later on Fermoy is said to have made a deathbed confession and apologized to Charles and the royal family for not telling them about the problems that existed prior to the marriage. Now, that is a woman I would like to hear from. She probably had a lot to say about things but was curtailed by being effectively in the employ of the royals.
My point was that this was no love match and the hopes for a fairytale were never based in reality. Charles was never madly in love with Diana at any point in his life and neither was she. They were just two people caught up in the excitement of the moment. The papers at the time were at fever pitch about the possible marriage. A bit like Harry and Meghan but on a much grander scale. Charles was a fool not to resist the pressure and tell them that this was not what he really wanted. His father's "dump or marry" missive was the perfect opportunity to clarify matters.
I also find it rather sad that Charles needed to be prompted by his father to marry and then needed to be prompted by his mother to divorce. Where is the backbone?
There are no pretensions with the Spence rs their royal blood goes back to the Stuart dynasty so much for the name royalanthropologist you just need to dig and the term more royal than the royals came from the media not the Spence rs and that is because the Stuarts on down were older than the Hanovers which is where the current family descend.
As for Lady Fermoy being with the royals meant more to her than her own family. Being in their employ would not have curtailed anything she had to say and she was a lady in waiting not a paid employee. Ruth was nothing more than an incredible snob who makes Carole Middleton look tame in her desire to make grand matches.
@Trudie. First of all, I am glad someone in this post just provided the proof of those assertions that someone was querying.
No the Spencers can never be more royal than the royals. The Act of Settlement determines who is royal and who is not. The Spencers are definitely not royal. They come down way, way below the royals even in the hierarchy of noble families. The queen's English ancestors go back beyond the Tudors. Besides most of the Spencer family links to royals were through illegitimate lines or mistresses. They have no claim to the British throne in any shape or form. To suggest so was a delusion on the part of the troublemaker press and other jaundiced commentators.
You are right that the Spencers never directly made that claim but Charles Spencer's speech was questioning the monarchy in the monarch's own presence. There is no other family in the aristocracy that would be so impudent. It all comes from their arrogance, impulsiveness and pretensions (why the royals imagined the Spencers were a safe pair of hands baffles me to this very day. The family was dynamite waiting to explode).
In earlier times, any such hints of superiority in blood lines would have landed the Spencers in lots of trouble even if they did not state them directly. The Tudors in particular had very summary means for dealing with anyone that claimed they were more royal than them. Of course times have changed now and the queen had to put up with that nonsense.
Lady Fermoy went with many secrets to her grave. It is a pity that she did not sing like her grand daughter. We might have gotten other insights into the match making process and what went wrong. A lady in waiting is actually a subordinate. They do not pay them a wage but instead offer an expenses allowance...but they are always subordinate to the royal. It all sounds snobbish but it is what it is.
I am sure Lady Fermoy was glad to be associated with the royals and glad about the marriage. Later on she had her misgivings but unfortunately she never really told the full story. Carole Middleton is a woman I admire. Not everyone rises from a council estate to produce a future queen. Her children are normal and well-adjusted. We get no stories of strident family relationships and complaints about not being loved from the Middletons. I personally rate her much higher than the dysfunctional Spencers but again it is just an opinion.
I also listened to Johnny Spencer before the wedding. He was saying that his daughter was "good stock" and that Diana was going to serve King and country like her ancestors. That does not speak to me of a father that anticipates this great romance. It was a dynastic arrangement and not this big romance. Maybe the idea of a broodmare was circling in his head even at the time?
John Spencer told interviewers that Charles called him after he proposed and Diana accepted. He said Diana and Charles were "over the moon" about the engagement. So it was more than saying his daughter was good breeding stock. Prince Philip maintained that Diana would "breed tallness into the family" so he made her sound like breeding stock. If John Spencer thought it pure dynastic arrangement he would not have said the couple was "over the moon." I do think Prince Philip was the one who made it sound like DIana was a "broodmare."
Even though Fermoy was "subordinate" she and the Queen Mother were friends.
The Windsors descended from the Stuart Princess Elizabeth, daughter of James I. Diana's line descended from two Stuart Kings, James II and Charles II. William will be the first King to descend from Charles II. Illegitimate lines or not, these are royal ancestors.
Double post auto-merged: October 05, 2017, 10:20:09 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 05, 2017, 02:43:20 PM
time.com/4913806/princess-diana-anniversary-family-history/
After Eulogy, It's Venerable Spencers Versus `Upstart' Windsors - tribunedigital-chicagotribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-09-09/news/9709090173_1_9th-earl-spencer-princess-diana-charles-and-diana)
Double post auto-merged: October 05, 2017, 02:57:36 PM
All the same I have to say that if I had been Charles, I would have been much firmer with his parents. You tell them what is what instead of dithering and hoping it will all sort itself out.
Charles could have backed out. Camilla was the one pushing him to marry DIana, the "perfect mouse."
Double post auto-merged: October 05, 2017, 10:24:22 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 05, 2017, 08:09:56 AM
I happen to think there is a lot of revisionist and sentimental history being written here. The Spencers (all of them including Diana) wanted to be associated with the royals. They had long harbored pretensions to royal blood. There is an oft repeated lie that they "are more royal than the royals"; a complete absurdity considering the fact that right up to Queen Mary; British kings typically married other royalty. How an earl's daughter can be more royal than a prince is a testament to the fantasies in this sad story.
They all wanted the marriage. It was an arranged marriage made for dynastic and PR reasons. Such marriages have worked before because the couples knew their respective roles. The wife would keep quiet about things and the husband would keep the mistress in the background. She too would also be excused for a few discreet affairs.
In this case Diana decided to go public and Charles insisted that the mistress was non-negotiable. Just because people do not talk about their problems in the press does not mean that every royal marriage is a happy never ending tale of romance. It is just that (unlike the Waleses), the other royal couples are discreet and mature. They do not blurb to all and sundry about their private problems. The myth of unending romance is just a fantasy...not real.
IF it were any arranged marriage, nobody sent the memo to Lady Diana. She thought Charles was courting her because he was attracted to her and loved her. She did not think it was arranged and she'd be expected to do this or do that and not expect love from the husband. An arranged marriage would be about contracts and promises and betrothals. Diana and Charles dated and both were free to walk away before any proposal. A betrothal is something different and harder to get out of. Where contracts are signed and so on. And obligations to marry.
Camilla was non-negotiable from the get go for Charles never stopped contacting her or meeting her at hunts and so on.
Charles blabbed his private problems to his friends who ran to the media. There are letters in the public domain of Charles complaining letters. Diana did not turn to Morton until 10 years after she got married to Charles. Charles started writing those letters ca. 1983. If he had kept his personal issues quiet there probably would have been no Morton.
"The Windsors descended from the Stuart Princess Elizabeth, daughter of James I. Diana's line descended from two Stuart Kings, James II and Charles II. William will be the first King to descend from Charles II. Illegitimate lines or not, these are royal ancestors."
This is a circular argument because in actuality Princess Elizabeth was descended from the Tudors through a legitimate line. The Act of Settlement is very clear on who is royal and who is not. The Spencer are not, have never been and will never be royal. It is as ridiculous as saying that the descendants of some of the other royal mistresses in medieval times are more royal than royals. Absolutely ridiculous. I wonder who came up with such a nonsense.
Nobody said they were "royal." But the Spencer descendants included the brilliant Winston Churchill. If they were "nothing" they would not have been sought after by royals. Charles would have not even considered Diana (or earlier Sarah). It is not ridiculous, and some who find out they have lines of descent from royals (illegitimate or not) don't hide this out and are proud of the descent. A big fuss was made of Diana's ancestry in all the booklets about the 1981 Royal Wedding and she was distant cousin to George Washington and even to American Actor Humphrey Bogart. Plus a fuss was made of how she and Charles both descended from Henry VII.
Glad we agree on that one. Spencers are not royals and they cannot therefore be more royal than the royals. It is one of those silly statements that was made by commentators who are either ignorant or willfully ignoring the facts.
Been away for a couple of days and a couple of you have taken it down an odd turn.
Quote from: amabel on October 05, 2017, 07:00:43 AM
What agenda did the Spencers have?? IMO they were not a very united family. the parents were divorced and at odds. THe children were busy with their own lives and were not at all likely to be "Pushing" Diana inot marriage iwht a royal.
Naturaly, if she did find a royal suitor they were pleased, it was a boost for the family to marry into the RF, most upper class famliies would be the same.
And once Di was engaged to Charles, they would certainly have told her that she could not back out of it. If she had told the queen she wanted to break off the engagement, or if Charles had said the same thing, the Queen would have told him exactly the same thing.."the wedding is planned, its all arranged and there's no way out now."
Theres been plenty written about Ruth Fermoy working with the QM to push them both down the alter. Remember RF, while it could be argued she did it as much for her own skin as the family's (as the spencers were hers only by marriage, and technically no longer once J&F divorced, but she did want to see the familys fortunes both material and status succeed).
Johnny may or may not have done anything pre wedding other than invite the PoW to the estate for shoots, and other events,(still recovering from the stroke) Diana's cousin Robert mentions the family was very enthused about the potential union. Also, he did steady Diana shortly before the wedding when she bolted from the pre wedding party.
Sarah and Jane both took credit for playing cupid, with Jane using her grace and favor cottage to have Diana around to "accidentally on purpose" pump into the royals and hopefully Charles at Balmoral.
I could go on and on, and theres been things of various accuracy and quality written or said such as her nickname coming from the family figuring when she was young shed marry Prince Andrew, to the family first pushing Sarah at the RF, and when she flamed out, the pushed Diana. (whether her own ambition or family conditioning, she did tell the family photographer and servicer of their electronics at Jane's wedding that she was going to marry at Westminster Abbey or nothing).
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 05, 2017, 08:09:56 AM
I happen to think there is a lot of revisionist and sentimental history being written here. The Spencers (all of them including Diana) wanted to be associated with the royals. They had long harbored pretensions to royal blood. There is an oft repeated lie that they "are more royal than the royals"; a complete absurdity considering the fact that right up to Queen Mary; British kings typically married other royalty. How an earl's daughter can be more royal than a prince is a testament to the fantasies in this sad story.
They all wanted the marriage. It was an arranged marriage made for dynastic and PR reasons. Such marriages have worked before because the couples knew their respective roles. The wife would keep quiet about things and the husband would keep the mistress in the background. She too would also be excused for a few discreet affairs.
In this case Diana decided to go public and Charles insisted that the mistress was non-negotiable. Just because people do not talk about their problems in the press does not mean that every royal marriage is a happy never ending tale of romance. It is just that (unlike the Waleses), the other royal couples are discreet and mature. They do not blurb to all and sundry about their private problems. The myth of unending romance is just a fantasy...not real.
Im sure theres been lots written, so im not going to dispute that those actual words were used, but my take on it has always been that the Spencers were more "English Aristocratic" than the Saxe Coburg Gothe's (whatever their early 20th century surname chicanery is, the Spencers certainly didnt have to hide their name during the war, and she did delight in calling them "the germans").
I recall Sarah Bradford in a doc saying that the Windsors were regarded as rather "middle class" royalty compared to other royal families, and theres been the press saying that Diana was the only potential bride to the PoW that was "marrying down" in terms of lineage.
PP famous threat to take away her titles if she didnt play nice was riposted by her usual wit saying that her title (Lady Diana Spencer) was older than his. For a man from a discarded monarchy in Greece and having to renounce his german titles, and being photographed at a nazi family members funeral, he should have kept his big mouth shut. :lol:
Diana represented the recombining of the Tudor and Stuart bloodlines in the RF, not to mention her family were vital in the current scion of the RF being in power from the last civil war in the UK.
You all have seen to be going back and forth on various genealogical points and counterpoints, and I didnt have time to dust off my Spencer family tree info this weekend. The Spencers may not have been "royal" in that they sat on the throne, but as far as English aristocracy they likely are peerless, a living time capsule of great royal lines, and "the germans" were keen to have her provide a boost to their stock and cement their claim as British royals.
Sorry if my post is not as grey as others, and id have liked to do more work on it but I cant but feel my lady's family honor has been besmirched, engarde!!! JK LOL :happy17: :lol:
I have no doubt that Diana had English royal blood lines going way back but there are many families that had similar connections. The thing is the act of settlement made them all "dead" in terms of any pretensions to the crown or royalty.
Besides Charles does have the blood of the Danish royal family in his veins (one of the oldest monarchies in Europe). His father was a prince by birth and his great grandmother was a German princess (although PM despised her for being only a serene highness) .
Charles may not be as English as Diana was but he certainly has far more royal blood in him than the Spencers. There is no way an earl can ever be compared to a prince or King. It was a huge step up for the Spencers and relished the idea. Even Diana herself was not willing to go back to good old Lady Diana Spencer after the divorce because she had been "elevated" and felt that going back would be too humiliating.
Besides being a foreigner has never prevented people from becoming royal. The British parliament effectively disinherited 50 Stuarts with a superior claim to the throne because they were Catholics. They went to Hanover and picked a royal family from there. I think that still bites the Stuarts and it may have explained some of the angst
I actually do think the BRF is the premier royal family in the world today so I am not too sure that they are considered middle class as such. What I know is that they are very good at adapting when necessary in order to survive. If you are looking for a Middle Class monarchy, look no further than Sweden. Even the King is more interested in highlighting his connections to Queen Victoria than his ancestors.
I've always understood, from my readings about the older families of the English aristocracy (leaving the Scots and Welsh to one side) that there was/probably still is, a general feeling among them that the Saxe Coburger/Windsors were a jumped-up German lot who arrived in England in 1714 from their petty little kingdom of Hanover. Whereas, many of the older noble families of England prided themselves on having ancestors who came over with William the Conquerer, or were, at the least, established landowners when Henry VIII was a boy.
Of course, this is absurd, as the Queen and her descendants have links going back to the Anglo Saxon kings.
However, the perception was there and I've read several times in bios/histories that the very old English noble families thought of the BRF as 'the Germans'. I've never heard of any aristo family asserting that they were 'more Royal than the royals' (though some Scottish Dukes glory in the fact that they have the blood of Scots Kings in their veins.)
My suspicion is that Royal has misremembered and that in fact the Spencers said, as so many of their like did, that 'Our blood is more English/Anglo Saxon than that pack of Germans on the throne. Our family was ruling ----shire, or Devon, or Norfolk when 'those Germans' were still in their little Hanover'.
Diana is descended from the Stuarts. The house of Stuart has never really gotten over the fact that it was extinguished from the succession by act of parliament. Descendants of those 50 who were taken out of line to the throne in order to reach out to Hanover would still harbor resentments.
Local nobles are always in competition for closeness to the crown yet they also resent foreign princes ruling over them. That is the dilemma that prevented Elizabeth I marrying. On one hand she could not choose a local noble for fear of upsetting the other nobles and giving the chosen one ideas above their station (e.g. Robert Devereux and Pole). Then marrying a foreigner would bring out the underlying xenophobia like it did for her unfortunate sister.
I am sure the nobles even today reassure themselves that they are more royal and English than the Windsors. That is precisely why I thought it was a strategic risk marrying off the POW to the daughter of an Earl especially a daughter who was brought up in such a dysfunctional home. As expected, the Spencers began to harbor ideas. There is a very good reason why Diana was the first English Princess of Wales in a long time.
Camilla and Kate are a different kettle of fish. The former is so low on the nobility ranks that her family could never harbor ideas. I cannot for any moment imagine Mark Shand giving the kind of speech Earl Spencer gave. The family is always respectful to the monarch and are unfailingly grateful for their sisters elevation to it. Ditto to the Middletons. James could never do such a thing too. His sister is a very docile and compliant princess who never causes trouble.
The Stuarts weren't an English Royal family that the Hanoverians displaced, however. The English went to war with Scotland over the centuries many times, including years when the Stuarts were on the Scottish throne. There wasn't exactly unalloyed delight at the prospect of the Scottish James I at Westminster Palace, London, though he was acknowledged as heir to the English throne. In a way the Scots were regarded as as foreign as Frenchmen or Germans in centuries past.
No English aristo family would be resentful about the Act of Settlement or the Hanoverians taking over from Queen Anne, for the sole reason that the vast majority of such families descend from Charles I and his mistresses in illegitimate lines, and/or James II and his mistresses' bastards. No illegitimate son could inherit the English throne anyway, so the Act of Settlement doesn't apply. No English noble family that I know of descends from legitimate Stuart stock, and thus they have no claim on the throne in that way.
The majority of English nobles were Protestant themselves after the Reformation, anyway and many Whig aristocrats supported the Act of Settlement.
That's why I think, Royal, that you have misremembered Diana saying something about her family roots as being 'more Royal than the Royals' when in fact I have read lots of times that it was an article of faith among many of the oldest noble families of England that they were in fact 'more English than those Germans at BP'. If Diana did say something about the Spencers being more 'Royal than the Windsors' I'd just like to have a source please, so I can look it up.
Diana did not say it. I think it is Sarah Bradford that said it about the attitudes of the aristocracy to the Windsors. That attitude was also reiterated in some articles:
Subscribe to read (https://www.ft.com/content/b80a9dde-f1f0-11e6-95ee-f14e55513608?mhq5j=e5)
My point is that the Spencers (at least Charles) were arrogant and presumptuous. Charles had already had a tester of their attitude to the monarchy and general indiscretion with Sarah but he foolishly went on to court Diana.
I don't think Sarah wanted to marry Charles. She said he was like a brother to her which is not the stuff of great romance. SHe was in love with the DUke of Westminster. IMO. I think Sarah was a lot better off with her choice of husband. I think Charles the Prince had some arrogance and sense of entitlements.
Double post auto-merged: October 07, 2017, 11:45:46 AM
Quote from: Curryong on October 07, 2017, 09:19:03 AM
The Stuarts weren't an English Royal family that the Hanoverians displaced, however. The English went to war with Scotland over the centuries many times, including years when the Stuarts were on the Scottish throne. There wasn't exactly unalloyed delight at the prospect of the Scottish James I at Westminster Palace, London, though he was acknowledged as heir to the English throne. In a way the Scots were regarded as as foreign as Frenchmen or Germans in centuries past.
No English aristo family would be resentful about the Act of Settlement or the Hanoverians taking over from Queen Anne, for the sole reason that the vast majority of such families descend from Charles I and his mistresses in illegitimate lines, and/or James II and his mistresses' bastards. No illegitimate son could inherit the English throne anyway, so the Act of Settlement doesn't apply. No English noble family that I know of descends from legitimate Stuart stock, and thus they have no claim on the throne in that way.
The majority of English nobles were Protestant themselves after the Reformation, anyway and many Whig aristocrats supported the Act of Settlement.
That's why I think, Royal, that you have misremembered Diana saying something about her family roots as being 'more Royal than the Royals' when in fact I have read lots of times that it was an article of faith among many of the oldest noble families of England that they were in fact 'more English than those Germans at BP'. If Diana did say something about the Spencers being more 'Royal than the Windsors' I'd just like to have a source please, so I can look it up.
The royals at the time appeared to be pleased with Diana's ancestry bringing in more Stuart lines to the family. And much was made of both Diana and Charles being descended from Henry VII
Double post auto-merged: October 07, 2017, 11:51:00 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 07, 2017, 08:22:57 AM
Diana is descended from the Stuarts. The house of Stuart has never really gotten over the fact that it was extinguished from the succession by act of parliament. Descendants of those 50 who were taken out of line to the throne in order to reach out to Hanover would still harbor resentments.
Local nobles are always in competition for closeness to the crown yet they also resent foreign princes ruling over them. That is the dilemma that prevented Elizabeth I marrying. On one hand she could not choose a local noble for fear of upsetting the other nobles and giving the chosen one ideas above their station (e.g. Robert Devereux and Pole). Then marrying a foreigner would bring out the underlying xenophobia like it did for her unfortunate sister.
I am sure the nobles even today reassure themselves that they are more royal and English than the Windsors. That is precisely why I thought it was a strategic risk marrying off the POW to the daughter of an Earl especially a daughter who was brought up in such a dysfunctional home. As expected, the Spencers began to harbor ideas. There is a very good reason why Diana was the first English Princess of Wales in a long time.
Camilla and Kate are a different kettle of fish. The former is so low on the nobility ranks that her family could never harbor ideas. I cannot for any moment imagine Mark Shand giving the kind of speech Earl Spencer gave. The family is always respectful to the monarch and are unfailingly grateful for their sisters elevation to it. Ditto to the Middletons. James could never do such a thing too. His sister is a very docile and compliant princess who never causes trouble.
Well Prince William is a prince who never causes trouble. He never hurt his wife by bringing in a mistress who called the shots. I don't think Kate is some docile person she has a mind of her own very clearly. She lucked out by having a faithful husband who really loves her.
CHarles OTOH's complicated love life came back to bite him. William never sought comfort with his friends' wives.
The Middletons are also attentive to Kate and care for her. And certainly have looked out for her. If she ever got bad treatment I would think they would rally around her.
Camilla Shand Parker Bowles' treated a royal wife with disrespect name calling her and usurping her place at the table as hostess in her own home. Camilla had absolute contempt for Diana. Royal mistresses showed deference to the wives and did not try to usurp them (I'm talking about Edward VII's mistresses and other king's mistresses except of course for Anne Boleyn.
Well
@sandy:
"Well Prince William is a prince who never causes trouble. He never hurt his wife"
Not true. If you follow the news, you will know that is not the case. Kate had to play the long game in order to bag and keep her prince. She will never cause any trouble because she has seen the consequences of that.
The problem is that some people imagine that just because people do not sell their stories to the DM and Express, they have perfect marriages. They don't. They are just discreet. Every marriage has its issues but most people do not rely on the public or press to arbitrate their problems. That is why there is an erroneous impression that C&D was the only royal marriage in trouble and that everyone else is having it dandy. They are not.
I don't think that people thought the Snowden marriage was fine and dandy. They were several scandals attached to that, including drunken public rows and toyboys. Princess Michael of Kent was seen visiting a Texas millionare while wearing a red wig. Even the Duke of Kent was rumoured to have a mistress.
There were rumours of infidelity on both sides in Anne's marriage, especially with regard to Zara's parentage and Anne's RPO whom she insisted on ringing after the birth, and then the love letters to Tim later. Andrew and Fergie's marriage exploded with scandalous headlines, lovers, toe sucking etc and Fergie even wrote about it in an autobiography. I certainly don't think the British public were ever under any illusions that the Charles-Diana marriage was the only one floundering in the BRF.
Very true. However, I am talking about William and Kate. Sandy seems to be under the impression that William is the perfect prince and husband. That is not a given and the news has hinted as much. Indeed he was dumped Kate publicly after years of her waiting for him. That is a woman on a mission and she has executed according to the game plan. Kate will never ever give any press interviews talking about the state of her marriage. She is far too intelligent to make that mistake.
Kate strikes me very much like Camilla was in her multi year campaign to get APB down the aisle and in knowing her place in the RF and not willing to rock the boat/playing the game. She's "punched above her weight" in going from her humble beginnings to being a queen someday, so she has far different expectations than Diana would have.
As for William and their marriage not being perfect, god only knows whats going on behind closed doors. I think he knows that a lot of public goodwill is contingent on him not repeating his parents mistakes, and that aspect may well be the "fairytale" portion of W&K's marriage.
Time will only tell in a couple of decades, when we see what job they did raising the children and if any lover of William gets outed, if he has them. It could very well be that he finds what hes looking for in Kate, but he also has had his father & family teaching him that nothing should be denied to him. One doesnt know if PP has filled the role that Mountbatten did for Charles in teaching him what to expect courting women.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 07, 2017, 03:38:01 PM
Very true. However, I am talking about William and Kate. Sandy seems to be under the impression that William is the perfect prince and husband. That is not a given and the news has hinted as much. Indeed he was dumped Kate publicly after years of her waiting for him. That is a woman on a mission and she has executed according to the game plan. Kate will never ever give any press interviews talking about the state of her marriage. She is far too intelligent to make that mistake.
Royalanthropologist thinks that I said that William is perfect prince. I have criticized him and he's not perfect. But he is better than his dad in not having a mistress and really loving his wife. He so far is treating his wife well and he adores her family and spends time with her. Kate may have been a "woman on a mission" but she needed HIM to decide to resume their relationship, which he did. She could have hired an airplane to buzz over his house and if he had not been on the same page with her, he would have continued to break up and not looked back.
Why would Kate talk about her marriage? William treats her with love and respect. She should be thankful he did not turn out like his father.
Double post auto-merged: October 07, 2017, 10:41:57 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 07, 2017, 03:18:39 PM
Well @sandy:
"Well Prince William is a prince who never causes trouble. He never hurt his wife"
Not true. If you follow the news, you will know that is not the case. Kate had to play the long game in order to bag and keep her prince. She will never cause any trouble because she has seen the consequences of that.
The problem is that some people imagine that just because people do not sell their stories to the DM and Express, they have perfect marriages. They don't. They are just discreet. Every marriage has its issues but most people do not rely on the public or press to arbitrate their problems. That is why there is an erroneous impression that C&D was the only royal marriage in trouble and that everyone else is having it dandy. They are not.
Yes but they are married now and have been since 2011. The Kate/William breakup was ten years ago.
It is well known that C and D was not the ONLY royal marriage in trouble: Margaret, Anne, Andrew as well as Charles had marital issues. Margaret and Snowdon's marriage was tumultuous with rampant cheating on both sides.
Double post auto-merged: October 07, 2017, 10:43:16 PM
Quote from: Curryong on October 07, 2017, 03:31:54 PM
I don't think that people thought the Snowden marriage was fine and dandy. They were several scandals attached to that, including drunken public rows and toyboys. Princess Michael of Kent was seen visiting a Texas millionare while wearing a red wig. Even the Duke of Kent was rumoured to have a mistress.
There were rumours of infidelity on both sides in Anne's marriage, especially with regard to Zara's parentage and Anne's RPO whom she insisted on ringing after the birth, and then the love letters to Tim later. Andrew and Fergie's marriage exploded with scandalous headlines, lovers, toe sucking etc and Fergie even wrote about it in an autobiography. I certainly don't think the British public were ever under any illusions that the Charles-Diana marriage was the only one floundering in the BRF.
Yes, and even the Queen's marriage was not immune to rumors of problems. The late fifties seemed to be a time of marital difficulties for the Queen and Philip.
Yes, Phillip has much more Diana in him back then, than he'd (or others) would care to admit now. Changing things at PB, testy and willful, stomping off on his boat tour, pushing for his last name to given to the children, bristling at his spouses role and its limitations on his life ....Its a shame the media wasnt then like it is now...time has addled his and others memories to think that he was born into the RF, old,stogy and conservative from day one :lol:
Yes, Duch_ there are lots of stories about clashes with senior courtiers at BP in the 1950s and '60s, some of which you kind of sympathise with, as some courtiers could remember the court of George V and wanted the old ways to continue. And the Queen too often took their advice IMO.
It's odd to think of Philip as being a modern innovator, ready to go to war about the way things were done and to have regular bitches about his role in life that inevitably leaked. He was after all only in his thirties. He must have contemplated his future official life with some horror.
I agree that Kate is more like Camilla than Diana in terms of knowing how to play the game. Stay in the background until asked to come forward. Above all do not overshadow or criticize any member of the family. Ensure that your royal spouse has nothing to complain about you. Say as little as possible to the press.
When Kate was downgraded vis-a-vis Beatrice and Eugiene she obliged. Not a word of complaint. Diana was complaining that Charles was prioritizing his mother and grandmother when serving the drinks. Very different women. Diana was too volatile, independent and free spirited to fit into the institution.
I really don't see how anyone could marry into the BRF and not know that "talking to the press" - esp if it is talking critically about the family or your wife/husband is REALLY not considered a good idea.
Diana believed she could control the press and manipulate them. Essentially feed them with negative stories about Charles/BRF while getting them to make her case for her with her adoring public. She naively expected that when she was tired of them, they would disappear.
Of course that is not what happened. Her words were twisted and made worse than she intended them. The press would not go away and examined every detail of her life. When she fell out of favor with the BRF, they started even using her own words and behavior against her. It was all going downhill until her death when the press temporarily canonized her.
Now, they are back to mixing it up...praise her to the heavens and then later bring her down in an endless circle of click bait. She is a victim, shrew or champion depending on what article you chose to believe. In fact the same three personas can appear in one article. You've got to maximize those clicks
It is the same with anyone who becomes a press figure. Esp when it is in a field like "being royal" or beign famous for some "light" endeavour such as TV personalties, sports figures etc.
That's why I don't understand why people take the press stories about the RF so seriously. Mostly Royal reporters don't have any great access to the RFand the RF detest them and don't like them being around.
They rely on occasional stories handed to them by couriters who want to "make their guy look good", or by servants who really don't usually have much of interest to say (Until Charles and Di's marriage was such a messy affair that there was plenty of gossip to pour out about that)...
So overall a lot of their stories are guesswork or just "there to fill up the pages". But every time there's a bit about Charles and Di, we get the old "He said "do yu expect me to be the only POW not ot have a mistress" or "She threw herself down the stairs".. or "she had an affair with a tennis player (whom she had problaby seen thriee times in her lfie.
It is mostly dross with the occasional bit of truth, yet people on royal forums seem to take it all as Gosptel and discuss these "non stories" without ever considering "How likely are they to be true?"
Just about sums it up perfectly. :goodpost:If Diana smiled at a man, she would be accused of having some kind of illicit affair with him. Of course she did not help her own course with those confessionals that hinted at fantasies about her married body guard and those high school type manipulations of Khan. At the same time I know that the press is fundamentally dishonest so everything with a pinch of salt.
QuoteIt's odd to think of Philip as being a modern innovator, ready to go to war about the way things were done and to have regular bitches about his role in life that inevitably leaked. He was after all only in his thirties. He must have contemplated his future official life with some horror.
:goodpost:
@Curryong.
Have to agree that Phillip obviously felt constrained and we know that his peers Henrik and Claus struggled with the expectations associated with their roles and being men raised in the earlier part of the 20th century. Claus had episodes of serious depression and unfortunately we all know about Henrik's thoughts on the subject. After watching the name debacle in the UK, the Dutch and Danish royal families wisely chose to add Claus'- Van Amsberg and Henrik's- Montpezat to the surnames for their descendants.
Today's reformer is tomorrow's old fashioned fuddy duddy. I have to say that I would not relish having Prince Phillip as a father-in-law. The man seems to be hardened beyond all reason. There is ice in those veins. I cannot imagine him being gentle under any circumstances. The queen is a saint putting up with him all these years.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 08, 2017, 05:13:58 PM
Today's reformer is tomorrow's old fashioned fuddy duddy. I have to say that I would not relish having Prince Phillip as a father-in-law. The man seems to be hardened beyond all reason. There is ice in those veins. I cannot imagine him being gentle under any circumstances. The queen is a saint putting up with him all these years.
Agreed, while I can understand his situation early on, its a bit hard to feel sorry for him, in that he pursued Elizabeth for several years, and would have been difficult to not forsee that he was going to have to take a back seat to her. But given how little Mountbatten trained Charles to be a husband, maybe he was as incompetent with Phillip as well. Also they would have seen George VI's health up close and it had to cross his mind it would be sooner than later shed be Queen.
(Its not like he met her only 13 times before marrying over the space of a year :lol: :lol: :lol: )
As for Diana and the press posts, it was only when she had no other choice, depending on what you want to look at, she was trying to stop the palaces sidelining of her and questioning her sanity in an end game to take the boys, and also she was trying to shore up her position should Gilbey and Hewitt come out, the palace would run cover for Charles and Camilla but would leave Diana out in the cold over hers.
I think she would have used her publicity to belittle Charles and embarrass him over the years, but I dont think the floodgates of Morton, etc. would have come out unless her back was to the wall with those two concerns. (I also think she had decided to leave by that point, I dont think its an accident that Panorama was done just shy of the 3 yr period after separation that divorce could be filed)
As for the tabloids, its tricky as yes the access is limited in terms of sit down interviews, but also the tabloids were often right, and years ahead of the press, so its hard to totally avoid them. As for Charles comment about not being the only PoW without a mistress, its not tabloid tittle tattle, its his wife's recollection of their discussion over why Camilla was around.
I know we can debate Diana's honesty, but given he was having an affair with her, and hes not one to take his decisions being questioned, and he would be aware of his ancestors history and tried to make Diana aware, I think in an indirect way to fill her in, can one really think that its an exaggeration that he said it????? I think some like to refute it because it moves the Camilla affair from a last ditch move of desperation over Diana's "instability" to a calculated move to be with who he really loves.
But yes, there were times when Diana didnt help herself with the press, now some like the confession about Barry, would happen after her death, but had she kept some security, the press wouldnt have gotten to the pace it go to over the last few years. But she was determined to do things her way not always was it the "best" way, but getting out of the RF was going to exact a high price, 1997 or not.
There is one thing that I am very sympathetic about in this media forays. If someone is saying that you are mad, it can be so hurtful and frustrating. You just think "F... it, I will say my bit. Publish and be damned". The accusation of madness was quite damaging and you could tell from the way Diana spoke about it that it hurt so much.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 08, 2017, 11:56:11 AM
Just about sums it up perfectly. :goodpost:If Diana smiled at a man, she would be accused of having some kind of illicit affair with him. Of course she did not help her own course with those confessionals that hinted at fantasies about her married body guard and those high school type manipulations of Khan. At the same time I know that the press is fundamentally dishonest so everything with a pinch of salt.
It was not "high school." I think Khan was genuinely in love with Diana and she with him. There were barriers of culture and religion. She died young. It could have worked out.
Double post auto-merged: October 09, 2017, 12:29:53 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 08, 2017, 05:13:58 PM
Today's reformer is tomorrow's old fashioned fuddy duddy. I have to say that I would not relish having Prince Phillip as a father-in-law. The man seems to be hardened beyond all reason. There is ice in those veins. I cannot imagine him being gentle under any circumstances. The queen is a saint putting up with him all these years.
The Queen loves her husband. She wanted to marry him. And maybe HE was a saint for putting up with her. They have been married since 1947.
Yes, I think if she didnt feel the loss of the boys was in play, she probably would have stayed quiet unless she met someone she was convinced she wanted to marry, then she would have needed the press to make her exit.
With Hasnat, There was some of Diana trying to impulsively see about having a secret wedding, meeting his family, and lining up a job for him behind his back. I think she was so used to being able to do that with people, and having most ppl subordinate to her in life.
But the majority of the "high school" behavior was by Khan. He over-reacted to the above events, and failed to see them as her display of loving him, and frankly giving her false hope of love with no intention of integrating his life with hers. Lets look how that turned out, he had a 2 yr marriage that failed, and while he has his "work" hes not on the cover of Scientific American, and imagine how much work and access he could have had as "Mr. Diana" he could have had the best doctors and facilities to work in saving kids and such around the world, but he was a pig headed fool (yes the pun is intended).
With HM and PP im sure are both not prize pigs to live with, I dont understand the defense of PP? Hes a known womanizer, a petulant child whining about being "Mr. Elizabeth" giving up his naval career (yeah he was going to run the navy someday, insert massive eyeroll here), the name of his kids, the way things are done, running off on a childish trip, etc. Funny how he talks out of the other side of his mouth now about tradition, duty, etc. now that ppl old enough to remember most of that are dead now.
Hmmm. Good description of PP. The defense of PP I find amusing especially when contrasted against the vitriol for his eldest son. :hehe:
I am not defending anybody. Everybody has flaws even the Queen. And both Philip and Elizabeth worked on their marriage and made sure it worked.
If you find it "amusing" so be it. It is real life and nobody is perfect. Even the Queen,.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 07, 2017, 03:38:01 PM
Very true. However, I am talking about William and Kate. Sandy seems to be under the impression that William is the perfect prince and husband. That is not a given and the news has hinted as much. Indeed he was dumped Kate publicly after years of her waiting for him. That is a woman on a mission and she has executed according to the game plan. Kate will never ever give any press interviews talking about the state of her marriage. She is far too intelligent to make that mistake.
If William someday wants leave/end the marriage i can to see kate and carole behind a tell all book... carole, camilla and meghan are intelligent women... i'm not that sure about kate... if she was remotely smart those nude pics in france would NEVER have happened
Unlike Diana, Kate has a family that has her back. Diana's own grandmother sided with the royals over her granddaughter. I think Camilla is more calculating and manipulative than the others. She did give "her side" to the Sun Editor in the eighties and it came out when Stuart Higgins was interviewed by Sally Bedell Smith for her DIana book. I think Carole and Michael would be very protective of their daughter if William started treating her badly. Carole could very well do some leaking of stories to the media if it came to that.
Quote from: sandy on October 10, 2017, 01:01:12 PM
I am not defending anybody. Everybody has flaws even the Queen. And both Philip and Elizabeth worked on their marriage and made sure it worked.
If you find it "amusing" so be it. It is real life and nobody is perfect. Even the Queen,.
how much their marriage works is a (total) matter of speculation...
I think work must have gone into a marriage that lasted since 1947. They may of course have gotten on each other's nerves over the years.
Quote from: dianab on October 13, 2017, 09:48:46 PM
how much their marriage works is a (total) matter of speculation...
I would have said it was blindlingly obvious that it works, and that they still love each other and have lasted all these years.
@sandy wrote:
"She did give "her side" to the Sun Editor in the eighties and it came out when Stuart Higgins was interviewed by Sally Bedell Smith for her DIana book."
Your statement above give the impression that Camilla was a press manipulator. She was not.That was Diana. Camilla has been remarkably discreet despite the provocations all these years. That is one of the reasons why she is in the position she is in. The BRF have nothing to worry about her in terms of discretion and keeping family secrets intact. There is no need for a gagging order like they did with Diana because Camilla know what to say and when to say it and to whom. Her friends and confidantes are equally discreet. You will not find a Paul Burrell or Simmons in her circle of friends.
If Camilla really want to put the boot in with revelations of what Diana was really like in private, I am not sure her fans would cope with what came out. Take the example of the story of Diana making death threats. Some of Diana's fans refuse to believe it because it does not fit their constructed and unrealistic image of a perfect Diana but they might be surprised when evidence of Diana's less pleasant side is corroborated by other parties.
Just like some of them refused to believe those crank calls Diana made despite the police confirming them after an investigation. When challenged, they retreat into "it is all speculation. There is no proof" or alternatively "why don't you criticize C&C instead. They are much worse". Many things that Diana accused others of doing to her have no evidence but you believe them at first glance, going as far as even contradicting Diana herself in some instances.
Camilla is very discreet and pragmatic. Even her recent interview was quite tame, talking about the press harassment and the vitriol from people who claim they are Diana supporters. Then some who claim to be Diana supporters run off into this tangent about how terrible the interview was because Camilla did not condemn herself and Charles like they wanted.
All that Stuart Higgins said that he would ask Camilla about speculation and she would tell him what was true and what was off base. He came away with the impression that Camilla was in Charles' camp but she was never a leaker like Diana. Certainly nothing Camilla did comes up to the level of Morton and Bashir. If Camilla had wanted to give a riposte to Diana's attacks, I am not sure her image would have survived. But she chose to simply ignore Diana because in the end she had gotten what she wanted...Charles.
You try to pick Higgin's comment as evidence that Camilla was the one manipulating the press and leaking stories. She was not and Stuart Higgins has never said such a thing. I also find it interesting that you pick out one aspect of Sally Beddel's book because it makes C&C look bad but fail to actually recognize that Sally noted how Diana significantly contributed to the break down of her marriage with her unreasonable, irrational and unpredictable behavior early in the marriage. This to me seems like selective memory to reinforce your jaundiced view of C&C and your rose-tinted view of Diana.
Camilla got all the marbles she did not IMO get them by being "nice." She was and is shrewd and manipulative. She set about undermining Diana from the get go. Playing mentor to her and having her own agenda. Camilla was not 'remarkably' discreet' she name called Diana to Charles and she also played hostess in Diana's home at Highgrove. Diana went to the press because nasty stories were being leaked about her by Charles' friends. She was trying to defend herself of the charges she was "mad" (Soames even went to the media saying she had paranoia). Charles' friends were sycophantic and were trying to "help" Charles by trashing Diana and providing safe houses for Charles and Camilla (who BTW still had a husband).
Junor has no evidence that Diana made "death threats." No proof no phone records no nothing. Her research was primarily going to Charles' pals who were all too willing to trash the late Diana even making up stories. Camilla was and is no victim. Why do you take this as fact with no proof? Just Junor's "word" and Junor is known to loathe Diana and adore C and C. There is no proof of these death threats. It is cowardly of Junor to make these charges about a dead woman. Shows the calibre of Charles' sympathizers in the media.
Hoare could not possibly complain about DIana because he was not squeaky clean himself. He pursued his own friend's wife. He can't take the high road. He is still with his wife BTW.
Stuart Higgins DID report the calls. It is in various books including Bedell Smith and Bradford and other sources. He was in the press so Camilla was manipulating the media. And she chooses sycophants like Junor to make her look impossibly perfect (savior of the monarchy) and Diana the "evil" madwoman. Leaving out how she derided and put down the wife and pretended to be her friend.
Camilla's own interview earlier this year showed she had no signs of remorse just played victim. She was in the wrong and even before Diana her idea of dealing with a cheating husband was to become the Prince of Wales mistress.
Sally DID make Diana look bad but she also got that story from Higgins showing that Camilla herself was not that squeaky clean.
. I think there is a rose tinted view of Camilla going on here from you.
DIana was undermined by CHarles' friends and by Camilla.Again, how do you think Camilla got where she is today? She saw off the wife and later on saw off other women she saw as threats like Elizabeth Buckanan and Tiggy Legge Bourke. Camilla was and is out for Number One. I have no admiration for the woman to say the least. And Charles was foolish to get involved with his friends' wives. Once he decided not to pursue Camilla Shand as wife he should have walked.
you believe lies by Penny Junor who has no proof of any death threats. And if Camilla were alone she has no witnesses. Junor is a huge crawling sycophant and has no conscience. She is pals with Charles and Camilla and no doubt will get rewarded with honors when Charles becomes King.
Junor is foolish because Diana's sons totally countered her book praising Diana.
Camilla got most of what Diana had and I believe she wanted it all and got it.
Camilla's pals are by no means discreet. They were the first ones to run to the press telling nasty stories about Diana. And before Morton.
Camilla derided her husband to her lover calling him the stuffed stoat and "it." Not a nice way to talk about the father of her only children. So if she is not a press manipulator why did she speak to an editor of a leading newspaper The Sun?
Camilla knows what to say all right. She goes to her girlfriend Junor to help with a book. ANd the book makes her look like a Saint and the Savior of the Monarchy and Diana the "madwoman" . Oh yes, Camilla knows what to say.
Quote from: sandy on October 13, 2017, 09:49:45 PM
I think work must have gone into a marriage that lasted since 1947. They may of course have gotten on each other's nerves over the years.
well the queen sophia and king jc of spain remain married... maybe their marriage works too...
Double post auto-merged: October 14, 2017, 12:38:07 PM
the sun got many exclusives in 1980s re: marriage of the waleses, stuart higgins confirmed his source was camilla. the others royal reporters said as they heard the rumour that camilla was feeding the sun with stories in 1980s
Difference is Elizabeth II is the Queen Regnant not Consort. She is holding all the cards so to speak
Camilla did leak those stories. I agree.
Soames only called Diana "paranoid" after Panorama. I actually think he was quite restrained after what had just happened. Diana had done something which no other member of the royal family had ever done on national television. It is unrealistic to think Charles' friends or his family would be full of kindness for her.
As for evidence, I have heard that story before. If it is negative about Diana then evidence is required but if it is negative about C&C then just a mere mention of it means it is factual. Could Higgins have been lying? Do you have any proof that what he said is true? But of course you take his word as a factual reflection of what Camilla did.
My own logic is this: someone that makes crank calls or pushes people down stairs can very easily make death threats to their love rival particularly if she suspects that that love rival will not report her to the police. You were on recording disputing Diana's own account of her incidents with Rainer so this is nothing new. Not even the word of the principal herself is enough to convince you that Diana had faults.
Camilla has been a victim of vitriolic press reports, harassment and hounding for doing something that Diana herself did...commit adultery with a married man. She too has been a victim of a philanderer and cruel husband. The difference is that she did not go to the press to complain about her lot.
You seem to imagine that because Hoare is still with his wife, it is a validation of what Diana tried to do to that family. It is not. She tried to break them up but found a woman that was much more in control of her emotions and marriage. Of course being filthy rich also helped. Hoare was not about to exchange his marriage for a Mr. Diana role. That does not mean that Diana did not try to create trouble for them with those phone calls.
Typically, some Diana fans try to blame him for her actions. Hoare has never made a single crank call that we know of or even complained about being a wronged husband. He is just a man that made a mistake and corrected it by breaking up with Diana, something that she apparently refused to accept until forced to by public embarrassment and a police investigation. Hoare was not a hypocrite or victim who turned into perpetrator.
William and Harry have never commented on the death threats allegations or the irrational behavior. They have challenged other things said as being untrue but never challenged them. The fact that they praise their mother does not mean that they are blind to her faults.
As for disrespecting the father of your children (your charge against Camilla). Diana did much worse in that department: threatening Charles' job, calling him a "German", a toad and describing his toilet habits to strangers. There is nothing Camilla has done that Diana has not done (albeit with less success). The difference is that Camilla is not a pretty face that is very good at handling PR.
1982 The Sun reports problems in the marriage. Examples of headlines: "A Public Bust-up!"....."Pregnant Di Falls down Stairs" "Are Charles and Diana Moving Apart?"
February 18, 1982 The Star and The Sun follow Princess Diana and Charles to the Bahamas and in a sneak attack take pictures of pregnant Diana in a bikini. Queen calls the action "The blackest day in the history of British journalism."
Lloyd Turner, Sun's editor, is sacked for the day.
Throughout the year, headline coverage on the marriage continues : "Loveless Marriage" "Disco Diana dumps Charles" "Old Flame the Prince Won't Forget..." "Fears for Di's Health"
The Royals And The Press | Princess And The Press | FRONTLINE | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/royals/etc/cron.html)
Finally,. I'm fascinated by the Sun--the fact their political editor has won an award for his political reporting but the Editor of the Sun tells me it was mainly for his royal scoops. What do you make of the Sun being used as the vehicle for the rehabilitation of Mrs Parker Bowles and the Prince? There are a number of stories about her charitable activities and so on. What's going on there?
a: Well there have been rumours which I have no idea whether they are true or not that Mrs Parker Bowles and the Sun have had some traffic with each other but on what terms I simply don't know. What is true is a number of the mistakes I would have to own up to eleven or twelve years down the line, is that one used to believe that when the Sun published royal stories, as with a good many other Sun stories, that they were to put it politely, not very reliable.' But we've all grudgingly had to face the fact that the Sun's royal stories are far more often accurate than anybody else's.
There have been lots of jokes about trying to find a member of the royal staff not in some way on Rupert Murdoch's payroll but this may be said, I'm sure the Editor of the Sun would say 'This is the jealousy of Fleet Street rivals.' I don't know. All we have to face is however they get the stories, their royal stories tend to be pretty on the mark.
Interview - Max Hastings | Princess And The Press | FRONTLINE | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/royals/interviews/hastings.html)
Double post auto-merged: October 14, 2017, 12:57:36 PM
tina brown wrote in her book that stuart higgins didnt want talk anymore about those conversations because he was working with the duchess of cornwall... seems me charles and camilla want him getting quiet...
I have always considered Murdoch to be a crass republican. All his publications have just reinforced my original view. The Sun is a cheap, nasty tabloid the likes of which you hardly see anywhere in the world save perhaps the USA. Queen Marguerite of Denmark once commented about the nastiness of the British tabloids. Unfortunately many read and believe them. The Murdoch Press has played an important role in diminishing the prestige of the monarchy. It is a wonder the institution has survived the kind of press they received in the 1980s and the 1990s.
Quote from: dianab on October 14, 2017, 12:34:52 PM
well the queen sophia and king jc of spain remain married... maybe their marriage works too...
Double post auto-merged: October 14, 2017, 12:38:07 PM
It uis well known that Juan Carlos has been openly and repeatedly unfaithful to Sophia and that alhtogh they still technically live together, now that they have abdicated they lead separate lives. I can't see how you can compare that to the queen and Philip who are very obviously devoted to each other...
Double post auto-merged: October 14, 2017, 01:00:21 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 14, 2017, 12:57:52 PM
I have always considered Murdoch to be a crass republican. All his publications have just reinforced my original view. The Sun is a cheap, nasty tabloid the likes of which you hardly see anywhere in the world save perhaps the USA. Queen Marguerite of Denmark once commented about the nastiness of the British tabloids. Unfortunately many read and believe them. The Murdoch Press has played an important role in diminishing the prestige of the monarchy. It is a wonder the institution has survived the kind of press they received in the 1980s and the 1990s.
Of course he is a republican. that's hardly news. and as for the monarchy, it has survived because most Brtiitsh people do not take the tabloids seriously, int the way that non british royal followers seem to do. and because the queen, Philip, Charles etc have gone on doing their jobs, quietly and not taking too much notice of such papers or wasting their time arguing with them...
^lol well known philip just married the queen because money and was cheating on his wife and continued so for DECADES... even sarah bradford said she dont believes philip ever loved the queen and any woman for this matter... she said there are men who are like that... she also said the queen put up with his mistresses because she knew she was the wife and he'll never leave her
Just been reading the interview by the Daily Telegraph editor as sent by
@dianab. I cannot quite believe the naivety and foolishness of Charles believing that engaging in a tit-for-tat with his embittered wife was going to do him any good. He was advised to put up and shut up but refused to do so. Silly man. Look how it all turned out. The substantial Dimblebly project was summarized into a single sentence which was not even necessary for the biography. Instead they all just chose to air their dirty laundry for people to pick over the bits they liked most.
and who are these mistresses? have you got names? Evidence?
I have also just read the very interesting Max Hastings interview. I was struck again of course by the damage done by the War of the Wales (discussed so often on this forum) and how both sides went on, trying to 'win' the public after the separation.
And also by these remarks towards the end of the article
''Well, the whole problem I think still for the Prince of Wales is that he still honestly believes that if the world really knew him, really understood him, they'd know what a wonderful super chap he is and somebody sometime might tell him life's not like that.'
The sad thing IMO is that Charles still believes that.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 14, 2017, 12:48:59 PM
Soames only called Diana "paranoid" after Panorama. I actually think he was quite restrained after what had just happened. Diana had done something which no other member of the royal family had ever done on national television. It is unrealistic to think Charles' friends or his family would be full of kindness for her.
As for evidence, I have heard that story before. If it is negative about Diana then evidence is required but if it is negative about C&C then just a mere mention of it means it is factual. Could Higgins have been lying? Do you have any proof that what he said is true? But of course you take his word as a factual reflection of what Camilla did.
My own logic is this: someone that makes crank calls or pushes people down stairs can very easily make death threats to their love rival particularly if she suspects that that love rival will not report her to the police. You were on recording disputing Diana's own account of her incidents with Rainer so this is nothing new. Not even the word of the principal herself is enough to convince you that Diana had faults.
Camilla has been a victim of vitriolic press reports, harassment and hounding for doing something that Diana herself did...commit adultery with a married man. She too has been a victim of a philanderer and cruel husband. The difference is that she did not go to the press to complain about her lot.
You seem to imagine that because Hoare is still with his wife, it is a validation of what Diana tried to do to that family. It is not. She tried to break them up but found a woman that was much more in control of her emotions and marriage. Of course being filthy rich also helped. Hoare was not about to exchange his marriage for a Mr. Diana role. That does not mean that Diana did not try to create trouble for them with those phone calls.
Typically, some Diana fans try to blame him for her actions. Hoare has never made a single crank call that we know of or even complained about being a wronged husband. He is just a man that made a mistake and corrected it by breaking up with Diana, something that she apparently refused to accept until forced to by public embarrassment and a police investigation. Hoare was not a hypocrite or victim who turned into perpetrator.
William and Harry have never commented on the death threats allegations or the irrational behavior. They have challenged other things said as being untrue but never challenged them. The fact that they praise their mother does not mean that they are blind to her faults.
As for disrespecting the father of your children (your charge against Camilla). Diana did much worse in that department: threatening Charles' job, calling him a "German", a toad and describing his toilet habits to strangers. There is nothing Camilla has done that Diana has not done (albeit with less success). The difference is that Camilla is not a pretty face that is very good at handling PR.
Soames had no business calling her "paranoid" at all. There were nasty stories about her leaked including the old Harvey the dog story which was refuted since it was found that Diana did not keep CHarles from his dog. The dog was old and sick and incontinent. He ended up at the Highgrove kennel so Charles was never separated from her.
Hoare did phone her and while in this relationship with Diana he was supposedly Charles' friend. He had a wife who held all the purse strings in the household. He had nothing to be proud of. He also was involved with another woman pre Diana. He is no saint. He did not charge Diana with anything.
Um, Charles did it on national television when he outed his mistress forcing the divorce of the PBs. He also trashed his parents via his authorized biographer Dimbleby He still did it today with Bedell Smith and Junor.
I said that Raine and Diana made up. The incident was their business and they resolved it. So did you want Raine NOT to make up with her?
Diana confronted Camilla why would she feel she had to phone her. She did this in a public place. It was out in the open and no threats were issue.
Junor can say Diana robbed banks or anything because DIana is dead. I don't believe she made threats to Camilla. There is NO proof. Camilla herself never said this publicly and supposedly she was the only witness. It's interesting that only Diana loathers jump on Junor's bandwagon. Welcome to the Junor club so to speak. I maintain Junor lied and she can say anything about Diana. Diana openly confronted Camilla. There is NO proof. No phone records. Nada.
Camilla called her husband names, made fun of the wife, and trashes the dead wife.
Harping on the stairs episode does not make what Camilla did "good." She undermined a wife every step of the way and her girlfriend Junor lies about DIana and make things up. Amazingly people believe it even though she admits how she feels about C and C and loathes Diana. Junor makes her living character assassinating a dead with with Camilla's connivance.
The boys know all about their father's weaknesses too. Big Time. I doubt they believe what Poison Penny says about their mother. No wonder William is closer to his in-laws now
Camilla called Diana that ridiculous creature. Charles in public said Diana and Fergie had "small minds" and put DIana down. He is no saint. By any means.
Double post auto-merged: October 14, 2017, 02:14:41 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 14, 2017, 01:18:36 PM
Just been reading the interview by the Daily Telegraph editor as sent by @dianab. I cannot quite believe the naivety and foolishness of Charles believing that engaging in a tit-for-tat with his embittered wife was going to do him any good. He was advised to put up and shut up but refused to do so. Silly man. Look how it all turned out. The substantial Dimblebly project was summarized into a single sentence which was not even necessary for the biography. Instead they all just chose to air their dirty laundry for people to pick over the bits they liked most.
It showed Charles' feelings and he corroborated much of what Diana claimed.
You guys have lots of good stuff going on here, when im back from work ill write more, as for "Fatty" Soames, you have to take into account, aside from being a longtime Charles friend, he was mad at Diana for her supporting his wife leaving him on that ill fated Klosters Trip and remaining friends with her(ironic considering he was with Charles during the Zimbabwe trip where CPB was there and helped hide the rlationship from her for years...), then on top of it, he was defense minister, so he also wasnt keen later on with Diana's stance on landmines....
@sandy This world of saints and sinners bears no relevance to reality. Interestingly now Bedell is part of the Charles camp according to your post but you insist that she is the one that effectively outed Camilla as a media manipulator. Circular conspiracy theories in my view. I insist that Junor is exactly like Morton but on opposite sides. Neither is worse or better than the other.
I also question your assertion that "No wonder William is closer to his in-laws now". Not true and William has never said such a thing. On the contrary he has said many, many times how much he loves and admires his father. This "Hail Mary" hope that William is ostracizing his father has no basis in fact. You just have to see W&H interacting with their father to know how much nonsense has been peddled about their relationship.
Dimbleby did not corroborate anything apart from the fact that Charles regretted his first marriage and had gone back to Camilla. Diana said much else that has later proved to be either untrue or an exaggeration. As someone here wisely pointed out, it is never a good idea to take as fact the musings of a woman that is bitterly reminiscing about her failed marriage.
The attack on Hoare is telling. Here is a man who has never said anything about that sorry episode and is not a hypocrite. Hoare has never taken on the role of a wronged spouse (like Diana did) and has never complained about the devastating effects of infidelity (like Diana did). He made a mistake with Diana and ended it. She was the one that wanted to extend the saga.
The fact that you now actually try to deflect blame on him because he was sleeping with his friend's wife is just that...deflection. Charles could not care less who Diana slept with and has never shown any particular interest or injury as a result of Diana's affairs. He just didn't care. She was free to do as he liked and he has never ever shown even an ounce of sexual jealousy.
Double post auto-merged: October 14, 2017, 05:50:08 PM
I actually heard something like that
@Duch_Luver_4ever and it in some ways explains his dislike of Diana. Many divorced or separated men have a visceral dislike of the ex-wives club. The same applies to women who have been abandoned by their spouses not being enthusiastic about men who divorce their wives.
The arms deal is very, very interesting. I heard somewhere that Diana claimed Soames had called her and threatened her. Indeed, Soames is in the arms trade (just like APB). I would not be surprised if that did not somehow add to the angst.
Plus Diana was actually a liberal in many ways. That means that to Conservatives, she would not be particularly appealing. John Major was no longer a fan by the divorce. She found a supporter and like-minded person in Tony Blair. That is a very interesting take on the motivations of Soames.
I never said Bedell was a supporter of Diana. I just noted that she put this information about Camilla in her book about Diana. I know she's not pro Diana. But she still put in the information about Camilla. Why Bedell did this is something you would need to ask her.
William is close to his in-laws and it is a fact that he spends a lot of time with them. He of course loves his father and I never said he did not. I noted he spends much time with the Middletons.
Charles himself admitted adultery on international TV. ANd the PBs divorced sooner rather than later after Charles' confessions.
I never said anything like that about Hoare. I did not "attack him". I just said he would look bad if he complained about Diana. And he did not. He kept his mouth shut and probably will never comment on Diana. Ever. Likewise Diana did not talk publicly about Hoare. It appears to be a closed book. So why the calls are brought up to help defend C and C and slamming Diana's character, when it is over and done with . Diana was not jailed.
Of course Charles did not care. Hoare was just acting par for the course in Charles' set. Friends' wives not being off limits..
John Major never said he disliked or liked Diana. He just announced the separation.
I think it is deflection to bring up what Diana did and even resorting to trashing her for the stories that Junor told about the highly alleged threatening phone calls. Junor has an agenda and can make all sorts of accusations with nothing to back them up and of course C and C fans believe every word. If Junor said Diana was Jack the Ripper, the Camilla groupies would say oh yes that's right even if she was born later it had to have been Diana.
Diana went face to face with Camilla at a party. And there were witnesses. She told her "I want my husband" after Camilla told her she was popular with the public and so on. Why on earth would she have to call her up if she confronted her publicly. I think Junor is shameless and nobody else accused Diana of this. No witnesses, Camilla being"alone" and no phone records. Just Junor helping out her gal pal Camilla. In her own perverse way.
Hoare would not comment on Diana because it was an embarrassing mistake on his part. He wanted to end it but she would not accept hence the crank calls. Likewise, Diana would have had everyone believe that it was only Charles having affairs until those crank calls exposed one of her affairs. Even Morton was designed to preempt potential condemnation for her affairs.
I am afraid the crank calls, Raine, slapping dad etc. will be brought up to show that Diana was not the one-dimension goody that some of her fans attempt to make her out to be. She had flaws like everybody else and actually did contribute to the breakdown of her marriage (Camilla or no Camilla).
Some of the so called victims of the C&C indiscretions do not give a hoot that they married or had an affair. APB wanted to divorce to marry his mistress. They came to an agreement with Camilla and that was that. Neither of them have ever complained about their marriage, divorce or life afterwards. They get on well with each other. He is no devastated husband. The divorce was good for him because it allowed him to marry his lover.
Your statement does insinuate that William spending time with the Middletons is somehow a punishment for the sins you assign to Charles. It is not and has no basis in fact. What is true is that married men tend to spend more time with their in-laws than single men. It does not mean that William has in any way abandoned his father or denounced him. That is just a "Hail Mary" of justice for Diana.
John Major disliked Diana after the mess of panorama and the land mines. The conservatives were saying she was interfering in politics. In fact she did have a cry about it when confronted in Angola.
Double post auto-merged: October 14, 2017, 06:56:27 PM
Setting aside all the usual niceties of who done it, I am curious to know whether when John Major envisaged the separation being a short term solution in which Diana could remain separate but officially married. I once read that he had suggested that she could be crowned in due course but Parliament completely refused such a thing.
What? its not up to Major whether she was crowned or not. (Or Parliament, unless it was a case of very very serious loss of popularity). J Major said that there was no reason why she ad Charles should not be crowned in due course, but at the time this did cause gasps of amazement in Parliament as no one could envisage the 2 of them being together for that long.. when they were so hostile to each other.
Tthe C of E said that they had no problem with the coronation or the separation, provide there were no affairs, no bad feeling and that the 2 of them put their children first. But that clearly wasn't happening. Both of them were having affairs, boht were hostile and interested in scoring points off each other rather than putting the children first.
So while the queen tired to keep them married technically -, it was clear that at some stage, she would problaby have to give way and allow them to divorce.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 14, 2017, 05:46:04 PM
@sandy
I also question your assertion that "No wonder William is closer to his in-laws now". Not true and William has never said such a thing. On the contrary he has said many, many times how much he loves and admires his father. This "Hail Mary" hope that William is ostracizing his father has no basis in fact. You just have to see W&H interacting with their father to know how much nonsense has been peddled about their relationship.
If William and Harry had a good relationship with their father they'll have corroborate the their Spencer uncle's statement to stop the Diana tapes being aired in England. But They said nothing. They were quite quiet... it was obvious as the Establishment was on a mission in those days before the Diana tapes doc being aired... Penny Junor of all people was worried about the memory/personal integrity of Diana and the feelings of Diana's siblings AND sons... how a joke!
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 14, 2017, 06:52:34 PM
Hoare would not comment on Diana because it was an embarrassing mistake on his part. He wanted to end it but she would not accept hence the crank calls. Likewise, Diana would have had everyone believe that it was only Charles having affairs until those crank calls exposed one of her affairs. Even Morton was designed to preempt potential condemnation for her affairs.
I am afraid the crank calls, Raine, slapping dad etc. will be brought up to show that Diana was not the one-dimension goody that some of her fans attempt to make her out to be. She had flaws like everybody else and actually did contribute to the breakdown of her marriage (Camilla or no Camilla).
Some of the so called victims of the C&C indiscretions do not give a hoot that they married or had an affair. APB wanted to divorce to marry his mistress. They came to an agreement with Camilla and that was that. Neither of them have ever complained about their marriage, divorce or life afterwards. They get on well with each other. He is no devastated husband. The divorce was good for him because it allowed him to marry his lover.
Your statement does insinuate that William spending time with the Middletons is somehow a punishment for the sins you assign to Charles. It is not and has no basis in fact. What is true is that married men tend to spend more time with their in-laws than single men. It does not mean that William has in any way abandoned his father or denounced him. That is just a "Hail Mary" of justice for Diana.
John Major disliked Diana after the mess of panorama and the land mines. The conservatives were saying she was interfering in politics. In fact she did have a cry about it when confronted in Angola.
Double post auto-merged: October 14, 2017, 06:56:27 PM
Setting aside all the usual niceties of who done it, I am curious to know whether when John Major envisaged the separation being a short term solution in which Diana could remain separate but officially married. I once read that he had suggested that she could be crowned in due course but Parliament completely refused such a thing.
John Major never commented about Diana and the Land Mines.
Diana quietly replied to the criticism over the landmines and it is on tape. She did not cry over it.
I never said William denounced his father. But he said the complete opposite of what Charles' friend Junor did in her book when he and his brother spoke about their mother. William clearly feels comfortable being with his in laws. What "Hail Mary" of justice. William never abandoned his father just because he likes to spend time with his in laws.
Hoare was a mistake on Diana's part. Fortunately she moved on.
All the slamming of Diana still is no proof she made threatening phone calls to Camilla. Junor must keep upping the ante in all her books that criticize Diana. Otherwise she'd just keep repeating the same criticisms over and over (her books are mostly cut and paste Diana bashing books). Again, Raine forgave Diana. ARe you disappointed that she did not sue Diana. The two made up and Raine gave an interview clearly saying she had a good relationship with Diana. She did not say that darn Diana pushing me down those steps it really justifies Charles and Camilla's behavior towards her. Raine and Diana got along.
Hoare had no business pursuing Diana. ANd yes, HE did some pursuing himself.
APB did not want to divorce because Charles blabbed about his wife being his mistress. It was an immediate reaction to start divorce proceedings. Perhaps the PBs wanted to wait. And if it were so "great" for them to divorce how come Camilla's father bawled out Charles for outing his daughter as mistress. He asked Charles what was he going to do about Camilla now. Charles did something incredibly stupid and thoughtless. I think APB could have waited to marry his girlfriend. It's not as if he were in that much of a hurry. He was named as a cuckold. Charles might as well have said I slept with APB's wife.
Despite your repeated criticisms of Diana, Charles still married the young woman knowing he did not love her and preferred his mistress. It was wrong on his part and cruel to the besotted 19 year old girl. What sort of a man uses someone that way? And what sort of a man thinks it "OK" to sleep with his friends' wives because he can. And the sordidness of the men being "honored" by their wives sleeping with Charles. The hypocrisy is that APB felt "honored" until Charles blabbed that APB's wife was his mistress. He was outed as the Cuckold.
Charles the sainted one (LOL) put down his first wife saying she had a simple mind (and also said this about Fergie), put her down in public, and flaunted his mistress. The mistress crowed to Charles that Diana was a ridiculous creature that Charles should ignore. And Charles not even picking up the phone to talk to his dying former mistress Kanga Tryon. What a guy.
Diana did NOT move on wth Hoare. he broke off the affair because he wanted to go back to his wife and children. he had no real desire to end his marriage,to be with Diana. and when he did, she chased him with phone calls until the Police intervened. How is that moving on?
Well Diana did move on. She moved on to Dr. Khan. She did not just stew over Hoare who was not worth the fuss IMO. He did move out on his wife while seeing Diana and he of his own volition saw Diana at her home in KP. Diana also could not realistically have a future with the man, two divorces in two families and she would certainly have had limited access to her sons had she bolted.
My point is that yes, she did move on. She had a relationship with Dr. Khan. Hoare never pressed charges and never commented about Diana. He certainly must have realized he was not exactly an innocent himself. His wife had to share him with this other woman before he started seeing Diana. Quite a guy
There seems to be some effort to make Diana the "villain" pursuing "poor" Hoare who was a womanizer. His wife held the purse strings in the family in any case. And they are still married today. Hoare pursued Diana according to sources. And Diana (unfortunately for her critics) did not have to "pay" and serve prison time.
Diana unfortunately got to a point where she felt she needed Hoare. His pursuing a vulnerable woman was not an admirable thing for him to do.
Quote from: amabel on October 15, 2017, 09:13:42 AM
Diana did NOT move on wth Hoare. he broke off the affair because he wanted to go back to his wife and children. he had no real desire to end his marriage,to be with Diana. and when he did, she chased him with phone calls until the Police intervened. How is that moving on?
he didnt break up with her when he moved back to his wife, they remain seeing each other when he was back to his home family... he broke the relationaship when his chauffeur sold their relationship to NOTW tabloid (in march/1995). this timeline is in every diana bio out there (sally b smith book, sarah bradford book, kate snell book). elsa bowker said after the chauffeur's story diana was even more demanding about him leave his wife and children, then he broke the relationship.
Double post auto-merged: October 15, 2017, 11:40:22 AM
Quote from: sandy on October 15, 2017, 10:46:12 AM
Diana unfortunately got to a point where she felt she needed Hoare. His pursuing a vulnerable woman was not an admirable thing for him to do.
I think charles was much more 'not admirable' pursuing a young Lady Diana than Oliver Hoare. By all the accounts Diana fell hard for him and he fell for her too. I've never read he pushed for a relationship with her. As many adults out there, they wanted seeing each other while lasted their relationship. The same about Charles and Camilla they were adults who wanted seeing each other and Camilla not forced Charles to have a affair with her and led on and hurt a young Lady Diana.
That is some convoluted logic
@dianab. Because they said nothing, they actually wanted their mother's private tapes to be aired in which she confessed to lusting after a married servant, slapping her father and pushing her step mother down stairs. I am sorry but that does not sound convincing to me. More likely, they just ignored the nonsense and let matters take their course.
It really is a leap of faith and a series of fantastic logical leaps to say that is proof that W&H do not get on with their father. It really is.
William complained about his father using him in the Camilla promotions (he was shocked that the tea with Camilla story got pushed in all media outlets. This is in the BBC documentary
He admitted that he understood why Diana did the Panorama interview.
He is indeed very close to his in-laws.
Diana did not "lust" after a "married servant" who was a security officer. He became her confidante and sympathized with her and I believe he was ditched because she told him too much. She was attracted to him but told Settelen it was not a sexual affair.
Quote from: sandy on October 15, 2017, 10:46:12 AM
Well Diana did move on. She moved on to Dr. Khan. She did not just stew over Hoare who was not worth the fuss IMO. He did move out on his wife while seeing Diana and he of his own volition saw Diana at her home in KP. Diana also could not realistically have a future with the man, two divorces in two families and she would certainly have had limited access to her sons had she bolted.
My point is that yes, she did move on. She had a relationship with Dr. Khan. Hoare never pressed charges and never commented about Diana. He certainly must have realized he was not exactly an innocent himself. His wife had to share him with this other woman before he started seeing Diana. Quite a guy
There seems to be some effort to make Diana the "villain" pursuing "poor" Hoare who was a womanizer. His wife held the purse strings in the family in any case. And they are still married today. Hoare pursued Diana according to sources. And Diana (unfortunately for her critics) did not have to "pay" and serve prison time.
Diana unfortunately got to a point where she felt she needed Hoare. His pursuing a vulnerable woman was not an admirable thing for him to do.
Making 200+ crank calls to a married man is not moving on. It is being a bit kooky if you ask me. Saying that she was vulnerable does not convince me. Sounds a bit like excuse-making. He was married and off limits, especially since she had made such a fuss about the adultery in her own marriage.
As for Khan, it was the same high school games. "Oh I will sleep with Dodi to make Khan jealous or maybe to punish Charles and his family by embarrassing them or maybe to make Camilla jealous of my bikini body and ability to court the press". I mean really. This was a 36 year old woman who should have known better. You do not get people to enter a relationship with you by trying to manipulate them. That is a mistake that Diana made over and over again.
She did become quite bitter and manipulative towards the end but I cut her some slack because that is not what she really was like in the beginning. The tragic and public failure of her marriage turned her that way.
Quote from: dianab on October 15, 2017, 11:13:59 AM
he didnt break up with her when he moved back to his wife, they remain seeing each other when he was back to his home family... he broke the relationaship when his chauffeur sold their relationship to NOTW tabloid (in march/1995). this timeline is in every diana bio out there (sally b smith book, sarah bradford book, kate snell book). elsa bowker said after the chauffeur's story diana was even more demanding about him leave his wife and children, then he broke the relationship.
Double post auto-merged: October 15, 2017, 11:40:22 AM
I think charles was much more 'not admirable' pursuing a young Lady Diana than Oliver Hoare. By all the accounts Diana fell hard for him and he fell for her too. I've never read he pushed for a relationship with her. As many adults out there, they wanted seeing each other while lasted their relationship. The same about Charles and Camilla they were adults who wanted seeing each other and Camilla not forced Charles to have a affair with her and led on and hurt a young Lady Diana.
Hoare was pursuing a woman separated from her husband who happened to be his friend. He should have backed off. Diana was vulnerable. I don't think Diana wanted to marry him because it would mean losing custody of her sons. Morton in a later book maintained that Diana was not exactly thrilled that Hoare moved out and was ambivalent. She did not rush to move in with him or anything like that.
I agree about Prince Charles.
@sandy writes:
"Diana did not "lust" after a "married servant" who was a security officer. He became her confidante and sympathized with her and I believe he was ditched because she told him too much. She was attracted to him but told Settelen it was not a sexual affair."
Diana said:
"He was the greatest fella I ever had"
Words have meaning and consequences. At the very least, Diana was lusting after her married servant way, way back in her marriage. Hypocritical, particularly for someone that was so bitter about a woman that went after her own husband.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 15, 2017, 01:56:14 PM
Making 200+ crank calls to a married man is not moving on. It is being a bit kooky if you ask me. Saying that she was vulnerable does not convince me. Sounds a bit like excuse-making. He was married and off limits, especially since she had made such a fuss about the adultery in her own marriage.
As for Khan, it was the same high school games. "Oh I will sleep with Dodi to make Khan jealous or maybe to punish Charles and his family by embarrassing them or maybe to make Camilla jealous of my bikini body and ability to court the press". I mean really. This was a 36 year old woman who should have known better. You do not get people to enter a relationship with you by trying to manipulate them. That is a mistake that Diana made over and over again.
She did become quite bitter and manipulative towards the end but I cut her some slack because that is not what she really was like in the beginning. The tragic and public failure of her marriage turned her that way.
Read the post carefully. I said she moved on to another relationship with Khan in 1995. She did not pine for Hoare for the rest of her life.
Diana never told anybody why she went out with Dodi. I think it was a Summer Romance and I do think she was fond of him. And he did not mind being seen with her unlike Khan. Attributing sinister motives to someone who is dead and can't give her side is basically futile. It is a projection of dislike on Diana.
If Hoare were off limits, why not blame him for chasing other women> Why is it just always blaming the woman?
Women say they "have a boyfriend." It does not mean she sleeps with him. Diana denied flat out it was sexual but I suppose as usual you don't believe her.
Diana had no choice but to move on from Hoare. They had reported her to the police and it was in effect a defacto restraining order. Any further calls could have landed her in a lot of trouble so she had to give that one up. That does not in any way negate the fact that she went after a married man and tried to persuade him to leave his wife.
I blame Diana because she was a hypocrite who made a fuss about adultery when she was doing exactly the same. She is the victim that became a perpetrator. I do not blame Hoare because he was never put himself up on a moral pedestal as a wronged spouse or complained about adultery. He made a mistake and tried to correct it by dumping Diana. She would not let go. Why that is his fault is beyond me.
If Diana spoke and understood English (I a sure she did); there can be no mistaking the meaning of this statement "He was the greatest fella I ever had". No mistaking. You cannot play about it because its meaning is pretty clear.
Diana denying something is not proof of anything. She swore to her brother in law that she had nothing to do with Morton. He believed her and was made out to be a fool later on when it was discovered she was lying. Diana was quite capable of lying and lying convincingly when she wanted to.
well which is it? She said he was the greatest fella I'd ever had, which sounds like "the best lover I ever slept with."
Unless Diana was lying about that, the statement shows she slept with him. Later on she sanitized it as not being sexual but I think that was just saving face. I am on record saying that Diana was quite free to sleep with anyone she wanted as long as they were not married. Wanting to have romantic relationships is nothing to be ashamed off. However, hypocrisy is another thing altogether. Unfortunately for her, Diana let it all hang out. She told all and sundry about what was happening in her life. The retractions only came later as a damage limitation exercise.
Well, to be fair, she said it wasnt sexual in the very next question Settlen asked, so its not like she thought about it and 10 minutes later, or the next day, realized that it would be wise to say that. So I have to disagree a bit with the damage control aspect(however, im going to put my fat in the fire along with you as well, by suggesting that the body language and how quick she says no when asked if there was anything sexual, makes me wonder if she was being truthful, just my opinion, but id say its a fairly educated one).
Now she was young and immature, so its natural for her to imagine going away with a man she described as she was "desperate for praise" from,but for Barry a man in his fourties to think it was, means it was either more serious than she said, or he might have been just flattering her, or maybe felt that it would be a good idea, if not for the complications that existed in their lives. "Conveniently" Barry's no longer alive to tell us. Men, mid-life and Diana at her peak of lovliness and following one around with dreamy eyes :crazylove: would be impossible to resist.
As for the "greatest fella I ever had" comment, I'll have to lean on you UK'ers to know if that meant just a chum to talk to because over her it suggests more of a sexual nature if you said that on this side of the pond.
I know Ken Wharf thinks nothing happened, it could just be a professional courtesy, as he replaced him, likely knows his family, hes a fallen comrade, and all. But there was tremendous jealousy among the staff at these places for position and they felt Barry had overstepped his place, so might have jammed him up to get even blowing a comforting arm or something out of proportion.
We'll never know, but by that time and sooner(Diana was surprised they had Harry because he was with her so much by then) Charles was with Camilla, she was desperate for love, although it was foolish to choose someone so close to home, the ol pooping where you eat thing. I am, however more inclined to give her more of a pass on it, as it was her first foray into finding love outside Charles, and with her immaturity it was bound shed make a rookie mistake like that. Compared to say (brace for it) Hoare, Carling or Adams, etc when she knew better, but did it anyway and had by then cemented a long media legacy as the "wronged woman" by her husband.
Had there not been all the unpleasantness with the calls (and the suspected reason for them) Hoare would have been the ideal first choice, as they were "in the game" so to speak, and while it was a bit close to Charles circle, at least everyone could keep tabs on everyone and I think an understanding could have been reached, had she been older and more worldly when she married Charles.
However, the RF wanted a young girl "still in the wrapper" for Charles, well they also had to deal with the romantic expectations, proper or not, that come with tinkering with the feelings of a girl that age, and some prep work over what the marriage was really going to be like was lacking, much to everyones regret in the 90s, nowadays, the windsors probably feel everything worked out rather nicely.
As always, an intelligent response from
@Duch_Luver_4ever :goodpost:. It does mean sexual experience btw in UK English.
One of the things I find appalling is the notion that a princess has to be in "wrappers" whilst hubby can sow all his wild oats. What Charles really deserved (rather than was given) was a woman who was totally experienced. Seen it all and done it all. Instead he was allowed to pluck a virgin and toss her away when he was done with her. That is somehow annoying to me. :notamused:
Glad you liked it, as far as the damage that could of, and ended up being incurred on his "newly unwrapped" bride. Thankfully the conventions have changed, although they do have some roots in evolutionary psychology. Men sowing their wild oats, aside from the obvious enjoyment for the man, is designed to show the mans status (back in the day when men had to fight to either have access or keep other men from) and to provide "social proof" of the mans fitness by other women finding him acceptable.
Women were more focused on being selective, as the limited number children they could have compared to the number of women a man could fertilize and "virtue" so to speak was the outward interpretation of that, back in the day only one man was required to repopulate the tribe, so it was crucial that it be the best man possible. Women that would be seen to "sow their wild oats" were viewed as less selective in the choice of a mate that might not be able to protect and provide for his family and thus put a burden on the whole tribe.
Might not be fair today, with many of the selective pressures removed, but we carry thousands of years of that in our DNA. People dont like to think about the fact that monogamy and marriage exist pretty much only to prevent 80 percent of the men being killed or injured fighting to be the estimated 20 percent of "alpha males" that used to have near exclusive access to females.
But back to Charles, yes, the one thing that was disastrous for him was the requirement of a woman without a past, not only for the women it eliminated from his choice, but for their understanding of his plans and ideas about marriage and having other women.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 15, 2017, 04:20:16 PM
Unless Diana was lying about that, the statement shows she slept with him. Later on she sanitized it as not being sexual but I think that was just saving face. I am on record saying that Diana was quite free to sleep with anyone she wanted as long as they were not married. Wanting to have romantic relationships is nothing to be ashamed off. However, hypocrisy is another thing altogether. Unfortunately for her, Diana let it all hang out. She told all and sundry about what was happening in her life. The retractions only came later as a damage limitation exercise.
You think the worst about Diana. No it does not show she slept with him. She said it was not sexual. I know you believe the worst of her and she slept with the bodyguard even though she flat out said she did not. She can't win.
A woman says I have a boyfriend. He was the best boyfriend I ever had. It does not mean they had sex.You apparently want to believe they had sex so put your interpretation on the phrase. Settelen said was it sexual, right away no hesitation she said no. I saw the tape. This is what she said. And she's dead so she can say no more about it.
Diana was having a private conversation with Settelen and did not know she'd die at 36 and assumed the tapes would not be aired. She said it was not sexual in the same conversation about Mannakee. No it was not damage control because nothing was ever said publicly by Diana to Settelen it was not like she was on a talk show or something that aired on TV.
I am curious do you insist that she slept with him to "help" defend Charles and Camilla?
She said it was not sexual. It was a private conversation. She would have had nothing to lose if she admitted an affair (which she said was not sexual).
Even Ingrid Seward wrote after the first airing of the tapes she did not have an affair with Mannakee.
Junor OTOH.. practically presents Camilla as a virgin and DIana as a "loose woman." Just to defend her two darlings. Or try to defend them.
Mannakee was a confidante she had a crush on. It was just "talk" that she "wanted" to run away with him. She knew darn well she could not risk having her two sons she could lose custody of if she Bolted
No it shows that you don't like Diana and you think she slept with him despite her saying she did not. Speaks volumes of your attitude towards her.
Double post auto-merged: October 15, 2017, 09:15:55 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 15, 2017, 03:06:40 PM
well which is it? She said he was the greatest fella I'd ever had, which sounds like "the best lover I ever slept with."
It depends on how ones feel about Diana. Diana is heavily criticized here by some and no it does not mean she slept with him. She said it was not sexual. What more is needed to know. Women say I have a boyfriend and the interpretation is she is dating somebody and seeing someone. It does not necessarily mean they hit the sheets.
Double post auto-merged: October 15, 2017, 09:19:41 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 15, 2017, 02:10:37 PM
Diana had no choice but to move on from Hoare. They had reported her to the police and it was in effect a defacto restraining order. Any further calls could have landed her in a lot of trouble so she had to give that one up. That does not in any way negate the fact that she went after a married man and tried to persuade him to leave his wife.
I blame Diana because she was a hypocrite who made a fuss about adultery when she was doing exactly the same. She is the victim that became a perpetrator. I do not blame Hoare because he was never put himself up on a moral pedestal as a wronged spouse or complained about adultery. He made a mistake and tried to correct it by dumping Diana. She would not let go. Why that is his fault is beyond me.
If Diana spoke and understood English (I a sure she did); there can be no mistaking the meaning of this statement "He was the greatest fella I ever had". No mistaking. You cannot play about it because its meaning is pretty clear.
Diana denying something is not proof of anything. She swore to her brother in law that she had nothing to do with Morton. He believed her and was made out to be a fool later on when it was discovered she was lying. Diana was quite capable of lying and lying convincingly when she wanted to.
It was a blessing for Diana to give up Hoare. He was toxic. I notice Diana is damned for being involved with him yet Hoare is spared. Diana is the one who pursued him according to some. Hoare was a willing participant and chased women while being married. Unlike Diana he was allegedly not in a sham marriage. So if he were "happily" married he should have steered clear of involvement with other women. Diana was separated from her husband who as you say rejected her. So was she to live like a nun? She had been involved with Hewitt. Diana was in a one way street. She could not seriously think of any future with these men. Divorce was discouraged back then.
Yes there can be mistaking the phrase. Because Diana clarified it in the interview it was not a Sexual Relationship. If you don't want to accept that and trash Diana so be it.
Double post auto-merged: October 15, 2017, 09:22:23 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 15, 2017, 02:10:37 PM
Diana had no choice but to move on from Hoare. They had reported her to the police and it was in effect a defacto restraining order. Any further calls could have landed her in a lot of trouble so she had to give that one up. That does not in any way negate the fact that she went after a married man and tried to persuade him to leave his wife.
I blame Diana because she was a hypocrite who made a fuss about adultery when she was doing exactly the same. She is the victim that became a perpetrator. I do not blame Hoare because he was never put himself up on a moral pedestal as a wronged spouse or complained about adultery. He made a mistake and tried to correct it by dumping Diana. She would not let go. Why that is his fault is beyond me.
If Diana spoke and understood English (I a sure she did); there can be no mistaking the meaning of this statement "He was the greatest fella I ever had". No mistaking. You cannot play about it because its meaning is pretty clear.
Diana denying something is not proof of anything. She swore to her brother in law that she had nothing to do with Morton. He believed her and was made out to be a fool later on when it was discovered she was lying. Diana was quite capable of lying and lying convincingly when she wanted to.
Diana never ever was issued a restraining disorder. None of her biographers said it even Penny Junor!
Diana had no choice but be in denial about Morton. She would have risked losing custody of her sons. I don't blame her for denying it, at least she got her side out there.
You don't blame Hoare?! Really. So Diana was the evil one and forced Hoare to have an affair. Let's get real here.
Double post auto-merged: October 15, 2017, 09:23:43 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 15, 2017, 04:20:16 PM
Unless Diana was lying about that, the statement shows she slept with him. Later on she sanitized it as not being sexual but I think that was just saving face. I am on record saying that Diana was quite free to sleep with anyone she wanted as long as they were not married. Wanting to have romantic relationships is nothing to be ashamed off. However, hypocrisy is another thing altogether. Unfortunately for her, Diana let it all hang out. She told all and sundry about what was happening in her life. The retractions only came later as a damage limitation exercise.
I am not surprised by your take on it. No it did not show she slept with him. Who was Diana saving face with? It was a private conversation what did she have to deny. When the tapes aired she was six feet under. So why would she have to deny what she considered a private conversation.
Yet you say nothing about Charles sleeping with his friends' wives and that is perfectly OK with you. He admitted not loving his bride but you give him a pass. Diana gets demonized for an expression you twist in a confession of having a sexual relationship with Mannakee and she denied it!!! Go figure.
of course Sayaing something like "he was the greatest fella I iever had" is an indication that there was a sexual relationship... what else can it mean? that she denied it apparnetly in another sentence only shows how volatile she was. Diana often did this, saying something and then contradicting it, soon afterwards.
No not in Diana's case. Since the Second Question was "was it sexual?" She said NO clearly. So why the insistence that greatest fella I ever had must mean sex when she said it did not. Wishful thinking that she had sex with him perhaps? I know C and C people want to believe that DIana "cheated first." Especially people like Penny Junor. I don't get why her saying it was not sexual is not believed. Women can say I have a fellow, I have a boyfriend, it does not mean sex especially since Diana clearly denied it was Sexual.
It is a case I think of people 1) wanting to believe she lied; 2) wanting to believe she cheated first, and 3) ignoring she said it was not sexual
Thinking it was sex does not make C and C's actions any less despicable IMO.
I do notice that some months after Diana died, the first Diana bashing came out by Junor and there was a feverish attempt to try to Prove Diana cheated first. I think it must have been a come down for Junor to hear Diana in her own words say the relationship with Mannakee was not sexual. Though of Course she believes Diana lied all the time and was "mad."
Diana's words condemn her. I am absolutely certain that if at any point in his marriage Charles had said about another married woman "she was the greatest woman I ever had", you would take it as gospel truth that he indeed slept with her.
The battle to sanitize Diana's own confessions are futile. You can play about with the words or try to contextualize them but there is no getting away from the fact that the Princess of Wales admitted to an inappropriate and sexual relationship with a member of her staff very early in her marriage. The affair itself is of no interest to me but the hypocrisy of going after a married man definitely is.
It is the same kind of strange defense which blames a victim of stalking for triggering those feelings in their stalker. Really an outrageous thing when you think about it. Mrs. Hoare was not part of Diana's adultery and I absolutely fail to see why she should be inconvenienced in any way because of it. She was married and Diana was trying to woo her husband away from the family home even after the man had already said goodbye.
You think they condemn her. You don't like Diana. Diana said it was not sexual. Even Ingrid Seward backed off saying it was sexual after she watched the tapes.
The battle to slam Diana and ignore evidence is futile. It is out there that it was not sexual. Settlelen asked she said no. Period.
Yes, so how come you don't condemn Hoare for running around on Mrs Hoare and he had a mistress before he started seeing Diana. Where is the condemnation of him? Oh that's right. Diana is the devil and she was the woman who made Hoare pursue her. Hoare was a willing participant and he pursued Diana. Why Diana wanted him at all is the odd part. Though I think it's great he never confirmed or denied what went on, he was a willing participant. Do you think men are helpless? The man was a player and had kept a mistress. And DIana did not break up their marriage. How could she when they are still married? If Hoare had not been outed by the chauffeur he may well have kept up seeing Diana (he never slammed Diana, so why do you do it? Mrs Hoare never condemned Diana so why do you do it? You are not her spokesperson.
If Diana said, OOOH Settelen Mannakee and I had Great Sex and we were always in bed together. Then there would be evidence. She said it was not sexual but you choose to ignore. She's dead and that's the record she left of what went on with Mannakee.
Settelen himself said, Diana talked about him as a person who she liked having around not a lover. Diana herself said she saw him as a father figure. She had said to Morton as when she married she'd dreamed her husband being a father figure who'll be supportive of hers. Probably because she saw him as a father figure was the reason she developed a crush on Mannakee.
BTW this doc in UK destroyed the Charles spin
Charles 'was seeing Camilla a year after he married Diana' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4742982/Charles-seeing-Camilla-year-married-Diana.html#ixzz4oGbZz6Ml)
How did we go from Diana curtsying to discussing how many lovers she had?. First of all saying Manakee was the greatest fella she ever had could have meant He was the greatest fella she ever had who listened to what she had to say or giving her sound advice Not everything has to be sexual but then to some this is Diana we are talking about Not the common mistress.
Yes, that was a good doc, thanks for mentioning it,
@dianab I do think that, although I dont think this is the case with
@royalanthropologist that in general yes, theres a war with Diana and Camilla fans over dates, and who cheated first. My take is look at what Diana had at the beginning, she had everything she wanted, why would she risk losing it by cheating first? She was easier to chuck out of the family than Charles.
Diana ~ Portrait of a Princess - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZHR3806a6I)
Is a good refresher doc made around 95/96, before her death and andrew morton mentions Barry Manakee around the 36 min mark, in the group of relationships shes had that ended in tears. I dont think he'd mention it, pre Settlen tapes, and risk losing access to Diana, his cash cow, unless there was enough to it to avoid risking her wrath.
But I think both sides in the dabate are a bit off, and the answer is in the grey middle, Dianas words dont condemn her, and at the same time, that one "no" doesnt automatically get her off the hook either. Its complicated....
I think Diana over confided in Mannakee. She could not go to her parents or sisters and there was this sympathetic person to her. I think he just knew too much and Diana would not risk cheating with someone employed by the royals. It would very easily have been detected and Charles could have used it as ammunition when the divorce settlement was decided.
I believe Diana's No. And it was not like Panorama she had no clue she would die at 36 and this be aired after she died. It was supposedly a private conversation.
Charles cheated first because he went into the marriage preferring the mistress and he stayed in contact with her.
Was watching the doc in the post i put up earlier, and even if you watch them a bunch you always pick up little things. Just noticed a sickly sad irony that would have been unknown at the time it aired. Theres a scene where Diana has taken Harry and William to a military show, there were just a couple cuts of showing the various troops, and the first ones were the the kings artillery that frove her gun carriage and then they showed some welsh guards type soldiers next to a rolling gun carriage. :eyes: :no:
They cut showing Diana talking so happy and sweet to Harry, knowing that 2 years later what would happen was just horrible to watch. Add to it the comment she asked Penny Thornton if there would be light at the end of the tunnel.....just awful
@sandy says about me "You don't like Diana."
Not having rose tinted tunnel vision about a person does not mean I dislike them. In any case I am sure I am much fairer to Diana in my assessment than you are to C&C so I make no apologies for my views.
I go back to my point. Had Charles said "She was the greatest woman I ever had", I doubt the Diana fans would be making excuses for him about what he meant and said. Charles said he was faithful until the marriage "irretrievably broke down" but the Diana fans say no. He must have been unfaithful in the mind because they know him better.
I think the discussion about lovers is quite pertinent
@Trudie. Why? Because Diana was accused by some of having an inappropriate relationship with the king of Spain. That is how this thread started.
Diana had many good qualities and many faults. The attempts to silence criticism of her faults is just a futile exercise. There many, many commentators that just do not buy the notion of a perfect Princess and perfect person. Good luck trying to stop them writing.
Well you rarely say anything nice about her. And I can apply the same about Rose Colored glasses about you and C and C.
You don't believe what Diana said, so that does not sound like "liking her" to me.
Charles said he was unfaithful so it is a moot point. Charles (fact) admitted to Dimbleby that he preferred Camilla when he married Diana and never once told Dimbleby he loved Diana or married her for love (fact).
This veered off topic when a poster brought up Juan Carlos.
Stop them writing? When they are cozying up to a future King and bucking for honors? No way will they stop. Junor probaby has a space on her wall for future honor plaque she will get from C and C.
If I don't believe Diana entirely then I am in the same company as her own brother and grandmother who on different occasions called her a liar or something to that effect.
Besides, there is no requirement for me to say nice things about Diana. Just like there is no requirement for you to say nice things about C&C.
What is certain is that I will never stop pointing out the falsehoods and double standards that are used to make Diana into this mythical perfect victim and C&C her bad nemeses.
Yes, the discussion is relevant because of the suggestion that there was a lot more going into that Curtsey than a princess greeting a foreign king. I am not sure whether she had an affair with Juan Carlos or not but it was certainly discussed.
Her brother did this in a fit of temper. Brothers and sisters fight and call names. These two did. They made up. If he wanted to cozy up to the royal family he would have condemned his sister at the pulpit at her Funeral. He didn't. She probably did some name calling of him too and after he took away his offer of the cottage, called him a liar too.
Charles lied and said he'd never marry again. And lied when he said he would give up other women when he married Diana.
No, there is no requirement but you rarely say anything nice about her yet say you "like her." You call her out as a liar.
Fermoy turned against her own flesh and blood which I find unnatural. She was an ardent royalist who sold out her daughter and granddaughter. If you admire her that's your choice.
What falsehoods? You are adamant in not believing Diana when she said she had no sexual affair with Mannakee. Even though she said this in a venue that she thought would never be made public.
If you are "not sure" she had an affair with Juan Carlos it shows your mindset about her. He was a womanizer. Diana did not go for men who would put her as a notch on their bed posts. It is insulting to the late Diana to even think she was desperate enough to hit the sheets with the head of another royal house. It's as if she's a nympho the way she's described. Where would she have had the sex with Juan Carlos with her husband and sons around and his family. Behind a statue or something? I think this is just another way of trying to whitewash C and C by making Diana look like a nympho or sex maniac. Junor has done this in her Diana bashing books.
I am not alone in disbelieving Diana on certain things and not taking her word as gospel truth. Her own brother said as much and her grandmother called her an actress. There are numerous instances of Diana lying and exaggerating for effect.
She also has a history of self-contradiction when she realizes the full impact of her original lies or exaggerations e.g. I threw myself down the stairs to hurt myself because Charles would not pay attention to me. Later on she realizes how selfish that is to her unborn child, it changes to a mere fall. This was an embittered ex wife and everything she said about Charles and his family was colored by that state. She had nothing good to say about them precisely because they had rejected her.
Like I said, everything that needs to be said on this particular issue is confirmed by her own words. Unadorned, unexplained and unsugarcoated; they suggest an inappropriate employer-employee relationship. Plain English and nothing more.
Well there is Penny Junor. And other Camilla and Charles devotees.
Granny Fermoy was a snob and a royalist. She betrayed her own daughter so she would not get custody. She wanted the Spencer children to be near the royal family. It is unnatural for a grandmother to turn against a daughter and granddaughter. Something wrong with Fermoy. It was hypocritical for her to trash anybody considering her own behavior.
What about how selfish Charles was knowing he did not love Diana yet marrying her anyway. And not out of contact with his mistress the whole time. He wanted what he wanted when he wanted it.
If you believe Diana fell down the stairs with no broken bones, it shows how much you want to paint Diana as "evil." Just like Penny Junor does in her books. She fell down a few steps. Diana's letter at the time to a friend proves this.
Why would not Diana be embittered? A man pretending to care for her then throwing her over when she got "tiresome" and after she delivered the heir and spare. And insisting like a man child that he is still entitled to keep the other woman around.
her family should have told her there was something wrong with a man who sleeps with his friends' wives. Princes of Wales are not always saints.
She said there was no sexual affair. I believe her.
What about Charles touchy feely behavior in public with "employee" Tiggy whom Camilla called the "hired help." Kissing, hugging, touchy feely in public with her. Camilla saw her off too. And another employee Elizabeth Buchanan got the bum's rush from Camilla because she was spending a lot of time with the Prince of Wales and they got along so well together... But Charles' behavior is not inappropriate according to his defenders (the usual defense is she was like a sister to him and she was an old friend). And there are no touchy feely photos of Mannakee and Diana to "prove" your point. But plenty of evidence of Charles inappropriate behavior. In the age of Weinstein revelations, no way would Charles have gotten away with it. Tiggy also mouthed off to the press about Diana's mothering and deliberately kept Camilla away from her wedding.
Double post auto-merged: October 18, 2017, 02:17:29 PM
Camilla and the blonde private secretary who's paid the price for being too close to Prince Charles | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026129/Camilla-blonde-private-secretary-whos-paid-price-close-Prince-Charles.html)
I am quoting Diana's own words re: the fall and the guard. You are the one that wants to reinterpret her words to suite your view. I am merely repeating what she said.
"He is the greatest fella I ever had"
"I threw myself down the stairs bearing in mind I was carrying a child"
The words speak for themselves.
As for being embittered, calculating and manipulative later in her life; I am not blaming Diana entirely for that. She had been dumped and did not have the mental resources to deal with it so she turned that way. Besides she was being criticized in the media so she wanted to get her side out, albeit she turned out to be much better at PR than the BRF.
What I am saying is that bitter, calculating and manipulative ex-wives are not the most objective narrators of the breakdown of their marriage. Understandably and naturally, they do everything to avoid blame and assign blame to the other party. That is why I take everything Diana said with a pinch of salt with reference to her marriage.
Those who knew her were very clear that Diana was a consummate and accomplished liar when it suited her. She also liked to exaggerate and was paranoid about certain things. It was her personality, besides all the good things she did. Even her own brother called her "complex" in his eulogy.
You keep denying the exchange: Was it sexual (Settelen) No replied Diana. What is there to 'reinterpret about that" of course you say Diana is a "liar." So that's your bias.
You ignore Diana's flat out denial. Not everything is "sexual". "had" can mean other things besides sex. A woman "has" a boyfriend she dates not sleeps with.
Mental resources to deal with it? How can anybody really deal with such a rejection? Einsteins can be rejected too. Only a cold woman who married Charles for money and signed a contract would be able to remove herself and be detached, enjoy the perks and so on. Unfortunately Diana fell for the guy.
Charles is the one who avoids blame the most. He never ever took any blame publicly. Camilla even played victim. His attitude of blaming others is plain to see if the Dimbleby, Junor and Smith books are read. Junor and Dimbleby had access to him and to his friends and to Camilla in their research.
Complex is not an insult. It can be a compliment. Unlike Charles calling Diana and Fergie "simple minded."
Camilla lied about having anything to do with or knowing about Charles and Diana's separation. When all evidence says she did. Charles pledged to be faithful with his mistresses watching him lie. He never separated himself from Camilla. I think C and C are the biggest liars and manipulators of them all. At this late date the two are still defensive, Camilla playing victim and cooperating with Penny Junor (Camilla and Charles saints and Diana the "nympho sinner." Every man who said hello to her she took to her bed like a Spider.
If Charles had ditched the mistress and married Diana for love (he did neither) I think she would have been content and happy. Charles behaved abominably marrying her just so he could have his heir and spare. And his mistress trashed Diana to him every chance she got.
My point is this: Diana's words mean there was an inappropriate relationship. Her later denial was to save face when she actually realized the implications of what she was saying e.g. first one to cheat. Hence the contradiction between "best fella I ever had" and "it was not sexual". The two things do not match which to me indicates that the former is closer to the truth than the latter. Diana had a history of doing this e.g. falling down stairs etc.
Yes, there are women who are cheated on and even abandoned but go on to lead independent lives with engaging in bitter quarrels with their ex. Others find a way of dealing with the situation to maintain their position, decorum and the family e.g. queens Sylvia and Sophia. Others divorce amicably and maintain good relationships with their in-law (princess of Denmark). Diana chose the bitter avenging wife route (fair play to her) but not everybody does it that way. She also had to be prepared for the consequences of the route she chose.
You speak with great confidence about apportioning blame (Charles is more to blame etc.) when you don't really know that principals or the details of the situation. Nobody but the principals know what really happened and they are not about to tell us the complete truth. What you have done is to pick a side and find facts to support your side. Nothing wrong with that but it is disingenuous to pretend that your side is the right side based on the limited facts provided by an embittered ex wife.
When you call someone "complex", it is a polite way of saying they have a good and bad side. It is not a compliment but meant to deter the would-be hero worshipers who insist that person is perfect. Earl Spencer knew his sister a lot more than I or you. Therefore I suppose his diagnosis of her character carries more weight than us.
Camilla lied about knowing the separation. She did and it was disingenuous on her to do so. However, I question the sweeping statement that "I think C and C are the biggest liars and manipulators of them all." Lady Fermoy Earl Spencer and Robert Fellowes might have a different take. Fellowes tendered his resignation from a prestigious job because of Diana's lies and manipulations. Fermoy called her an "actress" and Charles Spencer was even more explicit calling her "manipulative and deceitful". I doubt any of C&C's siblings or grandparents would describe them in quite those terms.
You seem very disturbed by Junor's book but actually it is a very tame book when compared to Morton or Bashir. It is a very tame book...just that it doesn't say what you like in the way that you want it. Junior is no worse than Morton or Bashir. I reject the idea that cooperating with Junor is somehow a worse crime because it isn't. Diana said many, many nasty things about C&C without resort for many years. You should not be surprised when the other side says its own side. In this case they said it quite gently and not with the vitriol and malice of Morton and Bashir.
I do admit though that Diana is sometimes a victim of "S**T Shaming" without evidence or justification. That is a reflection of a sexist and moralistic society that wants to prescribe what people do instead of minding its own business. My own beef with her is that she was a hypocrite by complaining about adultery then pursuing married men.
You assume Diana would have been happy and content if Charles had loved her more. I disagree. Diana's problems went way beyond Charles. He might have made them worse but he certainly was not the cause of her unhappiness or erratic lifestyle. She could never be happy until she built the right mental resources to handle relationships without becoming clingy, controlling or manipulative.
For example: Khan did love her in the soapy kind of way she said she wanted but it went pear-shaped; partly because she was back to those traits which are the biggest relationship killer going. A case in point is dating Dodi to make Khan jealous or Charles angry or Camilla envious. Then visiting his parents without invitation. It is those childish games that always ended up hurting her. Mature well-adjusted people know that rejection is part of life and you have to find a way of dealing with it. You can't expect unconditional love and support from anyone other than your parent. Even your child can get fed up if you are too erratic.
It is untrue to say that Charles only married her to have two children. He did not and never said he did. Neither did Diana say so. She was indeed said to be outraged that people would say he only married her to get an "heir and spare" (a tabloid term that neither of the parents ever used).
Entertaining back and forth, you two :goodpost: I do find it funny that Diana is believed unabashedly when it comes to it being non sexual with Barry, but shes disbelieved when she says she threw her self down the stairs....ugh :orchid: again speaking of stairs :ugh: a fall down a flight of stairs does not mean guaranteed death or broken bones, as I mentioned my mum's fall down a flight (albeit likely pharmaceutical or distillery enhanced relaxation helped...it was the 70s) also there would be no stuntmen left alive with all the falls down stairs in the movies/tv. It doesnt make her as "evil" just a woman with problems (and to add more grey to it Arthur Edwards source said she fell, that it was accidental, not deliberate, but to be fair the source didnt know what was going on in her head).
Thats the tricky thing with Diana in that she could be less than 100 percent honest, she lied in addition to the people mentioned above to journalist Clive James and Max Hastings about the book and Panorama, who mentioned she fooled them right to their faces. Also there was the time at school when the woman driving her and Charles Spencer threatened to kick her out of the car if she kept telling lies.
Yes, Einsteins get rejected too, but, and I dont want to speak for
@royalanthropologist but my take on mental resources wasnt just raw frontal lobe intelligence, its things like emotional maturity, stability, experience, etc. and Diana, like most ppl, had precious little of that in her early 20s, and that was kind of the point of what they wanted in a bride.
This might get me on the wrong side of the women, but I think if you want to call something sexist, its the whole idea of have a blank slate of a woman marrying a "prince charming" to me, it basically says the prince is hoping for an emotional blank or cripple that he can either mold, or be certain he wont be inconvenienced or challenged. That I think was far more detrimental to her than anything from seeing other ppl.
I dont think it was so much "s@#t shaming" as both the evolutionary psychology baggage we as a species carry, and the corner she frankly, painted herself into by playing the wronged woman card. not that its a bad card to play, but it does require the player of it to have a spotless romantic record lest the claim of hipocracy rear its ugly head.
I also find it humorous that if she can have an affair with one of Charles close friends, that its impossible to have had one with Juan Carlos. She was still very young emotionally, younger than her actual age, and she was rejected, and looking for validation, and she was very keen on older, fatherly, prominent men, JC would "tick all the boxes" on that, compared to say in her mid 30s where she was much more assured, confident and hitting her sexual peak, biologically, her choices of men were much different then compared to mid 80s. Also she was a desirable woman who at that time was rejected by her husband, I dont think it makes her look bad for seeking affection, but cause some ppl have dug in so much on dates and such, their dogmatism locks them in from seeing a bigger picture of her.
I also find it funny that the claim of opportunity suggesting the only option was to do it behind a statue, when the same person used to debunk Eri's refuting of C&C playing around at the hunt when she would claim the same thing, that they could only have done it outside, so it didnt happen.
Ah so much of using the other sides arguments for trying to shield Diana from looking less than whiter than white :lol:
Theres so many posts im probably missing some points i want to make, my point is she was a complex person (and I like RA's definition of that) who was trying to work through those problems, she could be less than honest, have mood swings, a temper every bit equal to her husband, and be hard on a friendship or family....but she could also be very honest about what she was feeling and what needed to change in the world, be consistently kind and compassionate to people suffering and in pain, she could be loving, personable and remember and value friends and family though think and thin, she could make you want to love and care for her as much as she wanted to do so for others.
Theres was a lot going on in that wonderful head and heart of hers, and I think without looking at the less than perfect side, the wonderful side doesnt look as good, its easy to be good if youre perfect, but to do all she did with what she was going through and the options she had to do nothing, or be as horrible as other wealthy people makes what she did all the more amazing and wonderful to remember.
She didnt have to be perfect to still be loved and appreciated like she is :flower:
The above post :goodpost: is a perfect demonstration why it is possible to like and love Diana without turning her into some kind of miss goody two shoes who could do no wrong. Such perfect people are boring and soon get on everybody's nerves. The "putting up and shutting up" solution also has some consequences as Hillary Clinton can testify. There would be many who would consider Diana to be a step ford wife if she had just taken up knitting to cope with the infidelity in her marriage.
For me, the most interesting aspect of this all is that POW did not seem at all bothered that JC was interested in or flirting with his wife. When you look at the photos, it is as if he is a hand or assistant who is a bit bored with what is going on. He does not seem to be remotely interested in his wife, family or what is going on. Those who read body language would know.
I can confess that in the same situation, I would probably make a lot of mistakes and react in unpleasant ways. Nobody likes to be told that they are surplus to requirements especially after giving their best years to a marriage.
Yes Diana was capable of honestly, foolish and self-destructive honesty. I for example would never confess to anyone that my husband was declaring undying love to his mistress on my honeymoon. I would not because of "survivors pride" but she told it as it was. She opened up the sham and dysfunction. That does not mean she could also not be deceitful. Even young children can lie.
Oh what nonsense/ Do you really think that Charles woud not be bothered if Diana were so foolish as to start an affair with a royal married Monarch, much older than her... who was also a relative of his???/
He might have worried about the adverse publicity for the royal family but not once have I ever seen Charles express even the remotest sexual jealousy for Diana. He really didn't give a damn about her having affairs as long as it did not affect the institution.
Quote from: amabel on October 18, 2017, 06:59:04 PM
Oh what nonsense/ Do you really think that Charles woud not be bothered if Diana were so foolish as to start an affair with a royal married Monarch, much older than her... who was also a relative of his???/
Diana certainly would not have even considered it. The man was a womanizer. A dead end situation and she would have risked losing custody.
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 12:42:17 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 18, 2017, 06:20:04 PM
The above post :goodpost: is a perfect demonstration why it is possible to like and love Diana without turning her into some kind of miss goody two shoes who could do no wrong. Such perfect people are boring and soon get on everybody's nerves. The "putting up and shutting up" solution also has some consequences as Hillary Clinton can testify. There would be many who would consider Diana to be a step ford wife if she had just taken up knitting to cope with the infidelity in her marriage.
For me, the most interesting aspect of this all is that POW did not seem at all bothered that JC was interested in or flirting with his wife. When you look at the photos, it is as if he is a hand or assistant who is a bit bored with what is going on. He does not seem to be remotely interested in his wife, family or what is going on. Those who read body language would know.
I can confess that in the same situation, I would probably make a lot of mistakes and react in unpleasant ways. Nobody likes to be told that they are surplus to requirements especially after giving their best years to a marriage.
Yes Diana was capable of honestly, foolish and self-destructive honesty. I for example would never confess to anyone that my husband was declaring undying love to his mistress on my honeymoon. I would not because of "survivors pride" but she told it as it was. She opened up the sham and dysfunction. That does not mean she could also not be deceitful. Even young children can lie.
So not having sex with Mannakee and telling Settelen there was no sex makes her a goody two shoes? She had an affair with Hewitt and was involved with him a few years. SO she was not some woman who would be celibate for the rest of her life (cheating husband no divorce and all that). Camilla turning to Charles when her husband cheated was considered "downright upright" by Charles good friend, Penny Junor.
Hillary was alleged to have cheated. Vincent Foster comes immediately to mind. She also unlike Diana had big ambitions to be President of the United States. It was "two Clintons for the price of one" or so their "selling point" went. Hillary certainly was and is out for Number One. Different scenarios. Hillary is no doormat.
You forget that Diana and Charles maintained appearances for ten years. She did not run to the media back in 1981-82. It took time and years of Charles increasingly emotionally abusive (I do think he was) and CHarles' friends going to the media. She just got fed up and wanted to put her side out.
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 12:44:10 AM
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on October 18, 2017, 06:06:41 PM
Entertaining back and forth, you two :goodpost: I do find it funny that Diana is believed unabashedly when it comes to it being non sexual with Barry, but shes disbelieved when she says she threw her self down the stairs....ugh :orchid: again speaking of stairs :ugh: a fall down a flight of stairs does not mean guaranteed death or broken bones, as I mentioned my mum's fall down a flight (albeit likely pharmaceutical or distillery enhanced relaxation helped...it was the 70s) also there would be no stuntmen left alive with all the falls down stairs in the movies/tv. It doesnt make her as "evil" just a woman with problems (and to add more grey to it Arthur Edwards source said she fell, that it was accidental, not deliberate, but to be fair the source didnt know what was going on in her head).
Thats the tricky thing with Diana in that she could be less than 100 percent honest, she lied in addition to the people mentioned above to journalist Clive James and Max Hastings about the book and Panorama, who mentioned she fooled them right to their faces. Also there was the time at school when the woman driving her and Charles Spencer threatened to kick her out of the car if she kept telling lies.
Yes, Einsteins get rejected too, but, and I dont want to speak for @royalanthropologist but my take on mental resources wasnt just raw frontal lobe intelligence, its things like emotional maturity, stability, experience, etc. and Diana, like most ppl, had precious little of that in her early 20s, and that was kind of the point of what they wanted in a bride.
This might get me on the wrong side of the women, but I think if you want to call something sexist, its the whole idea of have a blank slate of a woman marrying a "prince charming" to me, it basically says the prince is hoping for an emotional blank or cripple that he can either mold, or be certain he wont be inconvenienced or challenged. That I think was far more detrimental to her than anything from seeing other ppl.
I dont think it was so much "s@#t shaming" as both the evolutionary psychology baggage we as a species carry, and the corner she frankly, painted herself into by playing the wronged woman card. not that its a bad card to play, but it does require the player of it to have a spotless romantic record lest the claim of hipocracy rear its ugly head.
I also find it humorous that if she can have an affair with one of Charles close friends, that its impossible to have had one with Juan Carlos. She was still very young emotionally, younger than her actual age, and she was rejected, and looking for validation, and she was very keen on older, fatherly, prominent men, JC would "tick all the boxes" on that, compared to say in her mid 30s where she was much more assured, confident and hitting her sexual peak, biologically, her choices of men were much different then compared to mid 80s. Also she was a desirable woman who at that time was rejected by her husband, I dont think it makes her look bad for seeking affection, but cause some ppl have dug in so much on dates and such, their dogmatism locks them in from seeing a bigger picture of her.
I also find it funny that the claim of opportunity suggesting the only option was to do it behind a statue, when the same person used to debunk Eri's refuting of C&C playing around at the hunt when she would claim the same thing, that they could only have done it outside, so it didnt happen.
Ah so much of using the other sides arguments for trying to shield Diana from looking less than whiter than white :lol:
Theres so many posts im probably missing some points i want to make, my point is she was a complex person (and I like RA's definition of that) who was trying to work through those problems, she could be less than honest, have mood swings, a temper every bit equal to her husband, and be hard on a friendship or family....but she could also be very honest about what she was feeling and what needed to change in the world, be consistently kind and compassionate to people suffering and in pain, she could be loving, personable and remember and value friends and family though think and thin, she could make you want to love and care for her as much as she wanted to do so for others.
Theres was a lot going on in that wonderful head and heart of hers, and I think without looking at the less than perfect side, the wonderful side doesnt look as good, its easy to be good if youre perfect, but to do all she did with what she was going through and the options she had to do nothing, or be as horrible as other wealthy people makes what she did all the more amazing and wonderful to remember.
She didnt have to be perfect to still be loved and appreciated like she is :flower:
Why on earth would Diana be attracted to a womanizer many years older than she was? That was not her 'type." she wanted reassurance and love not a "hit and run" sort of relationship with a womanizer.
And she was soon to be involved with Hewitt later that year (1986) who was more her type.
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 12:53:59 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 18, 2017, 04:42:57 PM
My point is this: Diana's words mean there was an inappropriate relationship. Her later denial was to save face when she actually realized the implications of what she was saying e.g. first one to cheat. Hence the contradiction between "best fella I ever had" and "it was not sexual". The two things do not match which to me indicates that the former is closer to the truth than the latter. Diana had a history of doing this e.g. falling down stairs etc.
Yes, there are women who are cheated on and even abandoned but go on to lead independent lives with engaging in bitter quarrels with their ex. Others find a way of dealing with the situation to maintain their position, decorum and the family e.g. queens Sylvia and Sophia. Others divorce amicably and maintain good relationships with their in-law (princess of Denmark). Diana chose the bitter avenging wife route (fair play to her) but not everybody does it that way. She also had to be prepared for the consequences of the route she chose.
You speak with great confidence about apportioning blame (Charles is more to blame etc.) when you don't really know that principals or the details of the situation. Nobody but the principals know what really happened and they are not about to tell us the complete truth. What you have done is to pick a side and find facts to support your side. Nothing wrong with that but it is disingenuous to pretend that your side is the right side based on the limited facts provided by an embittered ex wife.
When you call someone "complex", it is a polite way of saying they have a good and bad side. It is not a compliment but meant to deter the would-be hero worshipers who insist that person is perfect. Earl Spencer knew his sister a lot more than I or you. Therefore I suppose his diagnosis of her character carries more weight than us.
Camilla lied about knowing the separation. She did and it was disingenuous on her to do so. However, I question the sweeping statement that "I think C and C are the biggest liars and manipulators of them all." Lady Fermoy Earl Spencer and Robert Fellowes might have a different take. Fellowes tendered his resignation from a prestigious job because of Diana's lies and manipulations. Fermoy called her an "actress" and Charles Spencer was even more explicit calling her "manipulative and deceitful". I doubt any of C&C's siblings or grandparents would describe them in quite those terms.
You seem very disturbed by Junor's book but actually it is a very tame book when compared to Morton or Bashir. It is a very tame book...just that it doesn't say what you like in the way that you want it. Junior is no worse than Morton or Bashir. I reject the idea that cooperating with Junor is somehow a worse crime because it isn't. Diana said many, many nasty things about C&C without resort for many years. You should not be surprised when the other side says its own side. In this case they said it quite gently and not with the vitriol and malice of Morton and Bashir.
I do admit though that Diana is sometimes a victim of "S**T Shaming" without evidence or justification. That is a reflection of a sexist and moralistic society that wants to prescribe what people do instead of minding its own business. My own beef with her is that she was a hypocrite by complaining about adultery then pursuing married men.
You assume Diana would have been happy and content if Charles had loved her more. I disagree. Diana's problems went way beyond Charles. He might have made them worse but he certainly was not the cause of her unhappiness or erratic lifestyle. She could never be happy until she built the right mental resources to handle relationships without becoming clingy, controlling or manipulative.
For example: Khan did love her in the soapy kind of way she said she wanted but it went pear-shaped; partly because she was back to those traits which are the biggest relationship killer going. A case in point is dating Dodi to make Khan jealous or Charles angry or Camilla envious. Then visiting his parents without invitation. It is those childish games that always ended up hurting her. Mature well-adjusted people know that rejection is part of life and you have to find a way of dealing with it. You can't expect unconditional love and support from anyone other than your parent. Even your child can get fed up if you are too erratic.
It is untrue to say that Charles only married her to have two children. He did not and never said he did. Neither did Diana say so. She was indeed said to be outraged that people would say he only married her to get an "heir and spare" (a tabloid term that neither of the parents ever used).
Who did Diana deny this to? She never said she had an "affair" with Mannakee. She gushed to Settelen about her attraction to him and how he "understood her." But she did not say Mr. Settelen Barry and I had sex so what did she backtrack from? A woman says I had a boyfriend or I had a friend. "Had" is not necessarily meaning "sex". So there was no backtracking. It was, what Diana thought, a private conversation never to be aired or recorded for the public. Settelen for one reason or another was someone she trusted. She could very well have said, yes we had sex and it was Great. She didn't. If you don't believe her, it's because you prefer Charles and Camilla and it is "better" (like Penny Junor thinks) if Diana "cheated first." Ingrid Seward was the one who backtracked. She first said they "did it" after the tapes she retracted and said they "didn't." Junor is the biggest Diana loather of all, she has some "thing" for Charles and finds Camilla "sexy." Of course she'd think the worst of DIana.
Diana was fond of Dodi. She really tried to continue the relationship with Hasnet. But she wanted to go public with him. I think he'd have been satisfied with the visits to KP and perhaps her going incognito on dates with him. But she wanted more. She liked Dodi because he did go public with her. Neither of them are alive to tell a thing about their relationship. It could have been only a Summer Fling.
Diana did say she wanted a third child and Charles turned her down. Since no third child materialized he ended the relationship (intimacy) after Harry was born. Charles moaned about Harry not being a girl but that could have easily been remedied if they had tried again. Harry was the spare, William the heir. That's what they were called. Charles got what he wanted and that was that.
Everybody is complex. Nobody is a stick figure with one mood only and one personality. If a person is not complex there is something badly amiss.
You keep ignoring how Fermoy betrayed her own daughter and grandmother. If you think she is qualified to give an opinion like that about her granddaughter (considering what Fermoy did to hurt her own family) that's your choice. I think she's a big phony. She pushed her daughter Frances to get involved with John Spencer even if it was known that he was about to get engaged to someone else. So she did not care that she broke up another woman's relationship for her own ambitions for her daughter.
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 12:58:25 AM
I am not 'disturbed' about Junor's book. I know Junor is a snake and it is par for her course. I am not surprised about the Camilla book. BTW there were some scathing comments in the media about Junor's hype about the ex married mistress being the "savior of the monarchy."
Bashir and Morton got Diana's side. Neither Morton or Bashir "gush" like High school students about Diana. They did not socialize with Diana.
OTOH, Junor socializes with C and C and even accompanied Camilla on a vacation (photographs to prove it.). She calls Camilla "endearing and sexy" and giggled in an interview that she has a "soft spot" for Charles (obviously). She gets shrill in her attacks on Diana. But as I said it's par for her course.
Sorry Duch_, but I don't believe that Diana had a fling with Juan Carlos. Primarily because Imo he's revolting physically and in every other way, and I refuse to believe that Diana would have fancied the creep!
It's like saying Diana had a fling with BIll Clinton.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 18, 2017, 10:08:24 PM
He might have worried about the adverse publicity for the royal family but not once have I ever seen Charles express even the remotest sexual jealousy for Diana. He really didn't give a damn about her having affairs as long as it did not affect the institution.
Which likely fueled some of her more desperate attempts to attract his attention. :no:
This is no surprise. Charles liked that sort of thing. He had an arrangement with Camilla and her husband had his own outside interests (though Charles backed off when the PBs were having their children). Same with the Tryons, Dale's husband stepped aside so Charles could be with her. Charles in his own way IMO is very cold blooded. Diana's family should have taken her on a round the world tour and kept her away from Charles and his lifestyle.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 18, 2017, 10:08:24 PM
He might have worried about the adverse publicity for the royal family but not once have I ever seen Charles express even the remotest sexual jealousy for Diana. He really didn't give a damn about her having affairs as long as it did not affect the institution.
and yiou don't think that an affair with a fellow monarch, "A Catholic King!" who was a relative, would have been a scandal which wuodl have seriously affected boht the Spanish king and the English Monarchy?
I hope Diana would not have been such a fool, but if she had, you can bet Charles would have been affected by it
I do not believe the theory that Charles is a "cold fish" that is happy for his wife to sleep around. It was just that with Diana, the attraction was either limited or had long died away. As far as he was concerned, she could do what she liked as long as she did not bother him or the institution.
I do believe in the theory by
@TLLK: this drove Diana more desperate because she could not quite figure out that someone as beautiful and popular as her could be spectacularly and permanently rejected by her husband. This later on fueled her clinginess in subsequent relationships because she was afraid of a repeat performance.
She was never quite sure of or secure with her role in relationships so she often turned to manipulation, control and neediness to try and prevent a break up. Unfortunately, that often made the break up more likely, speedier and permanent. I once read that when Hoare broke it off, she became even more desperate to have him back hence the crank calls. Diana was the child that was forever frightened of being left alone behind. She could never cope with solitude or rejection right up to the end of her life.
Even that third child with Charles thing was a Hail Mary to try and keep Charles, a trick that has been used by many women who do not want their husbands to leave them. Get a child and hope it will bring you together. A child does not resolve fundamental problems in the marriage. It might even make them worse. I also totally reject
@sandy's theory of marriage for an "heir and spare". That is nothing more than a tabloid yarn.
BTW
@Curryong, Diana did not exactly look for models in her men. The pattern was typically older men who had means. JC fits the bill to a "T". Looking at Khan and Dodi I really question her choices but again each to their own. Her exception was Hewitt but once again she tried to control him far too often and it went pear-shaped.
Diana did not "sleep around." Charles' behavior IMO is cold blooded. He even showed resentment to Diana even after she and Hewitt got involved.
Diana did not have "clinginess" to expect her husband to be a real husband. She did not marry Camilla's lover she married a husband. If he preferred Camilla, he should not have married Diana to get those heirs.
Why is Diana blamed for the relationships and not the partners? For one thing Hewitt and Diana could have had no real future. SHe was not going to bolt and risk losing custody of her sons.
DIana's relationships did not include running to older womanizers who would have the sex then move on to the next one. It's like saying she'd have craved being with Harvey Weinstein. Hewitt was not much older than Diana and neither were Dodi or Khan; Khan and Hewitt were close to her age.
WHy do you reject my "theory.?' Charles wanted his own children to succeed. If Diana had been barren he would not have married her IMO. Why do you think she had the physical exam before she married CHarles? For nothing?
No it was not a Hail Mary. Diana at that time felt there was some hope. There wasn't. It was a small window. WHy not trash Charles for the way he acted?
If DIana wanted to "trick" Charles there were more reliable ways of doing so. She asked, he said no. How is that trickery?
Diana and Charles back then had a difficult time getting a divorce even if they wanted one. The institution must have "tricked" Prince Charles.
Diana had no real security in the extra marital affair with HEwitt. No future for them. After her divorce she was involved mainly with Khan and then for a few weeks in 1997 was seeing Dodi. Hardly "sleeping around."
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on October 18, 2017, 06:06:41 PM
Entertaining back and forth, you two :goodpost: I do find it funny that Diana is believed unabashedly when it comes to it being non sexual with Barry, but shes disbelieved when she says she threw her self down the stairs....ugh :orchid: again speaking of stairs :ugh: a fall down a flight of stairs does not mean guaranteed death or broken bones, as I mentioned my mum's fall down a flight (albeit likely pharmaceutical or distillery enhanced relaxation helped...it was the 70s) also there would be no stuntmen left alive with all the falls down stairs in the movies/tv. It doesnt make her as "evil" just a woman with problems (and to add more grey to it Arthur Edwards source said she fell, that it was accidental, not deliberate, but to be fair the source didnt know what was going on in her head).
I believe she threw herself from few stairs. she was going through bulimia. what for her was a cry for help and for others looks like a spoiled girl wanting attention. Charles, in his dimbleby book, confirmed diana cut herself but he said the cuts werent deep and any band-aid was enough. I remember back then the press jumped at him for being a uncaring and insensitive man. janet jenkings said when she slept with him in 1991, charles talked about this stairs episode.
Quote from: amabel on October 19, 2017, 06:53:32 AM
and yiou don't think that an affair with a fellow monarch, "A Catholic King!" who was a relative, would have been a scandal which wuodl have seriously affected boht the Spanish king and the English Monarchy?
I hope Diana would not have been such a fool, but if she had, you can bet Charles would have been affected by it
I agree. Why would Diana go for a lecherous womanizer. She was not that desperate. It is a joke to think JC would have had a real relationship. Just wham bam thank you ma'm. That's how he racked up all the women. He did not stay with any for very long and had the long suffering wife.
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 11:12:29 AM
Quote from: dianab on October 19, 2017, 11:06:09 AM
I believe she threw herself from few stairs. she was going through bulimia. what for her was a cry for help and for others looks like a spoiled girl wanting attention. Charles, in his dimbleby book, confirmed diana cut herself but he said the cuts werent deep and any band-aid was enough. I remember back then the press jumped at him for being a uncaring and insensitive man. janet jenkings said when she slept with him in 1991, charles talked about this stairs episode.
Diana wore those gowns that showed her shoulders and arms. No scars were seen. ANd yes, it was a few steps. If she rushed headlong down a full flight she'd have been hospitalized and certainly would have had broken bones.
Prince Charles cheated on Camilla with Janet Jenkins. If one can cheat on a married woman when married himself.
Self harm is a bulimia symptom. I think Charles was the spoiled one.
Quote
Diana wore those gowns that showed her shoulders and arms. No scars were seen. ANd yes, it was a few steps. If she rushed headlong down a full flight she'd have been hospitalized and certainly would have had broken bones.
Prince Charles cheated on Camilla with Janet Jenkins. If one can cheat on a married woman when married himself.
Self harm is a bulimia symptom. I think Charles was the spoiled one.
yes i'm saying she threw herself from few steps and NOT she fell acidentally
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 11:21:32 AM
If a married man is in love with his married mistress and sleeping with another woman, yes he's/was cheating on his mistress
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 11:22:52 AM
Quote from: Curryong on October 19, 2017, 12:59:53 AM
Sorry Duch_, but I don't believe that Diana had a fling with Juan Carlos. Primarily because Imo he's revolting physically and in every other way, and I refuse to believe that Diana would have fancied the creep!
charles was/is much more revolting physically than jc (i'm talking about camilla affair here), in 198/90s IMO. btw i dont believe there was any affair between them.
She had a row with Charles over his leaving for some event or lunch (perhaps involving Camilla). In any case it was still a few steps. She did not intend to kill herself.
The trouble is Charles did not apprise her in detail of what he expected of her. Before the engagement. She got a remote, stubborn man who still contacted his mistress and wanted to continue the same lifestyle. Diana was already pregnant with the heir. I don't think he had much of a concept of marriage that involved the partner's feelings. Stephen Barry said Charles did not really need to get married. The only thing missing for Charles were the heirs and Camilla helped promote Diana as a match for him thinking she would be very amenable to whatever Charles wanted.
@sandy. I want to correct another thing. There was never a test for virginity or fertility for Diana. She has never said such a thing and none of her physicians or the palace has ever said such a thing. That is yet another tabloid yarn that is taken as gospel truth in order to feed a certain narrative.
Diana was clingly in all her relationships. I hear there was even an American billionaire who broke it off with her when she suddenly appeared at a place he was meant to be and then pretended that it was an accident. As for Hewitt, she actually wanted him to change his posting to suit her needs and her demands for completely loyalty as well as constant attention.
It is telling that Charles (who you call spoilt and consider dysfunctional) has been with the same woman Camilla as far back as 1986 and has been officially married to her since 2005. From 1986 to 1997, Diana had at least 4 different relationships that never quite worked out. Who of the two could not sustain a romantic relationship?
Yes, there was. One of Diana's relatives, her mother's brother went to the press and confirmed she "passed" the test and was a virgin. This is a true story. Diana also reportedly was not too happy about having to get a physical exam.
It was not a tabloid yarn. Do you really think Charles would have married a woman who possibly could not have had children? I very much doubt it. There had to have been a check up. If he married a barren woman (who was not given a physical exam), he could have had the marriage annulled. No question, Charles wanted heirs.
Camilla had other relationships with men besides her first and second husbands. Some of the men came forward and this disqualified her (in people like Mountbatten's estimation) as being a wife and mother of Charles' children. Charles was involved wtih Camilla after she had her children and before Diana, and he was in contact with her throughout his marriage to Diana. Charles was with Janet Jenkins and this is well documented. So he cheated on Diana with (at least) two women during that time period. Janet and Camilla make two extra marital relationships.
Diana could not have had a relationship that "worked out" unless she bolted and jeopardized custody of her sons. I can imagine your condemnation of her if she had bolted. Diana had the documented relationship with Hewitt (both parties admitted an affair) and the documented relationship with Khan (who admitted an affair). Hoare neither confirmed or denied an affair and I doubt ever will. Diana never commented publicly on Hoare. Carling denied he had an affair with Diana. So you are upping the number of lovers. And what Camilla did was a lot worse, she interfered with the marriage from day one and even before she tried to play "mentor" and "advised" Diana. Charles IMO is spoiled and dysfunctional. Isn't it dysfunctional of him to have two male friends and think it "OK" to play house with their wives. The affairs with Kanga and Camilla are well documented.
Diana was in a no win situation with Charles. How can she "sustain" a relationship with a man who did not marry her for love. I think your blame is misplaced here.
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 01:35:38 PM
Quote from: dianab on October 19, 2017, 11:14:19 AM
yes i'm saying she threw herself from few steps and NOT she fell acidentally
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 11:21:32 AM
If a married man is in love with his married mistress and sleeping with another woman, yes he's/was cheating on his mistress
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 11:22:52 AM
charles was/is much more revolting physically than jc (i'm talking about camilla affair here), in 198/90s IMO. btw i dont believe there was any affair between them.
Charles was and is never really attractive. He looked nerdy, then looked OK at the time of his first marriage. I doubt Camilla would have given him the time of day had he not been the Prince of Wales. Her "type" seemed to be Andrew Parker Bowles who was said to be attractive but I don't t hink he ever was.
imo Andrew Parker Bowles was a attractive young man
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/18/05/302C94DF00000578-0-image-a-79_1453095286159.jpg
I can to see what women back in 1970s saw in him
Well he does look good there. I guess he had let himself go as the saying goes and did not retain his looks.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 19, 2017, 11:43:16 AM
@sandy. I want to correct another thing. There was never a test for virginity or fertility for Diana. She has never said such a thing and none of her physicians or the palace has ever said such a thing. That is yet another tabloid yarn that is taken as gospel truth in order to feed a certain narrative.
Diana was clingly in all her relationships. I hear there was even an American billionaire who broke it off with her when she suddenly appeared at a place he was meant to be and then pretended that it was an accident. As for Hewitt, she actually wanted him to change his posting to suit her needs and her demands for completely loyalty as well as constant attention.
i dont believe there was ever anything with the American billionaire, who admitted send roses to KP for last 3 years of her life and thought she'd a bad taste in men (as she was never romatically/sexually atracted to him). I dont believe in this friendship Diana was the clingy one... he said diana was a very good mother but very bad to herself (talking about her love life)... i understand he thought diana would start to be good to herself if she'd accepted date him
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 01:55:57 PM
Quote from: sandy on October 19, 2017, 01:49:06 PM
Well he does look good there. I guess he had let himself go as the saying goes and did not retain his looks.
another pic
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/06/19/article-1287807-008D132F00000190-665_468x286.jpg
If the American billionaire is Teddy Forstmann, they were just friends. They never were in a relationship. She even asked him advice about a place to bring the boys on a vacation in the Hamptons (1997). That did not go through, too many security issues. Teddy F. even was interviewed about her and said they were never lovers. Around this time, she was involved with Hasnet Khan and serious about him.
Wow, the look Anne is giving APB!
Quote from: sandy on October 19, 2017, 11:24:42 AM
She had a row with Charles over his leaving for some event or lunch (perhaps involving Camilla). In any case it was still a few steps. She did not intend to kill herself.
The trouble is Charles did not apprise her in detail of what he expected of her. Before the engagement. She got.
nonsense, this was during the winter, IIRC Christmas, and ther'es no way Charles was seeing Camilla. are you now saying that she DID throw herself down a few steps??
Charles was meeting his friends for lunch. Wasn't this the Fall? The trip to the Caribbean by C and D was right after the Holidays. I don't recall Diana's fall was right before the vacation in the Caribbean, I don't think it was at Christmas. I recall it was in the Fall because Charles was meeting friends within his "set" and leaving Diana. Who felt unhappy about it (according to Morton and she and Charles had "filthy rows" about Camilla during this time period. Junor reported that C and C would see each other at the hunts and house parties. And Barry recalled Charles was in touch with Camilla by phone (corroborating Diana's account) in Fall 1981.
Diana's account of the first Christmas, includes her participating in a "lighting" ceremony, her first solo royal work and her buying expensive presents for her in-laws and not knowing the custom was buying "gag gifts".
Diana did not hurl herself down the stairs otherwise she would not have been well enough to go to the Caribbean and not well enough to do much with broken bones. She fell down a few steps after a row with Charles.
@sandy is back to that old canard again: "I doubt Camilla would have given him the time of day had he not been the Prince of Wales"
So are you saying that Diana would not have given him the time of day had he not been POW? Was she too a gold digger looking for the money and position Charles could give her? Was Diana's love sincere whilst Camilla was not? Double standards IMO.
BTW I have never seen any evidence to confirm that yarn about virginity tests and fertility tests. It sounds a bit like someone dreaming up a "fact" and putting it out there just because they know the BRF will never respond.
That's my opinion royalanthropologist and I'm sticking to it. Why not address me directly instead of the third person. Only polite.
The thing is Charles pursued Diana to get heirs. She was a very naive teenager and it was a short courtship. She was dazzled by Charles. She was not a golddigger, she was on Charles' "list" of eligible suitable girls. Camilla even was said to approve of the match.
Camilla was not considered suitable for marriage to Charles by Mountbatten. There were enormous perks for her being POW mistress so she "settled" for that. When many women would not have.
Do you really think Charles would have married Diana had she NOT been examined? Really? What if she turned out barren.
Quote from: dianab on October 19, 2017, 01:43:37 PM
imo Andrew Parker Bowles was a attractive young man
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/18/05/302C94DF00000578-0-image-a-79_1453095286159.jpg
I can to see what women back in 1970s saw in him
Holy Cannoli! :) He was a good looking man in his younger years. Ah eventually time catches up with all of us. Genetics and habits...well they take their toll too. Is that Princess Anne with him? She looks so attractive and relaxed there with her hair down. Dig her leisure suit. :Jen:
I wonder if he smoked? I think he could have converted to marry Princess Anne, but I think Camilla "reclaimed" him after her affair with Charles. She was said to see off other women that he got interested in.
Quote from: sandy on October 19, 2017, 01:10:24 AM
It's like saying Diana had a fling with BIll Clinton.
Ugh. Please take pity on us all
@sandy and don't link Diana with Forty-two!!! :lol:
Re: the timeline for Diana: At the time of Diana's fall, Charles was in riding habit and going out riding (this according to Morton). So it would have had to be during the Autumn months. Not around Christmas. I did come across the Caribbean photos and she and Charles looked pretty happy together (this was ca. February 1982) instead of January. Diana had that well publicized lighting ceremony, her first solo appearance during the Christmas season and then told of the gift snafu around Christmas in her recollections.
https://www.google.com/search?q=charles+and+diana+in+caribbean+1982&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_t72u9fzWAhVHtBoKHWjkAlIQsAQILg&biw=1280&bih=864#imgrc=MntbcPMpQDLbEM:
Quote from: dianab on October 19, 2017, 11:06:09 AM
I believe she threw herself from few stairs. she was going through bulimia. what for her was a cry for help and for others looks like a spoiled girl wanting attention. Charles, in his dimbleby book, confirmed diana cut herself but he said the cuts werent deep and any band-aid was enough. I remember back then the press jumped at him for being a uncaring and insensitive man. janet jenkings said when she slept with him in 1991, charles talked about this stairs episode.
While Diana had many admirable qualities, I have to agree that she unfortunately has a poor reputation when it comes to exaggeration and honesty. My theory is that as a child she realized she could garner some attention and sympathy by stretching the truth or acting out in a dramatic fashion. These are behaviors that do manifest with children who have are dealing with emotional trauma and the Spencer's divorce obviously had a negative impact on their children. :no:
Diana was only 20, a newlywed, having hormonal changes during her pregnancy (which was difficult with morning sickness and so on), and bulimia and her illusions of a peaceful happy marriage were shattered.
Diana though was spot on about many things.
She also was married to someone who was very self centered because of his being the "heir" and self absorbed
Quote from: sandy on October 19, 2017, 02:06:53 PM
Charles was meeting his friends for lunch. Wasn't this the Fall? The trip to the Caribbean by C and D was right after the Holidays. I don't recall Diana's fall was right before the vacation in the Caribbean, I don't think it was at Christmas. I recall it was in the Fall because Charles was meeting friends within his "set" and leaving Diana. Who felt unhappy about it (according to Morton and she and Charles had "filthy rows" about Camilla during this time period. Junor reported that C and C would see each other at the hunts and house parties. And Barry recalled Charles was in touch with Camilla by phone (corroborating Diana's account) in Fall 1981.
Diana's account of the first Christmas, includes her participating in a "lighting" ceremony, her first solo royal work and her buying expensive presents for her in-laws and not knowing the custom was buying "gag gifts".
Diana did not hurl herself down the stairs otherwise she would not have been well enough to go to the Caribbean and not well enough to do much with broken bones. She fell down a few steps after a row with Charles.
So she "fell"? I thought you said that she threw herself. And as I recall the fall was reported around just after Christmas or early January. it was while they were still celebrating Christmas.
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 02:54:11 PM
Quote from: sandy on October 19, 2017, 02:40:43 PM
Re: the timeline for Diana: At the time of Diana's fall, Charles was in riding habit and going out riding (this according to Morton). So it would have had to be during the Autumn months. Not around Christmas. I did come
why would it "have to be in the Autum" because he went riding?
Diana said he was in riding gear not dressed for Winter. Winter makes riding surfaces harder, it is cold out. Why would Charles go riding at Christmas? Diana did not report this episode in her account of her first Christmas as a royal. The fall episode came sooner. Fox hunting and equestrian sports take place primarily in Autumn not Winter. Some sources say she was three months pregnant some sources say four. The Bradford book claims she went on a picnic with Charles the same afternoon as the Fall indicating the weather could not have been really cold.
Diana's First Royal Christmas – My Blog (http://theroyalpost.com/2011/12/01/dianas-first-royal-christmas/)
Interesting info on Diana's first royal Christmas.
Quote from: TLLK on October 19, 2017, 02:18:27 PM
Holy Cannoli! :) He was a good looking man in his younger years. Ah eventually time catches up with all of us. Genetics and habits...well they take their toll too. Is that Princess Anne with him? She looks so attractive and relaxed there with her hair down. Dig her leisure suit. :Jen:
yes. in 2 pics i posted of him, anne also appears
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2017, 04:04:37 PM
Quote from: TLLK on October 19, 2017, 02:41:33 PM
While Diana had many admirable qualities, I have to agree that she unfortunately has a poor reputation when it comes to exaggeration and honesty. My theory is that as a child she realized she could garner some attention and sympathy by stretching the truth or acting out in a dramatic fashion. These are behaviors that do manifest with children who have are dealing with emotional trauma and the Spencer's divorce obviously had a negative impact on their children. :no:
which dont changes he was uncaring and insenstive towards her. his parents also caused in him the same issues as Johnny and Frances caused in Diana. feeling unloved, unwanted he just felt loved by his nanny is a pretty sad thing maybe related/it's the source to his frightening temper tantrums that just fawcett can control him... btw charles confirmed many of stories of Diana according to her and him she threw herself down few stairs and cut herself. according to both charles has bad relationship with his parents and never felt loved by them and can't feel close to them and impossible to have a loving parent/child relationship with them.
Charles has a temper according to witnesses. Charles had various influences: he found his parents "cold" but his grandmother spoiled him and Mountbatten's advice to him was not always the best.
Quote
Quote from: TLLK on October 19, 2017, 08:41:33 PM
While Diana had many admirable qualities, I have to agree that she unfortunately has a poor reputation when it comes to exaggeration and honesty. My theory is that as a child she realized she could garner some attention and sympathy by stretching the truth or acting out in a dramatic fashion. These are behaviors that do manifest with children who have are dealing with emotional trauma and the Spencer's divorce obviously had a negative impact on their children. :no:
which dont changes he was uncaring and insenstive towards her. his parents also caused in him the same issues as Johnny and Frances caused in Diana. feeling unloved, unwanted he just felt loved by his nanny is a pretty sad thing maybe related/it's the source to his frightening temper tantrums that just fawcett can control him... btw charles confirmed many of stories of Diana according to her and him she threw herself down few stairs and cut herself. according to both charles has bad relationship with his parents and never felt loved by them and can't feel close to them and impossible to have a loving parent/child relationship with them.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2017, 10:12:16 PM by dianab »
Good points
@dianab. Just proves IMHO that this marriage was going to face difficulty even if there hadn't been adultery issues. Sadly these were two people who were not emotionally prepared to work together and to support each other. Each required frequent assurances and messages of approval and neither were equipped to deliver that to each other. I wish that Diana had been able to find someone who could provide that for her. :no:
Quote from: sandy on October 19, 2017, 02:58:48 PM
Diana said he was in riding gear not dressed for Winter. Winter makes riding surfaces harder, it is cold out. Why would Charles go riding at Christmas? Diana did not report this episode in her account of her first Christmas as a royal. The fall episode came sooner. Fox hunting and equestrian sports take place primarily in Autumn not Winter. Some sources say she was three months pregnant some sources say four. The Bradford book claims she went on a picnic with Charles the same afternoon as the Fall indicating the weather could not have been really cold.
Diana's First Royal Christmas – My Blog (http://theroyalpost.com/2011/12/01/dianas-first-royal-christmas/)
Interesting info on Diana's first royal Christmas.
Fox hutnting goes on from Autumn (cub hunting) to May. There's usually a big meeting on Boxing day (26th December) I don't know what you're talking about,.
^^^Thank you for sharing this information
@amabel. I personally don't care for hunting but I do realize that it is necessary to keep wildlife population under control.
Quote from: amabel on October 19, 2017, 06:05:51 PM
Fox hutnting goes on from Autumn (cub hunting) to May. There's usually a big meeting on Boxing day (26th December) I don't know what you're talking about,.
I found the hunting schedule on a website. But it is known that when the ground freezes it is more difficult for the horses. I am not certain if Charles just went riding or went foxhunting. It never was said. So many little details missing. Diana was seen with Charles hunting but I never saw her at foxhunting events.
It doesn't freeze that much here Sandy, not like it does in the US,. Of course they can't hunt on frosty ground... but it goes on all autumn right up to the spring. certainly there's hunting at Christmas. And Since as you say Di was 3 or 4 months pregnant, it happened around January 1982... I remember it being reported on TV news, and I'm reasonably sure that it was after Christmas but still within the Christmas Holiday - (the royals taking a long break then).
^^^Thank you for sharing your knowledge of the UK and its traditions/weather.
@amabel.
I'm sure you know I don't hunt.. (I can just about ride) and it is illegal now.
and you Americans call hunting what is called "shooting" in the UK....
^^^Thanks for the explanation
@amabel. I'd read that what is considered "hunting" has been banned in the UK. However don't groups get together now with the dogs and chase a fake fox?
Quote from: amabel on October 19, 2017, 06:38:46 PM
It doesn't freeze that much here Sandy, not like it does in the US,. Of course they can't hunt on frosty ground... but it goes on all autumn right up to the spring. certainly there's hunting at Christmas. And Since as you say Di was 3 or 4 months pregnant, it happened around January 1982... I remember it being reported on TV news, and I'm reasonably sure that it was after Christmas but still within the Christmas Holiday - (the royals taking a long break then).
What's puzzling about it is that Bradford wrote (and I think others did too) that on the same day as the fall, Diana and Charles went on a picnic. If it were in Winter, that would have been very unusual. The photos of the Caribbean vacation show a happy couple so they apparently made up and appeared to be getting along (the paparazzi took the photos)
Quote from: sandy on October 19, 2017, 10:42:33 PM
What's puzzling about it is that Bradford wrote (and I think others did too) that on the same day as the fall, Diana and Charles went on a picnic. If it were in Winter, that would have been very unusual. The photos of the Caribbean vacation show a happy couple so they apparently made up and appeared to be getting along (the paparazzi took the photos)
it isn't that cold, quite often. As I recollect they went to a beach hut. however this hardly gibes with Dian's story that she threw herself down stairs and that Charles had treated her with indifference.
Double post auto-merged: October 20, 2017, 06:32:17 PM
Quote from: TLLK on October 19, 2017, 08:07:42 PM
^^^Thanks for the explanation @amabel. I'd read that what is considered "hunting" has been banned in the UK. However don't groups get together now with the dogs and chase a fake fox?
YOu can't hunt with dogs. Not sure what the position is with horseback chasing. Probably there are "bloodless" hunts or paper chases.. forthose who enjoy the riding.
They seemed pretty cozy together in the Caribbean. Maybe they needed the alone time.
Lots more done yesterday, let me chime in....I dont wish to re-fight the JC thing again, but I do think ppl are looking at it differently, Im not suggesting a long term, multi year, romantic affair of the heart, im talking about someone at a low ebb in terms of self esteem in 86 (even I think the Prince William/JC ear similarity meaning an earlier fling being too far, IMO) and she was upset at her husbands affair, her penchant for older, powerful men(power being the ultimate aphrodisiac), and sticking it to Charles with her choice of a man, and one can see how the case of the compromising photos could have happened being seduced at a weak moment, like many other women have over the years by him.
As for Manakee, we'll never know for sure, but I dont think a 40 yr old man would think it was a good idea too to run away to another country if it was just being a shoulder to cry on, added to the body language in the interview, and even though didnt intend to make them public, I think she would have known how damaging it would be to say on tape she was adulterous. (remember it was Hewitts contribution to "Princess in Love" that forced her hand in Panorama)
I also agree with Charles not having any sexual jealousy over Diana's suitors, but I think would have been very upset over public loss of face, imo it was of poor taste for Diana to invite Hewitt to Charles 40th party, can you imagine the mushroom clouds that would have been over KP if Charles had invited Camilla to a Diana birthday party. I think some of her more rash behaviors was to try and get a response from Charles that would never come.
Ugh, please dont compare Diana to Hillary (although Barry and Vince met the same end) although Diana did dream of being first lady with Teddy in the White House, yes Teddy did cool to her, thinking she wanted him more for his money and position than himself personally.
I agree with RA that Diana did tend to go more for position than looks, although she did like tall, dark, well built men but was very forgiving in the hair department if you look at some of them (this was before the days when shaving ones head was a fashion option). Also the third child would have been a disaster in terms of keeping the marriage together.
Comparing JC to Harvey Weinstein is ludicrous, he preyed on women either through force or coercion, JC, AFAIK, used seduction, and I think he could handle a young beautiful woman with self esteem and parental issues unsure of her marriage and place in the world. She would have had security in Hewitt's affair if she could have "soldiered" :lol: through the deployment to Germany, he was primarily there to tend to Diana's emotional and physical needs rather than financial.
As for the stairs and the scars Diana herself admitted to them, and while she wasnt always truthful, since it wasnt complimentary to her, aside from her desire to look as in as dire straits as possible, it likely true, also you can see a scar on her arm in the House of dior event dress, also you can see leg scars in pics of her coming from the gym when shes wearing Spandex shorts and a jumper.
As for the virginity test, it was her uncle (who shot himself if I recall) that vouched for her virginity (very creepy in retrospect). Mostly the palace is worried about ex boyfriends coming out of the woodwork with stories. Although it wouldnt surprise me if the RF wouldnt have wanted a checkup to see if she would have any problems conceiving a child with marrying the heir to the throne, idk if they checked for virginity.
As for the attractiveness of the men involved, I think Charles had more to do with his position and the media hype about his quest for a wife and his "action man" character. I think the palace/media was trying to package him in order to have the most chance of finding a wife for him. Ppl that wernt around in the 70s wouldnt realize to see him now that at least in the press he was packaged as an eligible bachelor. While his face wasnt much to look at he was fit and lean, so he had that going for him, he was the male version of the "butterface" which many were able to overlook with his money and position.
I think both Camilla and Diana liked his position, power lifestyle and money, RA would know more about Camillas motives, but im guessing being close to the royals like her predecessor did was a motivation, and she may actually like some things about Charles. Diana also liked that she thought at the time he couldnt divorce her, a big plus for her, and like a lot of girls at the time was enthralled with him and his exploits in the papers and such. There was likely things about him she liked as well, but I think when the "trap door" of the marriage was sprung that it wasnt going to be a dream love match, that she and things went off the rails, both had lots of parental neglect and were in a poor position to give each other what they needed. They were two "takers" in terms of emotional support and needed a "giver" to balance things out.
As for APB, he was called by one royal biographer as" the best lay in london" so im guessing he was appealing to the ladies of the day.
As for when the fall happened, what does it matter? Again a fall down a flight of stairs does not equal guaranteed death, broken bones or hospitalization. :ugh:
Hewitt had those letters. I think what Diana did was a pre-emptive strike in Panorama.
Diana said no sexual affair with Mannakee and I believe her. It would have been far far to risky to sleep with a security officer in the employ of the royal family. She'd have been removed and despatched quickly IMO if she had. Everything would have been reported to the Queen and Charles. I think Diana was fantasizing about the man who would "rescue her" and it was just that no more than a fantasy. And she confided in him too much.
I know what happened to a friend who fell down a flight of stairs (not a large one either and in her own home!). She not only had broken bones she had to have surgery, she wore a neckbrace for a time, she stopped breathing for a time and had to go extensive occupational and physical therapy. Had Diana hurtled down ALL the stairs I think she definitely would have needed hospitalization. I don't think the average person thinks it "safe" to topple down a flight of stairs. It was just a few steps for Diana. It's a serious matter to topple down stairs!
I thought Diana and Fergie had fantasized about Mrs JFK Jr and dreamed of being in the White House. Or so I read.
Diana had something better than a lover in Forstmann IMO she had a friend.
I doubt very very much Diana hit the sheets with Juan Carlos. Why would she risk her security and custody by sneaking off with a lecherous older man. Her lovers Hewitt and Khan were a lot closer to her own age. Diana had some self respect and would not be another "bedpost notch" for JC. And how would she have had the sex with her husband and family and his wife and family there? Diana was not some nympho who just had to have it.
I put JC in the same category as Weinstein and Clinton. A serial womanizer. With issues.
DIana had money of her own and could have lived very comfortably even if she did not marry Prince Charles. Her future husband (if Charles had not proposed) would have been a wealthy commoner or wealthy aristo). Her sisters live very comfortably. Diana would have too. The luxuries for Diana as the Princess of Wales did not really make her happy--she wanted a happy marriage and children. I think Charles at the time needed her more than she needed him. He got turned down a few times and at 32 wanted to marry and have his heirs. Diana filled the bill.
Double post auto-merged: October 20, 2017, 10:11:53 PM
Is Fergie's killer aide plotting to spill her racy royal secrets? | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3103003/Is-Fergie-s-killer-aide-plotting-spill-racy-royal-secrets.html)
Interesting article about JFK Jr and Fergie "First Lady"
I used to horse ride a lot, coming from a rural district in the county of Norfolk. However, Norfolk isn't really fox hunting country. There are shoots there quite a lot (the blasting of birds out of the sky with shot guns by parties of males on country estates, like Sandringham.)
The Master of Foxhounds Association lists about 179 active hunts still, in England and Wales. Wales alone has over fifty. Fox hunting is still legal in NI, I believe. They do still hunt with dogs but lay false trails. One person told me it can be a vanilla type scent but I don't know if that's true.
William and Harry used to hunt in their teens, (and C&C and Anne) but in I think about 2004, fox hunting to kill foxes was banned in England and Wales, (banned in Scotland a year or two earlier) in spite of huge protests by people in the countryside.
I've only been once on a hunt and that was in the Lake District in my teens. Fox hunting there is something else! There are no horses involved, just a lot of climbing and clambering on foot up hills and down dales. It's Fell country, quite wild and barren and after a day doing that you need a week to recover! They had to practically carry me home and I was a lot fitter in those days than I am now! It's not really an aristo activity there, just groups of farmers who know the landscape.
I recall Charles protested the ban. But I doubt he'd return to foxhunting even if it were made legal again. He stopped playing polo so probably he would not fox hunt anymore.
Im sorry to hear about your friend, but it doesnt happen to everyone, like I said...my OWN mum....fell down a FULL flight.... of steep basement stairs....12 or 13 of them, i forget the exact amount...and not a broken bone or injured organ, although was stiff and sore. I heard the noise of it and saw her MYSELF at the bottom of the stairs myself. Not to mention stuntpeople do it all the time, not saying diana is one, but am saying there is a way for it to happen without serious injury, and yet also people can fall onto the floor the right way and hit their head and die, so its kind of a grab bag, depending on how you land.
Yes, Diana wouldnt have had to resort to eating cat food had she not married, however she still would have been exposed to the whole "find a good husband" culture of prior years, and status and social standing would have driven her, or her family to make sure she married well. Given her familys standing an equal or likely better standing man was what she was looking for. Classic hypergamy, its what keeps the species going, hard to fight tens of thousands of years of biology.
Quotees, Diana wouldnt have had to resort to eating cat food had she not married, however she still would have been exposed to the whole "find a good husband" culture of prior years, and status and social standing would have driven her, or her family to make sure she married well. Given her familys standing an equal or likely better standing man was what she was looking for. Classic hypergamy, its what keeps the species going, hard to fight tens of thousands of years of biology.
Truly survival of the fittest. I believe that Diana would have found someone to marry in her twenties or early thirties had she not become engaged to Charles. IMO it would have been a traditional marriage like her sisters have had. Someone who would have likely been a little older, perhaps in the military, banking, a doctor or even a courtier etc...who would be wealthy enough to support a wife/family and not really require her to have a high paying career. She could continue with volunteer work with charities and her children's school. In other words Sarah/Jane's life 3.0.
She would have as a default or fallback position, but given her comments to the photo equipment manager for the Spencers, and her saying when she grew up shed like to be a dancer or Princess of Wales, and things like what Stephen Barry said about her being so determined, I think had Charles passed on her Andrew and/or Edward would have had their hands full LOL.
One gets the sense that she had a very small list of suitable men in her mind, but I do agree with you
@TLLK that following Sarah & Jane and marrying someone like Adam Russel who was "good enough" and fancied her would have been the "best" for her, although I wonder if at middle age, if shed have felt a nagging doubt about not marrying a royal, had she gone that route, and ultimately doomed the marriage. I hope not.
As awful as it was, what she went through, one cannot deny, was like a crucible, it tempered her into a powerful force for change and good, that would have been lacking had she followed other womens paths. Like her thoughts earlier on, she knew something profound was coming her way..... :flower:
I don't think Diana really regretted marrying Charles. He was the eligible bachelor to beat them all. He opened up a world that she would never have experienced had she remained Lady Diana Spencer or married some relatively obscure posh bloke.
If she had a do-over, I actually think Diana would have remained the Princess of Wales. She would now see that the things she saw as life changing calamities could be handled better and dealt with more discreetly. She would also know the secret to Charles and the BRF.
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on October 22, 2017, 04:34:34 AM
She would have as a default or fallback position, but given her comments to the photo equipment manager for the Spencers, and her saying when she grew up shed like to be a dancer or Princess of Wales, and things like what Stephen Barry said about her being so determined, I think had Charles passed on her Andrew and/or Edward would have had their hands full LOL.
One gets the sense that she had a very small list of suitable men in her mind, but I do agree with you @TLLK that following Sarah & Jane and marrying someone like Adam Russel who was "good enough" and fancied her would have been the "best" for her, although I wonder if at middle age, if shed have felt a nagging doubt about not marrying a royal, had she gone that route, and ultimately doomed the marriage. I hope not.
As awful as it was, what she went through, one cannot deny, was like a crucible, it tempered her into a powerful force for change and good, that would have been lacking had she followed other womens paths. Like her thoughts earlier on, she knew something profound was coming her way..... :flower:
You left out one little bit of important information Diana saying she wanted to be a ballet dancer or Princess of Wales. Diana had told her nanny that she never wanted to be divorced and Charles was the one person as Prince of Wales everyone knew this could never be allowed to divorce.
Oh the irony. :no: Prince Charles was the one person guaranteed to divorce Diana, if only she knew the half of it. It is actually amazing that they lasted that long. Given the fundamentals of that marriage, I would have given them three years max. Had they been an ordinary couple, they would have divorced within two years.
Quote from: Trudie on October 22, 2017, 03:02:39 PM
You left out one little bit of important information Diana saying she wanted to be a ballet dancer or Princess of Wales. Diana had told her nanny that she never wanted to be divorced and Charles was the one person as Prince of Wales everyone knew this could never be allowed to divorce.
I left it out, because it isnt applicable to the intended point, which was that copying Jane/Sarah would have been a last resort or safety position for Diana in terms of marital prospects if Charles had not married her, that she was determined to be a part of the royal family.
I agree with RA in that she ended up getting the very thing she didnt want by marrying Charles, and that without having to keep the charade up for the public it would have ended much sooner. Had she gone more for some of the boys that were keen on her, shed have likely ended up happier but perhaps less fulfilled in terms of a sense of destiny she felt so often.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 22, 2017, 04:59:16 PM
Oh the irony. :no: Prince Charles was the one person guaranteed to divorce Diana, if only she knew the half of it. It is actually amazing that they lasted that long. Given the fundamentals of that marriage, I would have given them three years max. Had they been an ordinary couple, they would have divorced within two years.
Yes, because he married her knowing he preferred the other woman. He did need to stay with her so he could have the heir and the spare. Charles should have told her everything before the proposal so she could have known all of it.
I think Diana would have gotten the marriage annulled had she not been a royal--after she saw those cufflinks from Camilla he wore on the honeymoon. Some women would not have hesitated a minute and dumped the guy.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 22, 2017, 07:29:47 AM
I don't think Diana really regretted marrying Charles. He was the eligible bachelor to beat them all. He opened up a world that she would never have experienced had she remained Lady Diana Spencer or married some relatively obscure posh bloke.
If she had a do-over, I actually think Diana would have remained the Princess of Wales. She would now see that the things she saw as life changing calamities could be handled better and dealt with more discreetly. She would also know the secret to Charles and the BRF.
It is drastically unfortunate that Charles and the BRF have a secret. :( :(
It was one thing to have the title of Princess of Wales another thing to be with a man who was distant and be in a loveless marriage for the rest of her life. I think if she had put up and shut up she would have been miserable.
I don't think Diana was determined to become a royal so much as she wanted a marriage that was loving and stable with no divorce option. Diana made it clear from an early age she never wanted to be divorced and at the time of her marriage the belief was there could never be a divorce. With that in mind yes Diana wanted Charles but he totally mislead her into believing she was special and he loved her the shame was he was in love with Camilla and only thought of Diana was suitable for his heirs.
Well if thats so, it does say a lot about her lack of belief in herself being someone worth marrying, and also the lack of faith she had in other men, that she wouldnt be able to marry someone who wouldnt divorce her unless the law forbade it.
One can understand that her parents divorce would color her outlook on marriage, and the general increase of divorce during the 60s and 70s, but usually if one is that concerned about a bad marriage outcome, they usually just dont marry. Its not the typical response to such a concern to take the drastic step of marrying someone who by law couldnt divorce her.
As much as we go on about how Diana felt about Charles having an agenda, what about (and I cant believe im mentioning it, maybe its just the day, or thinking about it from a different angle) how he may have felt about someone marrying him for, as the previous posts suggest, only the fact that by law he cant divorce her(or as they believed back in the day)??? Imagine how youd feel if someone wanted to be around you only because you cant make them go away?
Interesting food for thought, and I think Diana sold herself very short in that regard, of seeing herself as someone worth loving and marrying :flower:
I do believe that Diana was head over heels in love with Charles. However, like many nineteen year olds I also believe that she had a totally unrealistic view of what marriage entails, especially a Royal marriage.
This was combined with not knowing Charles very well, and vice versa, plus the fairy tales spun by Ms Cartland about strong silent heroes who gave up their former lives and mistresses in favour of pure and innocent maidens they could take into the rosy sunset of 'Happy Ever After Land'.
I think Diana was traumatised by the divorce and her mother seeming to abandon her and was absolutely determined that this wasn't going to happen to her and her future children. We look at the BRF now and it's littered with the corpses of failed marriages.
In those days it was very different. The only person anywhere near the throne who was divorced was Margaret. (After she joined the BRF Diana may have discovered that Anne's union wasn't the greatest, but that was afterwards.)
So Diana wasn't too far off the mark in believing that she would never be a divorcee. I can remember back to those days and the decades before, where attitudes prevailed among the the population that the BRF represented the very best of the nation's domestic life. The idea that a Prince of Wales would divorce was akin to heresy!
Charles should just plain have told her what was expected in a royal marriage. And his idea was being able to see Camilla and continue having her as the special friend. He also was unrealistic in his expectations. HE expected her to have just cooperated after all he may have thought he married her didn't he and she should feel honored. I don't think it is unrealistic for Diana to have expected fidelity. It was not just that there could be no divorce but she thought it would be blissful and he would be committed to her and to her only. Mountbatten must have read Cartland because he had that view of marriage, the man getting it all out of his system by having a variety of mistresses (to sleep with but not to marry) and meet the virginal young woman who has had no experience. Only he pictured his granddaughter Amanda as the Cartland heroine. I think there were many unrealistic expectations to go around.
You both bring up some interesting points but the root issue that she felt she needed someone who it was thought to be impossible to get divorced from her vs feeling confident that she either picked the right person and/or her faith and ability to be a good wife is one worth considering more.
I think it left her open to a very small pool of suitors and just like her post divorce life, the traits those men have to either be in or obtain the necessary resources/status/etc. makes them poor husbands in the way she wanted them to be.
As for Mountbatten i dont know if he read Cartland, that was the prevalent view for most of history, young men sowed their wild oats to prove their status, and women were "tidy" to secure the best men and to be choosy about the few offspring one can have in a lifetime.
I agree that the combination of her expecting him to change his whole life for her, and he expecting her to just be honored to be "along for the ride" was a recipe for disaster.
A young woman like Diana would have a short list of suitors since she is from an aristo family. Her potential husband would ideally come from an aristo family, the family would have some wealth, and could not be the average middle class man who works 9 to 5 to support his family and lives in the "suburbs" or could only afford a 2 bedroom apartment. She could work briefly pre-marriage then settle down.
I think Mountbatten maybe had more of a "Gigi" scenario where Charles watches Amanda growing up and then one day notices she is a grown up young woman. Charles wrote his great uncle that he found Amanda "disturbingly beautiful."
There is something inherently pathetic and sad about a woman that insists the man must remain with her because there is a ring on her finger and because society will disapprove. Ditto for the idea that a man or marrying him can make you happy or fulfill your dreams. That is just childish sentimentality. Diana was living in fantasy and could not cope with the reality when it hit her.
I refuse to believe that Diana imagined Charles loved her unconditionally and exclusively. She said he actually told Camilla that he would always love her on the phone. That was proof enough that she was never his first choice but she still married him. I think that has something to do with his position.
Diana wanted to marry the POW as the position because that is what she had dreamed off since her teens. Charles' personality or emotional baggage was not about to stop her. There is no question about that. Even towards the end, she still wanted to remain married to POW the position despite the fact that Charles the man had completely turned against her and could not even bear to be in the same house with her. Her big mistake was thinking she could change him and see off Camilla.
As I understand it, Charles did not sleep with Camilla throughout the marriage as some people dramatically claim. He slowly started drifting away from Diana as the marriage went on and the quarrels continued. He then went back to Camilla. Diana in her disturbed state was not even aware he was drifting away until it was too late. She then tried to rescue the situation by different but ultimately unsuccessful means including entreaties, reporting him to his parents, using the children as bait, publish shaming and threats.
Something else to think about: Normally it is the older woman trying to desperately assert her rights in a failing marriage. She has lost her looks and is now on the verge of being abandoned after spending her years building the home. Her last hope is the institution of marriage, social disapproval and her children. Diana who was young and beautiful ended up using this pathetic defense of her marriage. She became the bitter avenging ex who is perpetually complaining about how wronged she was by her escaping husband.
Instead it was the older woman who was seen as not being bitter, easygoing and generally not causing trouble. Diana was trying to appeal to Charles' head whilst Camilla the older woman was appealing to his heart. Very, very strange role reversal.
Diana heard Charles on the phone to Camilla in his bath telling her (Camilla) he would always love her after she married him not before. Charles wanted a wife so he almost certainly told Diana the same. Diana had dreamed of marrying the POW 'since her teens'. Er, she was still a teenager when they became engaged. And Charles needed to be married for all the reasons that have been endlessly discussed here, so at the very least he needed Diana to marry him just as much as Diana wanted to marry him. He wasn't bestowing his hand in some selfless act of public kindness because a young girl loved him .
And, as I've said before many times, the majority of Camilla's huge appeal to Charles is that she stokes his ego, tends his needy Eeyorish nature, listens to his long interminable philosophising about life, and jokes him out of his depressive jags.
Good for her, but I certainly wouldn't want to do it. He would exhaust me within an hour whatever his position and rank. I've never had much patience and Charles's persona would be guaranteed to drive me round the bend. He quite obviously had the same effect on Diana, who wouldn't play the 'soothing the Great Man's Brow' activity that he so obviously wants and needs.
If as you say, his personality drove her round the bend; why was she so devastated when he left the family home? I would have thought that that would have been an ideal situation for her. He was no longer in her face and someone else was dealing with his mood swings.
My own view is that Diana wanted to be married to the POW as a position and concept. The man was an entirely different matter. When she realized she couldn't control him and make him what she wanted, the child in her was awoken. "If I can't have him, nobody else will...especially HER!"
Another way of putting it is this: Diana was an exceptional effective Princess of Wales and an exceptionally bad wife to Charles Windsor. Just like Charles is an exceptional Prince of Wales and was an exceptionally bad husband to Diana.
At that point it then becomes a case of who has much to lose from a divorce. In the end it was Diana. That is why some women decide that they will just make the best of a bad situation rather than make a fuss. Diana was not prepared to do that and paid the price for her decision.
Quote from: sandy on October 24, 2017, 09:37:04 PM
A young woman like Diana would have a short list of suitors since she is from an aristo family. Her potential husband would ideally come from an aristo family, the family would have some wealth, and could not be the average middle class man who works 9 to 5 to support his family and lives in the "suburbs" or could only afford a 2 bedroom apartment. She could work briefly pre-marriage then settle down.
I think Mountbatten maybe had more of a "Gigi" scenario where Charles watches Amanda growing up and then one day notices she is a grown up young woman. Charles wrote his great uncle that he found Amanda "disturbingly beautiful."
It is interesting that Charles found Amanda
DISTURBINGLY beautiful. Did he not realize his future marriage would have numerous disturbances?
Diana was devastated because, unlike Charles, she had had dreams of a happy married life and was still in love with her spouse. She was also aware, unlike Charles, of what the absence of a parent does to a child. Charles was apparently unconcerned when he first left that he wouldn't be seeing his sons every day. Several of his biographers have also remarked that for a long period of time in Harry and William's childhoods he wasnt seeing very much of them. Much as he doesn't apparently see that much of his grandchildren today.
Certainly, Diana chose not to be a Queen Sophia or Queen Sylvia, and good on her. Charles had power in the aftermath of the divorce because of his position as the monarch's son and Prince of Wales. That has nothing to do with the person, the human being himself, just his rank.
You know, I always tell people to think with their heads and feel with their hearts. If you start feeling with your head (Charles) or thinking with your heart (Diana); you are going to make some pretty bad decisions.
Had Diana carefully considered the advantages/disadvantages of being married to Charles as opposed to the advantages/disadvantages of being divorced from him; she might have made a much more considered decision.
As it happened, she lashed out. She was the independent woman going to make the man pay for abandoning her. If she could not slice his clothes, she would slice his reputation. She paid a very heavy price for that decision.
In the end Diana was lonely, unsatisfied and hounded. Charles went off in the sunset with his lover. Diana actually unilaterally vacated her role as Princess of Wales with Panorama. That was the beginning of the process that culminated in Camilla's wedding in 2005. Syliva and Sophia have not given the mistresses any such space.
I completely disagree with the notion that Charles had to remain with Diana in order to see the children. He never divorced his children and has never indicated that he does not love them completely. Many women make the mistake of using the children as bait. "Stay with me or else you lose the kids". Even worse "Stay with me please...it is for the kids after all". When you start such tactics, you know that yours is no longer a healthy marriage.
I find it interesting that people assume Charles never wanted a happy marriage. Of course he wanted a happy marriage and never got it. That is why he left. Saying that it is Diana who put in all the effort is a perfect illustration of people not understanding what makes a marriage. It takes two both to work and fail. Diana accepted she had 50% of the blame for the break up of that marriage.
And has Charles ever indicated that he accepted 50% of the blame for his failed first marriage?
I know perfectly well what constitutes a happy and a miserable marriage. We have already discussed the humiliation inherent in Sophia of Spain and Sylvia of Sweden's shells of marriages. No woman should have to put up with what these two have gone through and they've received sympathy for it all.
Why is it preferable for women to lie in the dust and allow their spouses to stomp all over them and never speak out? If Diana had never spoken then Camilla and Charles would have remained squeaky clean and unaccused of adultery. Whyy would that have been preferable to telling the truth about them? They were sleeping together for years when they both had spouses and children.
There have been several little snippets in biographies of Charles (even by sympathetic authors) that there were periods of time after the defacto separation in which he did not see his sons very often.
Charles did not want to be in the same room as her nor she with him. He put her down in public. His mistress played hostess. Why would she want to stay, no hope of having any sort of real relationship? Just living in a sham, with relationships that could go nowhere if theoretically she and her husband decided not to divorce.
Diana was not lonely and unsatisfied at the end. She was starting over. Her friends say she was optimistic about the future. She did not sit in her home and do nothing.
Charles and Diana shared custody. No question of either of them being deprived of seeing the children.
Diana never said stay for the children. The two of course were concerned about the children after the separation and divorce.
Diana left too. She could not be in such a relationship. Charles wanted a marriage his way or the highway. He admitted going into the marriage not loving Diana. What else is there to know. If he wanted a happy marriage he would not have kept up his relationship with Camilla and would have stopped contacting her. If he thought about Diana, he would not have pursued a marriage knowing he preferred someone else. Smith wrote that he married to get heirs otherwise he may not have married at all.
Diana never "vacated" her role as Princess of Wales. Camilla pushed her way in and played hostess at Highgrove in the wife's absence. Charles vacated his being a real husband after he got the heir and spare.
Diana was in a relationship with Khan at the time of the divorce. Diana died at age 36 had she lived she might have gotten remarried before Charles did. It took a long time for Charles to marry Camilla one reason is his grandmother did not want a C and C marriage in her lifetime. And Camilla needed to work with Bolland for a few years. Charles went off into the sunset with his lover when he felt it OK to bed his friend's wife.
Charles sliced his own reputation. What sort of a man gets involved with his friends' wives? ANd does not marry for love, just to get heirs, and keeps the married mistress.
C and C seem the ones bitter cooperating with Penny Junor and trashing the late ex wife.
@Curryong. I actually think speaking out ended up harming Diana more than helping her. Certainly Sylvia and Sophia are in a much better position than she was in between 1989 and 1997. She lost it all and even her life...in order to make a point about women's rights? I say...good luck with the martyrdom. I certainly prefer to be alive with all the privileges of a princess than the kind of chaos that Diana was experiencing in the last months of her life. Besides it was not as if Charles was in her face or refused her to take her own lovers during the marriage. She just wanted to take things to the next level in a kind of upmanship which she ultimately lost. The Princess of Wales role is not one that is suited to a feminist. You play the feminist game in it at your peril.
That rigidity about what constitutes a good marriage is what ultimately proved to be Diana's downfall. The reality is that many people make compromises in order to make their marriages work. If you insist that it is your husband or his mistress who is the problem then you must be prepared for the possibility that he will leave you for her. That is exactly what Charles did. You become bitter and unpleasant as the man gradually drifts out of the house. Eventually leaves and you spend a good proportion of your life complaining about your lot.
You are quite right that Charles has never explicitly said "I take 50% of the blame" but neither has he ever explicitly blamed his wife. He has simply said the marriage broke down and he regretted proposing to Diana. I don't expect him to use Diana's words or modes of expression because they are different people. Likewise I did not expect that a private matter should have been made public. C&D made the mistake of making the private public and the public private. That is how their marriage went down the drain. Other marriages have survived those challenges because the participants are pragmatic.
As for the children: why was Charles seeing less of the children when Diana was alive and more when she was dead? Could it be that she was using them as bait? When he comes to see them, she perhaps goes off into a litany of complaints about him and their marriage? Or deliberately changes schedules to see the children to punish him? Many women do that and it is wrong. Children are not bait or bargaining chips. Even parents who do not pay child support have a right to see their children.
Indeed someone wrote that one of the reasons for the formal separation in 1992 was because Diana had played around with a visitation schedule and Charles got fed up. He insisted that they had to have things in writing so that she would not use the children to keep him on a leash. Apparently he would arrange to have dinner with them and then she would send a message down that they were going to have dinner with her.
Double post auto-merged: October 25, 2017, 11:55:06 AM
@sandy. I consider that Diana lost out. Her marriage, titles and position started to drift away after Panorama. All that she retained were her children and popular support among her fans. The rest all went to Camilla. If that is a victory then I hate to think what a defeat would have been for her.
Of course she was lonely. That is why she was making crank calls to a married man and playing media games on her holiday. She was bored before going on a trip with Dodi because her own class of nobles were no longer inviting her to events after her divorce. The holiday season was when people were with their families. Diana would spend Christmas alone and even her birthday alone, brooding in KP. All she had was the celebrity humanitarian coterie which can be quite false and superficial. If you watch her images on that yacht and even in the Ritz lift, this is a desperately unhappy woman. She had not found her triumph or love.
It is a bitter pill to swallow for her fans but at that precise moment Camilla was enjoying domesticity at Highgrove and later on Clarence House. Even when not married she was effectively Charles' wife and enjoyed all the privileges of being his wife. I think Camilla's 50th birthday showed Diana in exact terms what she had lost. Her exit heralded the formal entrance of the "other woman". In my view, Diana miscalculated and made the wrong decision. Her desire for revenge and public expression ended up eating her up.
Royal, you always write as if Charles had an absolute right, almost an obligation to go and be with Camilla when he was married to another woman, after he decided he wasn't in love with Diana any more.
In what alternate universe is a supposed obligation to a mistress placed far above a lawful wife. Diana, not Camilla, was the woman with whom he had stood before the altar at St Pauls and pledged to 'forsake all others' for 'as long as Ye both shall live.' Those vows don't say 'I'll be Just forsaking all others until I've decided I don't love my wife, never loved her and regret that I married her, so I'll then return to my former mistress!'
What happened to putting 200% effort into trying to save a union that has produced two still small children? What happened to 'We can go to counselling together and work through everything. And if we can't I'm not going to see my mistress or communicate with her until there is a legal separation because it just wouldn't be fair'.
I am going to ask a question here? Do you really believe that the input of Camilla Parker Bowles on the Wales marriage did not have a negative effect.
And if you agree that it did, would it not have been far more fair and honourable for those two to have desisted from seeing each other until their marriages were legally over?
Charles had no right or obligation to leave his wife for Camilla. It was immoral and selfish. Just like ordinary married men have no right or obligation to snore, have smelly feet, be a bit selfish about childcare responsibilities, over-eat, over-drink, hog the family television with sports and ogle at alluring glamour models etc. The thing is that these are human failings. There is no perfect husband. What you consider to be a perfect husband could be very different in private. Just because his wife does not complain does not mean there are no problems.
A cooler head would have reflected as follows: "Ok Charles has a long term lover who he is still deeply attached to. But he has not yet slept with her (as far as I am aware) since he married me. He pays the bills, has given me a wonderful job and these amazing children. I have a platform to really show off my talents and give to the world. Whatever Camilla's attachments to him, she is still nothing more than the mistress. He married me in front of the world. What is the best way of dealing with this situation without giving up my position as Charles' wife?"
Diana did not reflect coolly. What she perceived was: "This guy has taken away my youth and does not love me unconditionally. He is attached to that woman. They have used me. Even if they are not sleeping together now, they are bound to sleep together. I will be as difficult as possible to try and get him away from her. If he refuses to play ball, I will make both their lives hell. I will show him that the public is on my side".
Women who think coolly end up like Alexandra, Sylvia and Sophia. The ones that take Diana's route are the bitter exes that do strange things to punish their ex husbands. Diana had a glorious moment in the sun where Republicans and Feminists praised her for her courage and showing up the monarchy. However, it was only a moment. Soon the price started setting in and it was a heavy price. Her horror situation of Camilla taking away her marriage, life and title became a self-fulfilling prophesy.
CPB would have been nothing more than a mistress that he might have forgotten like Kanga had Diana not taken the emotional route to her problems. The more she blamed, castigated and shamed Charles; the further he drifted away and the closer he came to Camilla. I think that was a great miscalculation on Diana's part. I doubt that in 1983 Charles had any plans of making Camilla his wife and queen. That idea started gaining speed as Diana fought her battles with him. He now conceived the idea that "Diana's gotta go, whatever the cost" and "I will not give up the other one because she is the one that makes my life comfortable".
Camilla was Mistress 2.0 she did not sit back, she put down the wife, she spoke to the Sun Editor, and undermined the wife every step of the way. It does not matter if Camilla and Charles slept with each other early on. Camilla and Charles had an emotional attachment. And he did not stop contacting her.
Not surprisingly, the women who put up and shut up are not admired by feminists. Alexandra was not happy that her husband ran around on her. she used passive aggression on him and was sickly from various illnesses and a difficult childbirth. Her husband had a "harem" of mistresses but not one of them got pushy like Camilla and insulted the royal wife. Any of Edward's mistress that got above herself and placed her rear end on Alexandra's hostess chair would have been unceremoniously ousted. Charles had a mistress who ruled the roost and insulted the wife. Different scenarios.
The 'long suffering' wives are not admired. One notch away from that is physical abuse and a wife would have mental issues if she stuck in a marriage where a husband treated her like dirt and it was OK as long as he paid the bills and was nice to her sometimes. WOmen today have careers and are encouraged to earn their own keep. Nobody should put up with a man who has mistresses. And this is abuse of the wife IMO.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 24, 2017, 11:12:20 PM
If as you say, his personality drove her round the bend; why was she so devastated when he left the family home? I would have thought that that would have been an ideal situation for her. He was no longer in her face and someone else was dealing with his mood swings.
My own view is that Diana wanted to be married to the POW as a position and concept. The man was an entirely different matter. When she realized she couldn't control him and make him what she wanted, the child in her was awoken. "If I can't have him, nobody else will...especially HER!"
Another way of putting it is this: Diana was an exceptional effective Princess of Wales and an exceptionally bad wife to Charles Windsor. Just like Charles is an exceptional Prince of Wales and was an exceptionally bad husband to Diana.
At that point it then becomes a case of who has much to lose from a divorce. In the end it was Diana. That is why some women decide that they will just make the best of a bad situation rather than make a fuss. Diana was not prepared to do that and paid the price for her decision.
It was not a Rhett Butler moment when Charles stalked out of the door. No, they had been living separate lives for years. Charles did not dramatically "walk out on her." They were still married but lived in separate residences, did fewer royal duties together but came together for some official royal occasions. Diana said that she and Charles tried to keep up appearances during the time they led separate lives.
Bad situation? I would say it was an impossible situation. An estranged husband who puts the wife down, the wife who could not move on because divorce was discouraged and had no real future with other men (like settling down to a marriage with Hewitt for instance) because she would have lost custody. I think Camilla herself would not have tolerated the "arrangement" for long and become more pushy as far as her "entitlements" and would usurp more of Diana's duties like playing hostess at royal residences. Charles would become nastier to his estranged wife and Diana would feel she was in a no win situation that she could never leave. Why is it that wives must put up and shut up? It was not the 15th century where women were treated with great disrespect and considered "property."
Diana moved on during the separation. Her friends said she was optimistic after the divorce and was able to have a serious relationship with Hasnet Khan. She did not say Oh I want Charles back. She moved on. And I don't blame her.
Charles was involved with his friends' wives before Diana. He had a nasty habit that he should have tried to deal with before he even thought of getting married.
And the constant talk of Diana marrying for the title is refuted by her caring when Charles showed no signs of stop seeing his mistress. If she married for the title she'd have shown Charles the door and said, go have fun with Camilla. DOn't hurry back. And Charles had a pool of candidates and Diana was on that list. Diana was not some scheming gold digger, she was an aristo with a title of her own.
Double post auto-merged: October 25, 2017, 09:53:30 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 25, 2017, 11:39:40 AM
@Curryong. I actually think speaking out ended up harming Diana more than helping her. Certainly Sylvia and Sophia are in a much better position than she was in between 1989 and 1997. She lost it all and even her life...in order to make a point about women's rights? I say...good luck with the martyrdom. I certainly prefer to be alive with all the privileges of a princess than the kind of chaos that Diana was experiencing in the last months of her life. Besides it was not as if Charles was in her face or refused her to take her own lovers during the marriage. She just wanted to take things to the next level in a kind of upmanship which she ultimately lost. The Princess of Wales role is not one that is suited to a feminist. You play the feminist game in it at your peril.
That rigidity about what constitutes a good marriage is what ultimately proved to be Diana's downfall. The reality is that many people make compromises in order to make their marriages work. If you insist that it is your husband or his mistress who is the problem then you must be prepared for the possibility that he will leave you for her. That is exactly what Charles did. You become bitter and unpleasant as the man gradually drifts out of the house. Eventually leaves and you spend a good proportion of your life complaining about your lot.
You are quite right that Charles has never explicitly said "I take 50% of the blame" but neither has he ever explicitly blamed his wife. He has simply said the marriage broke down and he regretted proposing to Diana. I don't expect him to use Diana's words or modes of expression because they are different people. Likewise I did not expect that a private matter should have been made public. C&D made the mistake of making the private public and the public private. That is how their marriage went down the drain. Other marriages have survived those challenges because the participants are pragmatic.
As for the children: why was Charles seeing less of the children when Diana was alive and more when she was dead? Could it be that she was using them as bait? When he comes to see them, she perhaps goes off into a litany of complaints about him and their marriage? Or deliberately changes schedules to see the children to punish him? Many women do that and it is wrong. Children are not bait or bargaining chips. Even parents who do not pay child support have a right to see their children.
Indeed someone wrote that one of the reasons for the formal separation in 1992 was because Diana had played around with a visitation schedule and Charles got fed up. He insisted that they had to have things in writing so that she would not use the children to keep him on a leash. Apparently he would arrange to have dinner with them and then she would send a message down that they were going to have dinner with her.
Double post auto-merged: October 25, 2017, 11:55:06 AM
@sandy. I consider that Diana lost out. Her marriage, titles and position started to drift away after Panorama. All that she retained were her children and popular support among her fans. The rest all went to Camilla. If that is a victory then I hate to think what a defeat would have been for her.
Of course she was lonely. That is why she was making crank calls to a married man and playing media games on her holiday. She was bored before going on a trip with Dodi because her own class of nobles were no longer inviting her to events after her divorce. The holiday season was when people were with their families. Diana would spend Christmas alone and even her birthday alone, brooding in KP. All she had was the celebrity humanitarian coterie which can be quite false and superficial. If you watch her images on that yacht and even in the Ritz lift, this is a desperately unhappy woman. She had not found her triumph or love.
It is a bitter pill to swallow for her fans but at that precise moment Camilla was enjoying domesticity at Highgrove and later on Clarence House. Even when not married she was effectively Charles' wife and enjoyed all the privileges of being his wife. I think Camilla's 50th birthday showed Diana in exact terms what she had lost. Her exit heralded the formal entrance of the "other woman". In my view, Diana miscalculated and made the wrong decision. Her desire for revenge and public expression ended up eating her up.
The "married man" pursued Diana. Yet Diana is made to look like a stalker when the whole history of the relationship is not examined. DIana did not break up the marriage. Hoare of his own volition spent time with Diana, pursued her and did not run from her. Both were adults and neither were 'forced'.
The issue with Hoare was over at the time of Diana's divorce when she was involved with Dr. Hasnet Khan. He was single, she was on the point of divorce and she was in love with him. So why are the calls rehashed...again? It was not at the time of the divorce.
Charles apparently was rather mixed up and he did stray...with Janet Jenkins during the nineties.
Why would she want the "nobles." They were the ones who helped Charles find trysting places with his mistress. Why would she want them?
I think Dr. Khan was FAR superior to those "nobles" who contributed little compared to Dr. Khan.
Dodi was a Summer 1997 involvement, what would have happened between them down the road will never be known.
Diana was not a 'reject." i dont' get the put downs of her.
Charles BTW despite being so "superior" was rejected by various young women before he courted Diana.
Camilla was not Charles' wife until 2005. She was dating CHarles, she was not even engaged to him. She was technically still his mistress albeit an unmarried one. He had to wait for years to be able to marry her. No, she was not in effect his wife until 2005.
It's like saying Diana was his "wife" while he was dating her.
Camilla did not enjoy any royal privileges before she married Charles. She could not sit with him and the boys at the Queen's Jubilee celebrations, she was not invited to Charles' birthday party given by his parents, Mrs Van Cutsem did not allow her to sit with Charles and so on. She had no royal status. No, she was not his wife.
Diana had friends to spend with on her birthday, she had her sons. Did you wish the woman misery? Why? I hope she had wonderful parties. She did not need that loser Charles to enjoy life.
I think being emotionally attached to one woman when you propose to another and then decide to leave a few years later because you can't live up to your vows is on quite a different level to hogging the TV and having smelly feet.
Charles wasn't prepared to fight for his marriage to Diana or give up Camilla while he was married. He wasn't prepared to go that extra mile to preserve a union that he himself had voluntarily entered into. Nor was Camilla prepared to exit, once Charles had committed adultery with her. That's just dishonourable and heartless behaviour in my view.
You say that there are no perfect marriages or perfect husbands and that is true. You then castigate Diana for acting with her heart and emotions when she felt completely betrayed. And betrayed by everyone including those of her husband's friends that she felt she did have some connection with like Emillie Van Cutsem, who offered her home to Charles and Camilla as sanctuary.
I except Alexandra out of the equation as she lived in completely different times when she was betrayed. However, with Sylvia and Sophia how many other women would turn into calculating machines and coolly add up pros and cons when faced with continuing on in marriages like theirs?
How many women would be prepared to be like Sophia and stay with her husband she can scarcely stand to be near for the rest of her life? She, I believe, was brought up in a very conservative religious tradition by a strict mother and married into another strict religion. So, at least she has the comfort of her religion. It says something about Juan Carlos's behaviour towards her that even then she was prepared at times to leave him.
As for Sylvia, I do believe that position and rank are important to her. And so she has stayed with a sleazy man who treated her with contempt, ground her self respect into the mud, never shows her affection in public and I would guess is the same in private. Let's hope she thinks the price of living like that until death is worth it, because it's a price few women nowadays would be prepared to pay.
Juan Carlos was fond of Sophia when they wed but made it clear I think that he could not marry other than into royal blood. It was in many senses an arrangement. Carl Gustav was in love with Sylvia when they married. Neither of these women stood at the altar with a man who was bound heart and soul to another woman.
Camilla was always Diana's worst nightmare as she suspected Charles's feelings for Camilla from the start. However, Diana was in love with Charles from the start. That was her tragedy. In a way she may well have stuck to the marriage if Charles had behaved as Juan Carlos and CG did, like pigs in rutting season. It was the emotional component that Diana couldn't deal with. In a way many women, especially in the past can deal with men who stray from woman to woman, because they can then rationale it too themselves at the end with, as Queen Alexandra reputedly said on her husband's death 'After all, he still loved me best'. (Only he didn't!)
However, a long term mistress that your husband has been in love with from before the marriage and continued to be emotionally attached to? I don't think too many wives are prepared to coolly sit down with a note book and put down pros and cons of preserving the marriage under those circumstances. Wives, including Diana, aren't calculating machines but are (as are husbands) human beings first and foremost. And Diana reacted in a very human way.
Yes I agree Diana reacted in a human way and it was definitely the enduring emotional attachment to Camilla that drove her to the edge. However, I think that it is always a case of deciding what is important to you. Not many women get the privileges that a Princess of Wales get and there is a price for those privileges.
You do not get to live the "normal" family fantasy in a position like that. The price for Diana when she decided to "go it alone" was very steep not only in terms of the loss of those privileges but in the changes in her personality which ensured that she could never ever have a mature long lasting relationship.
She was always grasping, demanding, controlling and manipulating in all her subsequent relationships because she was frightened of being left behind. Every failed relationship would bring a silent "I told you so" from her detractors who would say she was always impossible to be with. (I say this despite Sandy's spirited attempt to put a positive spin on Diana's rather chaotic love life). No Khan, Hewitt, Hoare or Manake was ever going to be a sufficient replacement for the loss of Charles.
In any case I am not too sure that Diana wanted or could cope with the life of an independent divorcee without any attachment to the royal family. She needed them and the cache that came with that position, hence the bitterness about the HRH title.
Ironically of all those men that she sought comfort from, it was ultimately Charles who collected her from Paris. The others were somehow inadequate for the occasion. After the POW, Diana had nowhere else to go because she had been at the ceiling. Every other suitor would ultimately be unsuitable and a downgrade of sorts.
Diana's decision to vacate her position and marriage opened the way for Camilla to have a prominent role. I still feel it was a miscalculation on Diana's part.
I believe that, primarily, Charles collected Diana's body from Paris because he had had children with her. If there had been no William and Harry I think Charles would have left the arrangements to the Spencers, even if his marriage had lasted for the same length of time.
All the men you cite were romances that were contracted in the chaos of her marriage and its immediate aftermath. Manakee was dead. Khan rolled on into that last year of Diana's life but there were ultimately too many cultural and family issues in the way.
Diana was still under forty and only a year had passed since she gained her freedom when she died. We don't know who may have been in her future, British or continental Duke, prominent American politician or businessman, who knows?
Freedom? I really doubt Diana gained any freedom or that she wanted that kind of "freedom". The paparazzi intensified their harassment once she was no longer an HRH and they knew that she was practically estranged from the BRF. Had she still been the Princess of Wales, nobody would dare chase her on Paris Streets. Diana was not "free" after her divorce. Neither did I ever believe she wanted that divorce as a means of escape. Panorama was reacting to Dimbleby but she was completely devastated when it was taken as an opportunity to call for a divorce. She was just lashing out, not really wanting it to end.
Although Diana died quite young, her life was a microcosm of many unresolved issues in terms of her ability to deal with rejection and to handle a mature relationship. I do not think that she would have changed that much from when she was 30 to when she was 45. Perhaps she might have been more patient and realistic but the basic personality would still be there...the frightened child who does not want to be left behind again.
No "British or continental Duke, prominent American politician or businessman" could ever quite match the dazzle of "HRH The Princess of Wales" or later on "HM The Queen". None could give her that but Charles. Even a marriage to a crown prince of Europe would still be a downgrade from the BRF.
You may well be right about the circumstances surrounding the collection of the body but the reality is that no other man other than Charles would have given that occasion the gravitas it had. I am sure Diana's fans would be the first to complain if it was Mohammed Al Fayed or Khan who had collected her.
NO I don't thnk that Diana was likely to find a "Duke or American businessman". To an American she would probalby be a trophy wife.. as she would have been to Dodi Fayed. And the Britisih upper classes weren't that likely to choose her after she had made such a drama of bolting from the RF.
Hasnat Khan was the nicest man she had and their relationship didn't wrok out because of cultural and religious factors and I think his reluctance to Become Mr Diana...
Quote
The 'long suffering' wives are not admired. One notch away from that is physical abuse and a wife would have mental issues if she stuck in a marriage where a husband treated her like dirt and it was OK as long as he paid the bills and was nice to her sometimes. WOmen today have careers and are encouraged to earn their own keep. Nobody should put up with a man who has mistresses. And this is abuse of the wife IMO.
This might just be an upper class thing. Bernard-Henri Levy has a mistress Daphne Guinness and he is publicly with her while legally married to his wife Maria Dombasle. This is imho horrid but the way people of certain classes operate.
In those days women were not allowed to divorce their husbands so men were stuck and so were women those old examples don't really match modern day relationships.
Nowadays when people cheat on their spouses it's because they're bored or in an open marriage or have someone who doesn't see cheating as a deal breaker.
Quote from: amabel on October 26, 2017, 07:25:00 AM
NO I don't thnk that Diana was likely to find a "Duke or American businessman". To an American she would probalby be a trophy wife.. as she would have been to Dodi Fayed. And the Britisih upper classes weren't that likely to choose her after she had made such a drama of bolting from the RF.
Hasnat Khan was the nicest man she had and their relationship didn't wrok out because of cultural and religious factors and I think his reluctance to Become Mr Diana...
Diana did not bolt. I think it fair to say that Charles made a lot of drama over his "lot" via his authorized 1994 biography and his unfortunate confession on Live TV. Diana and Charles stayed in the marriage for over 10 years pre separation and kept up appearances.
If Diana had "bolted" then she would have had very limited access to the children. She did not bolt.
Double post auto-merged: October 26, 2017, 10:53:06 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 26, 2017, 06:45:09 AM
Freedom? I really doubt Diana gained any freedom or that she wanted that kind of "freedom". The paparazzi intensified their harassment once she was no longer an HRH and they knew that she was practically estranged from the BRF. Had she still been the Princess of Wales, nobody would dare chase her on Paris Streets. Diana was not "free" after her divorce. Neither did I ever believe she wanted that divorce as a means of escape. Panorama was reacting to Dimbleby but she was completely devastated when it was taken as an opportunity to call for a divorce. She was just lashing out, not really wanting it to end.
Although Diana died quite young, her life was a microcosm of many unresolved issues in terms of her ability to deal with rejection and to handle a mature relationship. I do not think that she would have changed that much from when she was 30 to when she was 45. Perhaps she might have been more patient and realistic but the basic personality would still be there...the frightened child who does not want to be left behind again.
No "British or continental Duke, prominent American politician or businessman" could ever quite match the dazzle of "HRH The Princess of Wales" or later on "HM The Queen". None could give her that but Charles. Even a marriage to a crown prince of Europe would still be a downgrade from the BRF.
You may well be right about the circumstances surrounding the collection of the body but the reality is that no other man other than Charles would have given that occasion the gravitas it had. I am sure Diana's fans would be the first to complain if it was Mohammed Al Fayed or Khan who had collected her.
Under the circumstances, Charles did not give the occasion "gravitas." Had there not been public complaints, he probably would not have bothered. He was worried people would "blame him." Charles only went because their children were underage then. Diana had "gravitas" as the mother of a future monarch and always would have had it.
Did Charles have a 'mature' relationship with his first wife. I hardly think so. He married her because he needed to suitable wife and heirs. Smith wrote that he may not have married at all except for those heirs. A mature man does not marry someone knowing he loves her nor clings to a mistress and stays in touch with her after he marries someone else. That is hardly being "mature." A mature man does not get involved with his friends' wives. Because of who he is.
If Diana did not want the marriage to end, she would have put up with the abuse and become a timid doormat with no spirit. She wanted out.
Your "predictions" do not ring true to me since Diana in her last year was working on a new role for herself. NOt sitting in her apartments sighing over pictures of Prince Charles. She was well rid of him
Double post auto-merged: October 26, 2017, 11:03:01 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 26, 2017, 06:13:01 AM
Yes I agree Diana reacted in a human way and it was definitely the enduring emotional attachment to Camilla that drove her to the edge. However, I think that it is always a case of deciding what is important to you. Not many women get the privileges that a Princess of Wales get and there is a price for those privileges.
You do not get to live the "normal" family fantasy in a position like that. The price for Diana when she decided to "go it alone" was very steep not only in terms of the loss of those privileges but in the changes in her personality which ensured that she could never ever have a mature long lasting relationship.
She was always grasping, demanding, controlling and manipulating in all her subsequent relationships because she was frightened of being left behind. Every failed relationship would bring a silent "I told you so" from her detractors who would say she was always impossible to be with. (I say this despite Sandy's spirited attempt to put a positive spin on Diana's rather chaotic love life). No Khan, Hewitt, Hoare or Manake was ever going to be a sufficient replacement for the loss of Charles.
In any case I am not too sure that Diana wanted or could cope with the life of an independent divorcee without any attachment to the royal family. She needed them and the cache that came with that position, hence the bitterness about the HRH title.
Ironically of all those men that she sought comfort from, it was ultimately Charles who collected her from Paris. The others were somehow inadequate for the occasion. After the POW, Diana had nowhere else to go because she had been at the ceiling. Every other suitor would ultimately be unsuitable and a downgrade of sorts.
Diana's decision to vacate her position and marriage opened the way for Camilla to have a prominent role. I still feel it was a miscalculation on Diana's part.
I think Charles was the more grasping one. He was not satisfied with one woman he had to have the mistress. And he also had some time with Janet Jenkins during that time period. Junor writes that Camilla is vigilant about keeping other woman away (so is she grasping?). She sacked Tiggy and Elizabeth Buchanan because they were close to Charles.
Camilla already had the prominent role, she had it the whole time. She did not wait for a separation to usurp the wife's place as Hostess at Highgrove. I call that grasping and greedy. Camilla did have those ambitions.
"spirited spin?" I am stating facts about the relationships she had. She could not have had a future with the men she was seeing during her marriage or lose the children. How do you know what would have happened. You apparently wished her misery and being alone on her birthdays like a reject.
She was only single one year after the divorce. One Year. I think she could have found someone a whole lot better than Charles despite his thinking he is center of the universe and Prince of Wales.
She also had her children and would have been a doting grandmother.
It took Jackie years after her divorce from Onassis to find Mr Right. ANd she settled for someone who still was technically married and they lived together.
Diana was coping as a divorcee and her friends stated she was very happy and had hopes for the future.
I think the young Lady Diana was taken/infautuated with Prince Charles and couldnt believe that 'that wonderful, important man' had taken a interest in her. After all she grew reading these B. Cartland novels. And her family had always treated her as 2nd class citzen. That whole situation must have benn a boost to self-steem. But taking away his title I dont believe she'd eve rhave been bothered with him, let alone date him or dream marry him. No, I think she was some cunning and calculing teenager but naive and full of ilusions. I think Diana was indeed in love with the lovers/boyfriends she took. To me, it's always been telling she always fell for commoners men. I dont believe Diana wanted continue in marriage (or was even in love with Charles) in mid-late 1980s. Her friend, who helped her with the Morton book, said as after the book come out was 1rst time Charles was accepting talk about the divorce with Diana.
Double post auto-merged: October 26, 2017, 12:10:43 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 25, 2017, 07:46:02 AM
I find it interesting that people assume Charles never wanted a happy marriage. Of course he wanted a happy marriage and never got it. That is why he left. Saying that it is Diana who put in all the effort is a perfect illustration of people not understanding what makes a marriage. It takes two both to work and fail. Diana accepted she had 50% of the blame for the break up of that marriage.
i've always read charles never wanted to be married with anyone. it was just about his position re:get the heirs. from what i read he was happy/ok with the arragement he had with camilla and andrew and wanted keep the things in that way. if he wasnt future king, maybe he'd have never married
Diana's post marital life was not a happy one. It just wasn't. She was trying to put a brave face on things. The Khan relationship had collapsed. She was busy courting the press in order to upstage Camilla's birthday and announcing "something big". This was not a happy contented woman but one that was still lonely and wandering.
No, Diana did not want a divorce and she said as much. I wonder why that is a contention when she said she did not want a divorce in Panorama? The day of the divorce she referred to as the "saddest day of her life". I doubt Charles was sad about that day. To him it was "freedom at last".
@sandy. Putting all Diana's less positive attributes on C&C does not absolve her of them. Unlike Diana, they have found their stable relationship and have not been with other people since 1992.
Also, Charles made a decision to go to Paris long before some American started complaining about flags (btw Europeans rarely make a fuss about flags. That has always been an American thing).
And talking negatively about Diana and expecting her to put up and shut up does not whitewash what C and C did.
Diana's post marital life was One Year. Why do you think she was faking it? She could be her own person, and she was interested in seeking a new life and a new role. She got an award in 1997, called attention to anti Landmine cause, and sold her iconic gowns for charity. A lot for someone to do in one year.
Diana announced the something big later than the birthday party. The birthday party featured Diana (pre Dodi) sitting on a diving board on the Jonikal yacht. That one picture attracted more attention than Camilla's birthday party which amounted to her photo grinning for the cameras. If you want to project unhappiness on Diana that is your choice. It is telling how you continue to think badly of her and "doom" her to a bad future (the future she never got to have).
Diana would not say she wanted a divorce on TV. Charles did not tell his biographer Dimbleby he wanted a divorce. That would have been unwise. Charles never publicly said this was the happiest day of his life. He sent flowers to Diana during that time period.
Stable relationship? Charles and Camilla? I don't think so. He did not pursue her as wife material in the early seventies. And he took up with her again when she had a husband and young children and she later undermined his wife. I see it more as sordid. And she has kept her home.
Charles if the boys had been of age would not have gone to Paris. He rejected her as you say, and some asked what he was doing there.
Janet Jenkins was "with" Charles in the early 1990s. The "stable relationship" required Camilla to see off other rivals like Tiggy and Elizabeth. She had them sacked. I don't call that "stable." Charles cheated on Camilla. Camilla was also married to another man from 1992-1995. So how could they have a "relationship" other than her being the married mistress. And he was in a marriage too. Sorry that does not count as a "stable relationship." She was still legally married and living with her husband APB
Quote from: dianab on October 26, 2017, 12:04:26 PM
I think the young Lady Diana was taken/infautuated with Prince Charles and couldnt believe that 'that wonderful, important man' had taken a interest in her. After all she grew reading these B. Cartland novels. And her family had always treated her as 2nd class citzen. That whole situation must have benn a boost to self-steem. But taking away his title I dont believe she'd eve rhave been bothered with him, let alone date him or dream marry him. No, I think she was some cunning and calculing teenager but naive and full of ilusions. I think Diana was indeed in love with the lovers/boyfriends she took. To me, it's always been telling she always fell for commoners men. I dont believe Diana wanted continue in marriage (or was even in love with Charles) in mid-late 1980s. Her friend, who helped her with the Morton book, said as after the book come out was 1rst time Charles was accepting talk about the divorce with Diana.
Double post auto-merged: October 26, 2017, 12:10:43 PM
i've always read charles never wanted to be married with anyone. it was just about his position re:get the heirs. from what i read he was happy/ok with the arragement he had with camilla and andrew and wanted keep the things in that way. if he wasnt future king, maybe he'd have never married
I think Diana after the separation loved Charles as the father of her children. They had children together and the divorce arrangement stipulated shared custody and Diana would attend events involving the children.
I think Charles perhaps was flattered by this nineteen year old besotted by him. He even said publicly he had the good fortune of Diana being in love with him or words to that effect. It is telling that he did not say he had the good fortune of loving Diana.
Stephen Barry said Charles really had everything he needed and did not really need to marry. Smith wrote that Charles needed heirs and he made the decision to marry. I also believe that Charles did not want his younger brother to be his heir and wanted his own flesh and blood heirs to succeed.
I don't think the royal family (the Queen) was ready to accept a divorce in 1992. So the separation was agreed upon.
Double post auto-merged: October 26, 2017, 02:29:05 PM
In 1992, Charles friends (with Charles cooperation) denied he was having an affair with Camilla. So publicly she was in no stable relationship with the Prince of Wales. He had to out her in 1995 to force the divorce of the PBs.
Double post auto-merged: October 26, 2017, 02:42:01 PM
He outed her in 1994, correction. The PBs divorced in 1995
@sandy says "She got an award in 1997, called attention to anti Landmine cause, and sold her iconic gowns for charity. A lot for someone to do in one year."
Really? I would like that working schedule for my wages. It would give me so much time to look after my home.
Anyway, I wonder what all that has to do with Diana's chaotic romantic life. Were the awards and work a replacement for her flailing romantic life?
You also keep using the word "sordid" about the C&C. It seems to me like a moralistic judgement that actually ends up inadvertently crucifying Diana's lifestyle as well. One might ask: "Was Diana's affair with Hewitt, Khan and Hoare sordid as well or is it just C&C (a married couple by the way and blessed by the Church) who are sordid?"
I also get puzzled when you deny something that Diana said on national television saying that she must have meant something else. Was she lying about the entire interview or just the part that does not suit your view of her?
C&C are in a much more stable relationship that any of Diana's partnerships. It is a fact. Between 1986 and 1996 Diana had at least 3 different lovers, each relationship ending on acrimonious terms. During that time (if we are to believe Diana's story); C&C remained together.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 26, 2017, 06:13:01 AM
Yes I agree Diana reacted in a human way and it was definitely the enduring emotional attachment to Camilla that drove her to the edge. However, I think that it is always a case of deciding what is important to you. Not many women get the privileges that a Princess of Wales get and there is a price for those privileges.
You do not get to live the "normal" family fantasy in a position like that. The price for Diana when she decided to "go it alone" was very steep not only in terms of the loss of those privileges but in the changes in her personality which ensured that she could never ever have a mature long lasting relationship.
She was always grasping, demanding, controlling and manipulating in all her subsequent relationships because she was frightened of being left behind. Every failed relationship would bring a silent "I told you so" from her detractors who would say she was always impossible to be with. (I say this despite Sandy's spirited attempt to put a positive spin on Diana's rather chaotic love life). No Khan, Hewitt, Hoare or Manake was ever going to be a sufficient replacement for the loss of Charles.
In any case I am not too sure that Diana wanted or could cope with the life of an independent divorcee without any attachment to the royal family. She needed them and the cache that came with that position, hence the bitterness about the HRH title.
Ironically of all those men that she sought comfort from, it was ultimately Charles who collected her from Paris. The others were somehow inadequate for the occasion. After the POW, Diana had nowhere else to go because she had been at the ceiling. Every other suitor would ultimately be unsuitable and a downgrade of sorts.
Diana's decision to vacate her position and marriage opened the way for Camilla to have a prominent role. I still feel it was a miscalculation on Diana's part.
It is obvious what was important to Diana was having a husband who loved her and was faithful and committed to her. IMO this post says more about you and your admiration for Camilla that money and position mean more how sad.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 26, 2017, 02:54:56 PM
@sandy says "She got an award in 1997, called attention to anti Landmine cause, and sold her iconic gowns for charity. A lot for someone to do in one year."
Really? I would like that working schedule for my wages. It would give me so much time to look after my home.
Anyway, I wonder what all that has to do with Diana's chaotic romantic life. Were the awards and work a replacement for her flailing romantic life?
You also keep using the word "sordid" about the C&C. It seems to me like a moralistic judgement that actually ends up inadvertently crucifying Diana's lifestyle as well. One might ask: "Was Diana's affair with Hewitt, Khan and Hoare sordid as well or is it just C&C (a married couple by the way and blessed by the Church) who are sordid?"
I also get puzzled when you deny something that Diana said on national television saying that she must have meant something else. Was she lying about the entire interview or just the part that does not suit your view of her?
C&C are in a much more stable relationship that any of Diana's partnerships. It is a fact. Between 1986 and 1996 Diana had at least 3 different lovers, each relationship ending on acrimonious terms. During that time (if we are to believe Diana's story); C&C remained together.
I think it sordid. Charles idea of being able to sleep with his friends' wives IS sordid to me. Being a friend then sleeping with the wives (Kanga and Camilla). I stand by my view.
What chaotic romantic life? There were 2 people she saw that year. She was in a relationship with Khan. He would not go public with her. But they would meet at KP. She moved on when she met Dodi during that Summer.
Charles was seeing Janet Jenkins on and off during that time period. So it was not just Camilla. Camilla was still legally married to APB during that time period. So Charles had the wife and the mistress and another woman around. Diana was involved with Hewitt for a number of years. As I said, Diana could not have had any future with the men she was with. For instance, if she had packed her things, moved in with Hewitt, and decided she wanted to marry James Hewitt and got the "permanent" relationship, Charles could have claimed custody of the children. So how could she have had anything on any permanent basis unless it meant risking losing her sons.
Did you or any of us on the board get any awards like Diana or help a serious anti Landmine Campaign. Charles does not work 9-5, and does the appearances and has lots of perks. Some doctors and professionals would scoff at the "work" Charles does. But my point your image of Diana sitting home and sobbing over Charles' photos and being a "reject" are not in tune with the facts. Diana I doubt ever or would ever spend her birthdays alone. Why wish bad on her?
Diana did not date "couples". Charles did. He went on a vacation with the Tryons and was involved with Kanga. He was involved with Camilla while friends with the husband and "dated" the PBs. There are photos that prove it. Charles supposedly was good friends with Tryon and Parker Bowles. Yep, some friend. Charles and Camilla were going hot and heavy on the dance floor with PB watching them. He brought Camilla as official escort to Zimbabwe and caused embarrassment.
And Diana "dated" Oliver Hoare when he was married as he still is, to his wife Diane.
Of course she did. Her romantic life was chaotic. Her relationships were failing and it is absurd to say that they all failed because she was married to Charles and feared losing custody of her child. If that was the case, she would never have had a single affair.
To me the problem was that Diana became needy, controlling and manipulative in her all relationships following the failure of her parents marriage and later on her own. She felt that someone had to be 100% for her and with her in order to have a relationship with them.
Two different boyfriends in her last year on earth. Does not sound chaotic to me.
It also takes two to make a relationship. She and Khan had cultural differences. He did admit he loved her. Which I don't see as a failure in the least.
Dodi is an unknown quantity. Their feelings for each other are never to be known since both are dead and in their graves.
And you don't think Camilla controlling and manipulative?! A nice and polite woman would not have gotten as far as Camilla did. She did put her side out to Stuart Higgins, trashed Diana to Charles, and I find her pushy and nervy. The Queen Mum did not receive her after the divorce of the PBs, calling her "ruthless and a schemer."
Diana learned from two pros at manipulation. Charles manipulates through self pity and whining. Oh poor Poor Charles was the theme of many of his books including his authorized one. If that is not manipulation I don't know what is.
Double post auto-merged: October 26, 2017, 04:04:52 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 26, 2017, 03:38:48 PM
And Diana "dated" Oliver Hoare when he was married as he still is, to his wife Diane.
So where is the photo of Diana going on a date with the Hoares. Plenty of Charles dating the PBS? Two different scenarios.
Yes, a bit of speculation on our own forum about a love child of Charles, born after Ms Jenkins renewed her acquaintanceship with the so-faithful POW in 1983 or thereabouts.
There are also little titbits there about Camilla being upset about Tiggy going along on an overseas trip with Charles and the boys.
From the deep dark Vaults.
Could Charles have another Son? (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=42951.0)
^^ Obviously your account isnt correct. As both James Hewitt and Hasnat khan said as they'll have continued their relationships with her if she hadnt grow tired (read: dumped) of them
Hasnat Khan said there were no cultural difference between them. As he lived very well in England. And his family never forced him marry no one. He was even married to a occidental doctor woman, 20 and so years his junior (shortly before the Diana movie, he and his wife got divorced). According to him the issue with Diana was he didnt want to be seen with her.
Quote from: sandy on October 26, 2017, 02:16:10 PM
I think Diana after the separation loved Charles as the father of her children. They had children together and the divorce arrangement stipulated shared custody and Diana would attend events involving the children.
I believe she loathed him like many ex-wives loathe the men they unfortunately married and had children with.
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=864&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=vgfyWc3kC8LRmwHL44joDw&q=charles+night+on+the+town+with+camilla+and+andrew&oq=charles+night+on+the+town+with+camilla+and+andrew&gs_l=psy-ab.3...9639.16917.0.17094.52.37.1.0.0.0.261.3865.5j21j3.30.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..21.9.1137.0..0j0i67k1j0i8i30k1.91.Q7T5ipYB3YQ#imgrc=9AfPEHMFWd8QzM:
Charles and his night on the town with the Parker Bowles. Not bringing his own date.
Double post auto-merged: October 26, 2017, 04:18:46 PM
Quote from: dianab on October 26, 2017, 04:06:12 PM
^^ Obviously your account isnt correct. As both James Hewitt and Hasnat khan said as they'll have continued their relationships with her if she hadnt grow tired (read: dumped) of them
Hasnat Khan said there were no cultural difference between them. As he lived very well in England. And his family never forced him marry no one. He was even married to a occidental doctor woman, 20 and so years his junior (shortly before the Diana movie, he and his wife got divorced). According to him the issue with Diana was he didnt want to be seen with her.
I believe she loathed him like many ex-wives loathe the men they unfortunately married and had children with.
Diana was lucky to have dropped Hewitt. He turned out to be a snake selling their story for $$$$ and trying to sell the letters Diana wrote (he does not seem to have been able to hang on to the money perhaps through get rich quick schemes).
Diana did not grow tired of the man she called Mr Wonderful (Hasnet Khan) but she wanted the relationship to be more than his stopping by at KP (secretly) and not wanting to go public with the relationship. I think she did try and ultimately decided to move on. Though they may not have been "over" and had she lived they might have reconciled.
Diana still was wary of Charles though the spin was they were "getting along." They did keep up appearances at events involving their sons and maintained a civility the last year.
@sandy. Despite everything C&C are married. They have been together all those years despite everything. That is what I mean by stability. None of Diana's relationship ever saw the 5-year mark. There was always something that went wrong.
You have to ask yourself what was the common denominator. I must say that the men she dated have not always had it good afterwards save for Hoare who dumped her as soon as things became public. So perhaps it was more a problem with her taste in men than her own personal issues.
Diana had this habit of being very intense with people and then dropping them quickly if they were not 100% loyal. That is always a sign of someone that is insecure about their relationships. Most objective observers (apart from the extreme partisans) agree that Diana was manipulative, needy and controlling in her relationships. That was just her.
She could be exhausting with the constant telephone calls and the need for absolute exclusive loyalty. In my view that was a reflection of her childhood and experiences of love and acceptance. The bottom line is that Diana could never deal with rejection, one of the most important psychosocial skills for a human beings. If you lose it just because someone is not into you, it can be a very bumpy ride living your life. Rejection is a natural part of life.
I think she was tired of H. Khan. And would have get rid of him if she had met someone before Dodi who'd have been willing to be seen publicly with her. Khan said as when she was back from abroad she was always putting defects in places she saw for them living together as having no security et al. he said when she said that, it included SA, when/re she visited her brother. Interesting enough Charles S said as Diana thought SA as real place where she could living away from the press... i dont believe she was anymore that in love with Khan in 1997. She dumping him for another man was the par the course. Very similar to as she dumped Hewitt
I don't think the issue with Khan was that he didn't want to be seen with Diana. (He could always wear a bag over his head, lol) I suspect it may have been partly that he rather cowardly didn't want his parents to become agitated about the possibility of a marriage if they were seen together.
However, I suspect the primary reason he didn't want to be seen dating Diana was the pap attention, the stupid and possibly derogatory articles in the Fail and other tabs and the gawping from the public. He loved her but he felt all the hoopla that accompanied Diana everywhere she ventured would be detrimental to himself as a surgeon and to his work.
Double post auto-merged: October 26, 2017, 04:29:39 PM
I don't think the issue with Khan was that he didn't want to be seen with Diana. (He could always wear a bag over his head, lol) I suspect it may have been partly that he rather cowardly didn't want his parents to become agitated about the possibility of a marriage if they were seen together.
However, I suspect the primary reason he didn't want to be seen dating Diana was the pap attention, the stupid and possibly derogatory articles in the Fail and other tabs and the gawping from the public. He loved her but he felt all the hoopla that accompanied Diana everywhere she ventured would be detrimental to himself as a surgeon and to his work.
royal anthropologist I was refuting your saying they were like a married couple before they married. And that they had a stable relationship in 1992-1996. They could not because both were married to others. Charles even had his friends deny he was in a relationship with Camilla (other than friendship) and the PBs put up appearances.
They were not together "all those years." Charles was involved with many women, some of whom he was serious about. It did not boil down to just Diana and Camilla. Camilla was married for 22 years to Andrew Parker Bowles. She only started "dating" Charles after he and Diana were divorced and she got her divorce from PB. Up until then they were not "together". then there was the wait from 1997-2005 for them to get married because his grandmother did not want a C and C wedding in her lifetime.
So a woman is exhausting when she expects a faithful marriage? I don't agree with that. A woman is entitled to a faithful husband, even with a Prince of Wales.
Charles dropped Diana and you always mention this. But Diana is trashed when she ends a relationship. Double standard?
Curryong, Diana wore a wig to go incognito as a way to see Khan outside KP. But she wanted to go public. And also there were the cultural differences. And maybe she thought if they loved each other, he would want a real future with her. It seemed a complex relationship.
Who are these objective observers. The ones that say this are Charles sympathizers. Hardly objective.
Only myself and my closest friends knew what really went on in our relationship," he said.
"Both my parents, grandmother and all close relatives who met Diana liked her very much, and my parents and grandmother never objected to our relationship.
"They were very much happy for us to make a decision ourselves and made it clear they would support it 100%. We both had their blessing.
This amounts to the film projecting a betrayal of our relationship and my relationship with my immediate family."
He challenged the film-makers to "make amends" to his family by donating some of the proceeds from the film to his charity Chain of Hope, which provides life-saving heart surgery in Ethiopia to needy children.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/princess-dianas-former-lover-hasnat-2344202
The heart surgeon denied producer's claims he gave it "tacit acceptance" and said: "It is a complete lie. I have never given any approval."
He added: "It is based on gossip and Diana's friends talking about a relationship that they didn't know much about, and some of my relatives who didn't know much either."
Princess Diana's former lover Hasnat Khan slams new movie based on their romance as ?a complete lie? - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/princess-dianas-former-lover-hasnat-2222362)
The other possibility since his other relationships did not work about maybe Khan was happier being single and he himself did not want to settle down.
From his interviews, it is clear he adored Diana.
That movie was a disaster. I doubt Diana would have had anything to do with it. It was a really bad movie.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 26, 2017, 04:23:34 PM
@sandy. Despite everything C&C are married. They have been together all those years despite everything. That is what I mean by stability. None of Diana's relationship ever saw the 5-year mark. There was always something that went wrong.
You have to ask yourself what was the common denominator. I must say that the men she dated have not always had it good afterwards save for Hoare who dumped her as soon as things became public. So perhaps it was more a problem with her taste in men than her own personal issues.
Diana had this habit of being very intense with people and then dropping them quickly if they were not 100% loyal. That is always a sign of someone that is insecure about their relationships. Most objective observers (apart from the extreme partisans) agree that Diana was manipulative, needy and controlling in her relationships. That was just her.
She could be exhausting with the constant telephone calls and the need for absolute exclusive loyalty. In my view that was a reflection of her childhood and experiences of love and acceptance. The bottom line is that Diana could never deal with rejection, one of the most important psychosocial skills for a human beings. If you lose it just because someone is not into you, it can be a very bumpy ride living your life. Rejection is a natural part of life.
On the other hand you can be a person who is so oblivious to the signs that a person may need your attention as your acknowledged girlfriend, that you dance all night in front of her in the arms of a married woman ignoring her, and then are absolutely astonished when it turns out that she is cross with you.
You can also be so oblivious to anyone else's feelings but your own when on another occasion you dance and French kiss another man's wife in front of that man and his close friends, humiliating him in front of them.
You can also be so oblivious to another person's feelings that you make love to them in the open air, then when tabloid reporters turn up you immediately jump off her and scamper off into the bushes, leaving her humiliated and vulnerable.
I actually agree that Charles was far from being a gentleman in his relationships. The only problem is that any negative description of Diana is immediately followed by a counter from some Diana fans to show that Charles was as bad or worse than Diana in that respect. It is still the same story of upmanship which both sides are guilty of. Diana's life did not begin and end with Charles. She had a personality and issues way before and way after she stopped being married to him.
I see the same thing with Diana. It is but Diana did this and Diana did that. this is something Penny Junor does all the time. Glosses over what C and C did but demonizes Diana in the process.
It is the usual defense of C and C (by Charles supporters Junor and his friends and relatives that Diana "had issues." Well I would say she married a man with HUGE issues, feeling a sense of entitlement so much so he felt it was OK to be with his friends' wives. Keeping it all in the family so to speak.
Sandy you are quite right that a wife must expect certain standards of respect, tolerance and even love from her husband. Diana did not get all of that in the way that she wanted or expected. However, the ideal is different from the reality.
But in any case the neediness I am talking about is not during her marriage to Charles but with other boyfriends.
Well the ideal and reality should mesh in a marriage. Especially when it comes to commitment and mutual love and respect. Charles did not love Diana and certainly did not respect her since he married her preferring another woman. If he had respected her feelings, he would not have married her not loving her.
Diana was not "needy" when she expected fidelity from Charles. If Diana were so needy she would not have been the one to end some of the relationships. Hewitt for instance was the one dumped but he got even.
The neediness I am talking about relates to other non-Charles relationships. She was needy in that too but she was married to a man whose behavior is bound to make a needy person much worse so I excuse her for that. It is the other relations that I talking about. Even with Hewitt she wanted him to change job and post
She still dropped Hewitt not the other way around. And he acted like a man scorned. Hewitt also freely accepted her presents and he did that with women he later got involved with. Hewitt seemed very mercenary and greedy to me.
She dropped J Hewitt because he was acting so that she was getting scared of him. He was talking to reporters, hinting at their affair and then went public on it.. and Diana ended up having to admit to the affair.
He didn't care for her, he just wanted money and the thrill of being her lover, and dropping hints to the papers about it. and he didn't want to give up his work when she tired to get him to stay in England.
And how many other relationships with the opposite sex has Charles had, besides Camilla, that have lasted longer than five years? Would the answer be none? And we know why Camilla is ideal for Charles the Needy, don't we, I'm not going to repeat it all. And several of his former relationships ended disastrously.
The truth is that Diana wanted love, tolerance and respect from Charles in her married life, and she didn't get it. Why didn't she get it? Because he was bound heart and soul to another woman when he proposed and he was too weak to withstand various pressures to marry. Charles might has well have recited a couple of pages of an old telephone book in front of the altar at St Pauls for all the heartfelt meaning his vows held for him.
Wow, you all have been busy last day or so, ill try to hit the major themes I noticed in the posts.
Divorce- Its my opinion, given from her financial plans in the early 90s that she wanted out of the family, she talked to her advisor about leaving the country and remarrying having more kids. She almost called to the year her time as PoW in the tapes she made with James Colthurst.
Yes, in Panorama she said she didnt want a divorce, but you also have to understand it was as much a PR exercise as previous interviews done with C&D in the mid 80s. Diana cant be both manipulative and at the same time take her stating she didnt want a divorce as the gospel truth just because it may prop Charles up as husband material.
I think had she wanted to stay married she wouldnt have done Morton or Panorama, she was facing by the late 80s the very real possibility the Rf would either have her put away, or otherwise marginalized/made compliant to keep her both quiet over C&C, and keeping the fake Wales roadshow for the palace going.
Had she never wanted to be divorced, shed have kept quiet and played along, she blew the marriage up on purpose, to me the no divorce thing sounded like a lady that doth protest too much.
Charles and Relationships- Charles had several women he slept with during the time he was interested in Camilla from the 70s forward, and through the marriage with Diana. As for children, I liked
@Curryong's article, I had thought it was going to be the one on the child that supposedly C&C had in the 70s that now lives in aus, and had his eyes pigment changed to try and reduce the resemblance, etc. (now to be fair its along the caliber of info like the JC being Williams son, so may not be true, but if it is, that would be a sticky wicket, but why not, Mark Phillips I believe has a love child, if he can, why not Charles, soon to have the keys to car LOL)
Diana being needy- Heres where I go from tacking away from RA to towards her ideas, Diana could be very needy, if you recall the huge amount she imposed on James Colthurst both before,during and after the book, with endless calls about speeches, strategy, etc. He took a tremendous risk for her ferrying about the book material, and then was a de facto private secretary. Then when she thought he took money for his role in the book, she cut him off and used to call him "that little shit" and ended the friendship. Colthurst denied taking money, but IMO was well within his right to do so, had she had to pay a speech consultant or press consultant for all those hours it would add up to quite a lot, he said she often made unreasonable demands on his work as a doctor then with the time constraint.
She would call Simone Simmonds for several hours, up to over 8 at a time. As she got more and more isolated from seeing people first living at KP, then after the separation,divorce and her circle of friends shrinking, she had to rely on the phone more and more.
She had lots of abandonment issues that as mentioned she would require unreasonable loyalty that she would not always return, she tried to blame her staff for the Hoare calls, she cut off Hewitt the first time and Gilbey pretty unceremoniously when they were no longer useful, although Gilbey was a glutton for punishment going back to the well after she egged and floured his car after he stood her up on a date (id have liked to see who the other date was, cause late70s Diana was quite the sight, IMO).
Diana's Relationships - As she said, she was a "bad picker" and it seems from the getgo, picking Charles for the reasons she did, Barry and Hewitt were not the type to provide the long term companionship she needed, but like Gilbey, they were easy shoulders to cry on. Then picking ones like Hoare & Carling & Dodi for petty jealousy to either lure or lash out at Charles.
Khan was the first real try at happiness, but again she chose like Charles a weak, self involved man, afraid of crossing his family and stuck in bachelor routines and married to his work, and unwilling to see himself overshadowed by his wife (he didnt want to be Mr. Diana, just like Charles was for most of the 80s & 90s :lol:). When you think about it, and its just hitting me now, Charles and Khan were very much alike, I can see why she chose him, but it was the same disastrous ending with them parting.
I would have liked her to find someone that loved her and would take care of her and be able to deal with the "hot mess" of her global celebrity but I dont think there was anyone out there who could.
Married life - I notice a lot of people looking at their marriage with a certain middle class romantic idealism, which is required in most marriages to keep them together when each partner is much more financially and practically dependent on the other than ultra rich/upper classes. They just dont need their wife to clean and cook, and the wives dont need the men to mow the lawn or clean the gutters, etc.
Now thats not to excuse what C&C did, but its pretty clear that that kind of setup was common with most of that set, if not, you would have had a lot more husbands want to sock Charles in the jaw when he used to go on his "comfort stops" from manor to manor having his way with the ladies of the houses. Not to mention the high rate of infidelity in all sectors of society, it should have occurred to Diana what she was getting into, and if not, as is claimed, im very cross with the people in her life that should have had her prepared for it, as they let her walk blind into a trap.
I think she may have been a bit calculating in choosing Charles as a husband, like most women did when assessing him as "the most eligible bachelor in the world" it certainly wasnt for his face or delightful, caring manner. Much like many guys wernt interested in say, Farah Fawcett for her stunning intellect. But I think she was romantic with the idea of being married and felt romantic towards him, but it was also fraught with the self esteem and abandonment issues that caused her to choose the absolute worst person for her, because by convention/ assumed if not actual, law he could divorce her.
I think had the marriage been more about being with Charles as opposed to the idea in her head about being married, shed have stayed around with Charles thought the Camilla thing. It was the bursting of her carefully contrived idea of married life, and by the person who was always around, that likely her instincts told her to run, but she wanted the guaranteed, no divorce, marriage that she went against her better judgement, that caused her to lash out and upend the apple cart and push for the divorce, while making seem she didnt want it.
If she was just a gold digger, she have stayed quiet and kept wearing her tiara and wed never know so much about what went on, they be a boring older married couple with maybe lots of tabloid fodder but no tell all TV interviews.
That what makes her story so interesting she was so careful and calculating in getting to the alter, but once she got there, she went totally by the heart, and it cost her so much in the end. She needed a sweet, nice man to care for her wounded heart, but few of those men are princes, CEO's or billionaires. :flower:
Quote from: Curryong on October 27, 2017, 02:07:47 AM
And how many other relationships with the opposite sex has Charles had, besides Camilla, that have lasted longer than five years? Would the answer be none? And we know why Camilla is ideal for Charles the Needy, don't we, I'm not going to repeat it all. And several of his former relationships ended disastrously.
The
I've never heard this. yes his relationshisps ended, but most people have several relationhips before they settle down. As far as I know he's firneds with at least some of his exes and I've not heard of big rows when they broke up
^ There was a big row with Anna Wallace
And as far as I've read, the night that Diana was noted for Dancing with Philip Dunne for ages, at a party, Charles was talking to his old flame Anna Wallace. I've never heard of his relationships breaking up disastrously. Of course he must have had the odd one that ended in rows, but I haven't heard of many acrimonious breakups in his love life.
Quote from: Trudie on October 27, 2017, 10:04:19 AM
^ There was a big row with Anna Wallace
In a book I read about Charles and Diana, Charles was pleading with Anna Wallace not to break up with him (after their row). He spent most of the evening dancing with and talking to Camilla She said during the row "nobody treats me like that, not even you!" He also dashed away from Anna Wallace (when they were about to make love) when he saw the paparazzi, leaving her to her own devices.
Another lady Sabina Guiness was ordered out of Balmoral because she failed the test.
Charles also scolded Sarah Spencer over the phone because she spoke to the media.
Double post auto-merged: October 27, 2017, 12:19:58 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 27, 2017, 07:29:08 AM
I've never heard this. yes his relationshisps ended, but most people have several relationhips before they settle down. As far as I know he's firneds with at least some of his exes and I've not heard of big rows when they broke up
He called Dale Tryon his "best good friend" and she was his mistress. He dumped her. When she was seriously ill he refused to even talk to her on the phone.
ordered out becase she failed the test??? What test?
When she was a guest at Balmoral, She sat on a chair once sat on by Queen Victoria. That was a no no and she disrespected the "rules" of being a guest there. The royals did not like her attitude. Sabrina's failure was recorded in some books about Charles.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9FctAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT55&lpg=PT55&dq=sabrina+guinness+and+balmoral+test&source=bl&ots=LxGHGeMg94&sig=Pg69gsqcZu-ervScwsmWZM6RzZw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipuNK1-pDXAhVG2IMKHVnLCaYQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=sabrina%20guinness%20and%20balmoral%20test&f=false
Yes I gather she was silly, and made a few gaffes, but I hardly think she was thrown out.
There was one source that claimed Philip asked her to leave before the weekend was over. I am not sure of which one. It was over with Charles in any case. She got married for the first time a few years ago.
How is that Charles having a bust up with her? As I recall Philip was sharp with her, because of her gaffes, but that's him.
Really Sandy, I've never heard of Charles having major upsets with his girlfirends.. Of course he must have had rows with some of them.. Most of us have arguments with some romantic partners, when the relationship ends...
But generally I think he's still friendly iwht many old girlfriends. YOu mention Kanga but she was so difficult that her own daughter spoke negatively about her to the press after she had died...
but some of Diana's affairs ended baldy. Hoare returned to his wife, and she pursued him with phone calls and the relationship ended in the embarrassment of the police getting involved.
Hewitt has been selling his story about her for years even when she was dead.
I don't think that Diana's post marital relationships went well, mostly and she was having trouble finding a new steady love. Khan was the best of her men, and he didn't want to marry her...
Charles went along with it. And apparently did not defend her. he was done with her. It was either his being wimpy or he felt outraged too.
Kanga was a pathetic woman. She was besotted with Charles. And she was his mistress while Camilla was having children with Andrew Parker Bowles and not available to Charles. But that said, she was dying and he would not even call to say hello to her. He would have had nothing to lose. It was hardly giving her hopes they would be together. Charles actually called Kanga the only woman who understood him! But could not spare a minute for her towards the end of her life. I don't think of her as "difficult" just a sad, tragic person.
Diana was never arrested. But the Hoare Diana relationship began badly with Hoare pursuing his friend's wife. I think Hoare was rather a player. But in any case the Hoares are still together. I think that Hoare should have distanced himself when Diana first asked him for help with her marriage. Was he ever the wrong person!
A lot of people have been earning money off Diana after she's dead. Junor has a cottage industry since 1998 bashing Diana. Diana's true friends kept quiet and did not use her to make money.
Diana could not have found a steady love in the one year she had left after the divorce. She was not going to rush into another marriage. She died at 36 not 96.
The Khan-Diana story never really had a chance to play out. He was contacting her in the last weeks of her life. They may have reconciled.
well Kanga's own family would disagree with you, they knew her well - and clearly found her very difficult and with mental helath problems.
Which makes her all the more pathetic. She also had painful back trouble. The family would have had to be hard hearted not to miss their mother when she died. And felt sorry for her issues. For one reason or another she became besotted with Charles. Charles also to me was hard hearted not to even speak to her. What could she do to him? From what I read it seemed to me she might have also had dementia.
Quote
Married life - I notice a lot of people looking at their marriage with a certain middle class romantic idealism, which is required in most marriages to keep them together when each partner is much more financially and practically dependent on the other than ultra rich/upper classes. They just dont need their wife to clean and cook, and the wives dont need the men to mow the lawn or clean the gutters, etc.
That's the problem when assessing Charles and Diana. Most of the upper classes cheat or have wives that put up with it and see it as part and parcel of the lifestyle. It's their choice. Diana cheated too and it's been years since she's passed what's the point of getting involved in what they did in the bedroom now.
I don't think you can say that MOST of the upper classes in Britain cheat as if that is a given. IMO it's painting that entire class with a very wide brush. For instance, the premier Duke in England in my youth was the then Duke of Norfolk. He was a devout RC, had five daughters with his wife and not a breath of scandal. Never heard of the Duke and Duchess of Northumberland (parents of George Percy and his sisters) cheating on each other, either, the Gloucesters or Princess Alexandra and her husband, the son of a Scottish Duke. There are hundreds of examples of marital fidelity, not just those few.
Of course, it's the case that people of great wealth and several homes do have more opportunities to cheat if that's what they want. That's a given. There are some cliques in England such as the polo crowd, in which the author Jilly Cooper and her unfaithful husband mixed, and the smarter hunting packs in England, like the Beaufort, were fairly notorious for cheating spouses as well. Hardly surprisingly, the APBs and Prince Charles were right at home there. However, that wasn't and isn't the case in every aristo or country gentry home in Britain, or even, I would estimate, in the majority of them.
@Duch_Luver_4ever has hit the nail completely in his post. Seeing Diana as she was rather than as he would have wanted her to be. Of course we are all messed up in one way or another. We can all be manipulative, controlling and needy when we have been hurt by abandonment. I do not blame Diana for her personality because it is something that was a product of her genes and her experiences. I am just putting it out there that the decisions she made sometimes hurt her a lot. She paid a very high price for her candor. Nobody likes the truth, complete truth and nothing but the truth. Sometimes you have to retain a part of your life as a mystery. Diana was too trusting, too open, too naive and too idealistic for the role she entered.
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2017, 08:45:36 AM
Kanga was the classical Narcissistic parent. She was not nice at all to her husband and children according to her daughter's account. I will give her credit for working incredibly hard to prevent the family from falling into poverty but other than that she was a horrendous mother (if the article written by her daughter is to be believed). Ironically her husband is now a friend of C&C, getting regular invitations to their various homes. Kanga has been "completely airbrushed out" as if she never existed. Her husband seemed to have taken some kind of pleasure in seeing her beg for Charles' attention and being brushed aside. She had been a bad wife to him and he was enjoying her downfall.
And Charles himself was enormously considerate of Kanga's husband and her children when he was sleeping with her? He was godson to her eldest son and yet takes part in this 'airbrushing' out of his mother's existence? Btw, I also read that article and Kanga's daughter was not all unsympathetic to her.
Kanga was Charles's mistress and they were fond of each other, and yet Charles and his ex mistress now wife invites her ex husband to their home? Charles ignored Kanga in the last months of her life when she was mentally and physically ill because it was after Diana's death, he was at a low point in the polls and he was afraid of the horrendous publicity.
No doubt her cuckolded husband did take some pleasure in Kanga's come-uppance, but for Charles to turn around and treat him as best buddies after he himself slept with Kanga and then chucked her away like a used tissue, is so completely and utterly beneath contempt as to leave me speechless. And I mean that! I am so appalled by the twisted moral values Charles and Camila and their set live by that I have no words!
And for you, Royal, to write as if Lord Tryon should be PROUD of the invitations handed out by this vile pair, a couple with no moral compass whatsoever, is just so.....I can't write any more.
Charles disgusts me so much I'm sick to my stomach. All I can say is 'Roll on the Republic of Australia.' I don't want a man with no moral compass and not a pinch of compassion if it costs him anything being Head of State here!
No doubt Charles would have absolutely love it if Diana could have been 'airbrushed away as if she never existed' as well. Only he hasn't been able to achieve that. Love may her memory live on to remain a thorn in the sides of this contemptible pair of adulterers.
I agree with you. Charles went on a vacation with the Tryons and started up a relationship with the wife. Her husband had to get home later (according to a documentary) so Charles could have alone time with her. He's just another sycophant to the Prince and a contemptible one at that.
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2017, 12:13:44 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 28, 2017, 08:40:34 AM
@Duch_Luver_4ever has hit the nail completely in his post. Seeing Diana as she was rather than as he would have wanted her to be. Of course we are all messed up in one way or another. We can all be manipulative, controlling and needy when we have been hurt by abandonment. I do not blame Diana for her personality because it is something that was a product of her genes and her experiences. I am just putting it out there that the decisions she made sometimes hurt her a lot. She paid a very high price for her candor. Nobody likes the truth, complete truth and nothing but the truth. Sometimes you have to retain a part of your life as a mystery. Diana was too trusting, too open, too naive and too idealistic for the role she entered.
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2017, 08:45:36 AM
Kanga was the classical Narcissistic parent. She was not nice at all to her husband and children according to her daughter's account. I will give her credit for working incredibly hard to prevent the family from falling into poverty but other than that she was a horrendous mother (if the article written by her daughter is to be believed). Ironically her husband is now a friend of C&C, getting regular invitations to their various homes. Kanga has been "completely airbrushed out" as if she never existed. Her husband seemed to have taken some kind of pleasure in seeing her beg for Charles' attention and being brushed aside. She had been a bad wife to him and he was enjoying her downfall.
Camilla's children were reportedly not happy when the Prince of Wales was her lover (this when they were children). So was she a "horrendous" mother too?Kanga is not airbrushed out, though Charles' pals try. The stories about her are still out there. Her husband sounds very weird. And sadistic if he takes pleasure in the mother of his children having a 'downfall." I find it disgusting. And I think he deserves his "friendship" with C and C. Her daughter did express sympathy for her mother.
So Diana said the truth now! She stayed in the marriage for ten years. ANd saw the phoniness of Charles' pals being nice to her yet giving hide outs for CHarles and his mistress.
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2017, 12:16:13 PM
Quote from: tiaras on October 28, 2017, 07:03:16 AM
That's the problem when assessing Charles and Diana. Most of the upper classes cheat or have wives that put up with it and see it as part and parcel of the lifestyle. It's their choice. Diana cheated too and it's been years since she's passed what's the point of getting involved in what they did in the bedroom now.
No they do not "all do it." I recall when Clinton's affair with Monica came out the excuse was "all the Presidents did it." No they did not and it did not make what CLinton did "good" or acceptable.
Well the way I see it Lord Tryon was fine with his wife sleeping with The POW and relishing the perks and financial gain Kanga achieved for his family. That said I believe it all began to unravel when Kanga and Diana had a very public lunch and Diana wore some of the dresses Kanga designed as to Lord Tryon that was seen as being disloyal to Charles and his power. The snobs in that set are astonishing they put anyone under the bus wives, daughters, anyone who threatens their position as friends of the RF. The fact that Tryon took the opportunity to separate and divorce Kanga when she was ill and no longer a source of financial gain nor social gain speaks volumes as to the morality of Charles and Camilla who now welcome him as a friend and his children who speak somewhat disparagingly of their mother also in a bid to maintain the royal links
@Curryong. You write as if Charles is the only adulterer in this set up. Diana was an adulteress many times over, does that mean that she too has no moral compass or is it just C&C who need to have a "moral compass"? Besides, your moral compass is not everybody's moral compass. That is how they do things in that set and it is their private life.
Charles is not a priest and has never claimed to be a priest. Neither has he ever claimed to be a paragon of virtue or fidelity. The first Head of the Church of England was a multiple adulterer and murderer. Many adulterers and murderers have headed that Church since. It is ridiculous to expect these high standards of Charles. Marital fidelity has never been a requirement for being a head of state or even head of the commonwealth. It is just some people imprinting their own personal feelings and beliefs on others.
And if Australia becomes a Republic (something that was bound to happen anyway since the BRF has really nothing to do with that country any more); good luck finding leaders who have not committed adultery. The President of the USA has committed adultery many times over. One of them in the oval office.
Many kings and princess of Europe and the world have committed adultery. They do not get the vitriol that Charles gets because they did not dare to dump the fairy tale princess for an older woman. The idea that Charles ought to be a paragon of virtue is a nonsense.
Kanga was an adulteress in addition to being a bad mother. She deserved no special attention from Charles. She was neither his girlfriend nor his responsibility. They had an affair and he dumped her. Happens all the time in life. He was not obligated to her in any way and I find it ridiculous that people suggest that he was.
Charles was tired of her clingy behavior as well as indiscretion and I think he was right to stay well clear of her. She was having mental health problems and was prone to paranoia. It would just bring him problems he did not need to continue associating with her. Indeed, she at one time was said to have joined forces with Diana against Camilla. If that doesn't spell pathetic then I don't know what does. These were two bitter abandoned woman that were thinking and acting irrationally...then they wonder why Charles wanted nothing more to do with them?
Your sympathy for Kanga's husband and APB is very, very misplaced. They have not complained about the situation and I am sure they do not appreciate outsiders telling them how they ought to feel or behave. APB in particular would look foolish complaining about adultery. Kanga is happy to be a friend to C&C and that is really their business. It is ridiculous to suggest that Kanga's husband must ostracize Charles because some people in the public hate him. Clearly he does not see it that way and it is entirely his choice to do what he wants.
You write: "Charles disgusts me so much I'm sick to my stomach." He is not a mass murderer and has not really harmed anyone (save perhaps Diana) in his adultery so some perspective might not go amiss here.
Then this: "may her memory live on to remain a thorn in the sides of this contemptible pair of adulterers." I very much doubt that either Charles or Camilla is bothered by Diana now. They do not speak of her and I doubt they actually think about her that much. She was someone in their past. The hope that they are bothered by her is doomed to failure. Charles really left Diana for good and never returned. It would be pretty weird if he was thinking about or fretting about someone that he divorced 20 years ago and has long since died.
^ Tell me royal are you really Camilla? You really seem to have nothing but contempt for those who Charles mistreated though most friends would say he really is a kind and thoughtful person. Kanga was tragic and pathetic who suffered a life full of obstacles yet managed to get extremely close to Charles who she seemed to adore not knowing I am sure like Diana that Cammy was determined to stay. Both loved Charles and were both badly mistreated by him and for what exactly? a woman who resembles and takes on the role of his nanny.
Charles ditched Diana. Divorce discouraged. So Diana was to live like a nun and entertain Camilla in her home? Charles cheated when he married Diana knowing he preferred his married mistress. What do you mean royal by "many times over?" She had an affair for a few years with Hewitt. She and Hoare had a relationship that neither of them talked about or described publicly. Carling said there was no affair. Khan and Diana were involved for a few years in the seventies. And she was a divorcee for some of that time. I don't see that as "many affairs." Charles OTOH sowed wild oats with many women. He was not faithful to Camilla. That is well documented. Charles was considered to be quite the "stud" yet Diana for her much much fewer affairs is derided. Some sexism here.
Charles does not have to be a mass murderer to make people sick. His lifestyle is nothing to be proud of.
APB did not complain about adultery but if he were OK with it he would have just stayed on with Camilla as his wife instead of divorcing her--after Charles blabbed about his affair with Camilla in 1994. There were some limits to his tolerance.
I think C and C ARE bothered by Diana. Otherwise they would not have cooperated with Penny Junor, the biggest Diana basher on the planet. Or Camilla would not have given that interview where she played victim. If it did not bother them they would not have condoned all the Diana bashing after she died. They are the ones who have not moved on.
I have no sympathy for Kanga's husband or APB. None whatsoever. The pair of them are sycophants who might have sold their own grandmothers to please Charles. They were "OK" with sharing their wives with Charles. Kanga's husband playing up to Charles IMO is sick since he shared his wife with Charles to please the "great" man.
Kanga did not have the affair all by herself. The "great" man could have said no to sleeping with her. But then again he was encouraged to bed women to get experience.
Comparing Charles to Henry VIII does not what make what Charles did acceptable.
Diana was not a bitter abandoned woman. That is just not true. She moved on and did not sit around weeping over such an unworthy person as Prince Charles.
Kanga unfortunately got attached to Charles and Charles crowed that she was the only woman who ever understood him (I wonder how that made his darling Camilla feel).
Charles and Camilla don't have to talk about Diana they have Junor and others do their dirty work.
If there was a scenario in which James Hewitt was married and his wife was a great friend of Diana's, and Diana then deliberately betrayed that friendship by sleeping with him. James, a former lover of whom she had been fond and praised, then died in considerable pain and mental anguish, which Diana ignored for her own selfish reasons, and then Diana became great friends with his widow again and invited her to her home, a home she shared with a husband with whom she had also had an adulterous affair, as if nothing had ever happened between James, his widow and herself, I would be equally condemnatory.
But then, unlike Charles I don't believe in treating people like disposable trash once I've finished with them. Kanga was an ill person, a suffering human being who at the very least deserved a few kind words. I do not have a huge amount of sympathy for Lord Tryon (or for APB or for Ernest Simpson) who was quite OK with his wife's cheating so long as it gave him social cachet, and who is apparently so immune to humiliation that he accepts social invitations from a man who cuckolded him again and again.
I don't care if 100 Supreme Governors of the Church of England were adulterers etc. The people I admire in the BRF are the people who sincerely tried to live good lives, do right by others and be faithful to their spouses. People in modern history like Victoria and Albert, George V and Mary, George VI and Elizabeth, and the present Queen.
You seem to think that adultery is acceptable because 'everybody' does it. Well, I have to tell you that 'everybody' isn't unfaithful to their spouse, or treats infidelity as casually as smoking a cigarette. In an earlier post today I pointed to several couples in the aristocracy and upper classes who were/are happily married and faithful.
In my belief it's only a certain section of the artocracy/ upper classes who go in for wholesale adultery and open marriages. (As for Australia we have had several PMs whom I would put money on as being faithful to their partners.)
The sets that think infidelity is fine and fun, includes an ultra sophisticated London set for whom anything goes, the polo set ditto, (and not all of them) and the fashionable hunting set (notably the Beaufort.) No wonder the Parker Bowles and Charles fitted into the latter set very snugly.
No, I don't expect Charles to be a priest. However, I don't believe a man with such lax standards that he betrayed friendship by sleeping with other men's wives, however 'tolerant' the husbands were, is someone admirable or deserving of praise or of being Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church, quite frankly, and there were plenty of clergymen with the Church at the time of the divorce who were of the same mind.
@sandy I say that your sympathy for APB is quite misplaced. He had a long term mistress whom he promptly married after divorcing Camilla. Camilla attended their wedding. He too attended the C&C wedding. C&C attended the funeral of APBs second wife. APB is welcomed in the BRF and is on very friendly terms with Princess Anne. It is said Camilla speaks to APB every day by phone and they are on very friendly terms. These people do not live by middle class standards. Diana did not fit in because she would whine, complain and lash out about the infidelity (her right if that was her think but she ought to know the people she married into). She wanted a middle class marriage to an upper class man...impossible in my view.
As for disgust, I always find some of the responses to Charles extreme. If I didn't know better I would think he has committed some heinous global crime the way people lose it over him. I personally think it is all to do with the fact that Charles defied all conventions. He dumped the beautiful and popular Diana for the less beautiful and less popular Camilla. No amount of moralizing, bullying or threatening has changed his mind. That is what irks some people very much. They want him to be punished but they know deep down that he will never get punished because he did nothing that Diana or other ordinary people have done in their lives.
As for Diana bothering C&C she does not. They do not spend sleepless night wondering about what she thought of them or fearing some divine retribution for not doing what she wanted. By your standards you are saying that Diana was not over Charles because she would feed stories about him to the press after the divorce?
I also get quite puzzled by your assertion that Junor is doing "Diana Bashing". She is giving her opinion and is no different from Morton and Bashir. If Diana had her supporters who cooperated with her to diss C&C, they too have a right of reply. It does not mean that they spend sleepless nights being haunted by Diana's memory.
The Diana memorials exercise her fans and her family, not C&C. I don't think Charles has ever publicly spoken about Diana after divorcing her. Not once (either positively or negatively). He just wiped her out of his life and moved on. Of course his supporters do comment about her when they see saccharine articles by Diana fans trying to turn her into some kind of perfect victim.
So Diana "moved on" by teaming with Kanga against Camilla? I don't think so. Diana was the stereotypical embittered ex wife that is eaten up by the need to be noticed by and take revenge on her ex husband as well as his lover. To claim that she was not bitter is just not supported by evidence.
As for Charles' reported comments on Kanga, Camilla does not really mind any compliments that Charles is reputed to have given to Kanga. She in the end is Charles' wife and has an undisputed hold on his heart. All the other women he has forsaken and she has remained. She has been longer with Charles than any woman he has ever slept with.
Every single day he shows signs that he cares about her deeply and is not embarrassed to tell people how much he loves her. We no longer get the "whatever in love means" response or the sulky behavior. Since Charles has been married to Camilla, he is much much happier and it shows in all their pictures together. Camilla is too secure in her relationship with Charles to get worked up about his exes. Once again I doubt she is fretting about Kanga at the moment.
Quote from: Trudie on October 28, 2017, 12:34:43 PM
Well the way I see it Lord Tryon was fine with his wife sleeping with The POW and relishing the perks and financial gain Kanga achieved for his family. That said I believe it all began to unravel when Kanga and Diana had a very public lunch and Diana wore some of the dresses Kanga designed as to Lord Tryon that was seen as being disloyal to Charles and his power. The snobs in that set are astonishing they put anyone under the bus wives, daughters, anyone who threatens their position as friends of the RF. The fact that Tryon took the opportunity to separate and divorce Kanga when she was ill and no longer a source of financial gain nor social gain speaks volumes as to the morality of Charles and Camilla who now welcome him as a friend and his children who speak somewhat disparagingly of their mother also in a bid to maintain the royal links
Their morals, if they have any, are very questionable. Nothing much has changed as Kate was overheard saying to chelsy cheating is just part of the deal. A lot of these women want the lifestyle, they're not thinking long term.
@Curryong but people with your point of view did not win the argument. Charles is still POW and will be King, barring any early deaths. Clearly there are many people who do not hold such high moral standards of their kings or the governor of the Church.
Having said that: I actually welcome Australia's independence. A country ought to be able to have its own head of state in a manner that is acceptable to them. The BRF has very limited links to Australia these days. I would say they are even closer to Canada than Australia so it will be a day of adulthood when Australia a Republic but I can guarantee you will have adulterers among the elected leaders just like in any democracy.
I might also rather cheekily ask whether you feel it was within the boundaries of a "moral compass" for Diana to pursue a married man knowing what she went through in her own marriage? Are you equally condemnatory of her or is she the "good adulteress"?
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2017, 03:23:53 PM
I agree with
@tiaras. Kate knows the score and is not about to make a fuss. Those who think she has an ideal marriage of complete fidelity might be very surprised one of these days. The difference between Diana and Kate is that the latter has a much more realistic view of her life and role in the BRF.
I find the triumphalism inherent in the remarks of Royal about Charles being happy and contented NOW and Camilla not caring about Kanga as she is now HIS wife, quite comical.
I for one (and I can only speak for myself though I suspect I'm not alone here) would feel pity for the poor cow being married to Charles the Needy if she wasn't such a reprehensible human being on her own account.
Having to live with Charles for longer than a day and deal with his moods, neediness, self-importance and obliviousness to others' feelings, would send me screaming for the woods. No wonder she needs Raymill.
I can quite honestly say that if I were young and in any circumstances in which a young Charles proposed, I would follow others' leads (like Amanda Knatchbull) and say 'Thanks, but no Thanks' and run away as fast as I could, which is what Diana should have done. In fact I would go further and say that 10 million pounds wouldn't tempt me in the slightest.
In other words I wouldn't marry Charles if I was paid. Camilla is welcome to him, and those two deserve each other IMO.
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2017, 03:34:42 PM
I don't agree with adultery under any circumstances. Full stop. However, having an 'arrangement' or unspoken agreement with the spouse of the person you are sleeping with is one step further on the road of moral culpability.
So it is 'realistic' to expect your boyfriend to cheat on you? How about being 'realistic enough to expect fidelity from your partner and having enough self respect to walk away if he lets you down? But then, this is 'Waity Katy', the female with a personality and backbone bypass we're talking about.
It is not triumphalism but fact. It is not correct to say that Camilla is in any way disadvantaged by being married to Charles. She loves him and has wanted to be with him for a long time. She is not unhappy being married to him. Any sympathy to a woman who is one step away from the British consort's throne is in my view misplaced. Camilla's life is one of immense privilege; the kind of privilege she would never have dreamed about let alone gotten had it not been for Diana's rash decisions.
I agree C&C deserve one another. They understand and sympathize with each other. Diana did not deserve to be married to Charles. They were evidently unsuited to each other on almost all levels. With Camilla it is an entirely different story. Neither Charles nor Camilla is complaining about their relationship. It is others that are desperately hoping for some trouble in paradise, if only to satisfy their fervent hopes for divine retribution. Even the Raymill house is a very clever idea on Camilla's part. This is a woman that is thinking with her head and seeing life as it really is rather than having some silly romantic dreams about perfect princes.
Charles the Eeyore didn't deserve Diana! And, as you have so often put it yourself, a life of privilege has its price.
Quite. It would have been better for the BRF and Diana herself had Charles never met or proposed to Diana. But he did and she accepted. Then she wanted to change him. Then it went pear-shaped. I might also want to add that Charles is quite capable of being an affectionate, considerate and demonstrative husband as Camilla has shown. It is just that with Diana he was with someone whom he did not really love so he was subliminally pushing her away with his bad behavior. It does happen in failing relationships.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 28, 2017, 03:05:04 PM
@sandy I say that your sympathy for APB is quite misplaced. He had a long term mistress whom he promptly married after divorcing Camilla. Camilla attended their wedding. He too attended the C&C wedding. C&C attended the funeral of APBs second wife. APB is welcomed in the BRF and is on very friendly terms with Princess Anne. It is said Camilla speaks to APB every day by phone and they are on very friendly terms. These people do not live by middle class standards. Diana did not fit in because she would whine, complain and lash out about the infidelity (her right if that was her think but she ought to know the people she married into). She wanted a middle class marriage to an upper class man...impossible in my view.
As for disgust, I always find some of the responses to Charles extreme. If I didn't know better I would think he has committed some heinous global crime the way people lose it over him. I personally think it is all to do with the fact that Charles defied all conventions. He dumped the beautiful and popular Diana for the less beautiful and less popular Camilla. No amount of moralizing, bullying or threatening has changed his mind. That is what irks some people very much. They want him to be punished but they know deep down that he will never get punished because he did nothing that Diana or other ordinary people have done in their lives.
As for Diana bothering C&C she does not. They do not spend sleepless night wondering about what she thought of them or fearing some divine retribution for not doing what she wanted. By your standards you are saying that Diana was not over Charles because she would feed stories about him to the press after the divorce?
I also get quite puzzled by your assertion that Junor is doing "Diana Bashing". She is giving her opinion and is no different from Morton and Bashir. If Diana had her supporters who cooperated with her to diss C&C, they too have a right of reply. It does not mean that they spend sleepless nights being haunted by Diana's memory.
The Diana memorials exercise her fans and her family, not C&C. I don't think Charles has ever publicly spoken about Diana after divorcing her. Not once (either positively or negatively). He just wiped her out of his life and moved on. Of course his supporters do comment about her when they see saccharine articles by Diana fans trying to turn her into some kind of perfect victim.
So Diana "moved on" by teaming with Kanga against Camilla? I don't think so. Diana was the stereotypical embittered ex wife that is eaten up by the need to be noticed by and take revenge on her ex husband as well as his lover. To claim that she was not bitter is just not supported by evidence.
As for Charles' reported comments on Kanga, Camilla does not really mind any compliments that Charles is reputed to have given to Kanga. She in the end is Charles' wife and has an undisputed hold on his heart. All the other women he has forsaken and she has remained. She has been longer with Charles than any woman he has ever slept with.
Every single day he shows signs that he cares about her deeply and is not embarrassed to tell people how much he loves her. We no longer get the "whatever in love means" response or the sulky behavior. Since Charles has been married to Camilla, he is much much happier and it shows in all their pictures together. Camilla is too secure in her relationship with Charles to get worked up about his exes. Once again I doubt she is fretting about Kanga at the moment.
Did I not say in my last post I had no sympathy for PB?! Please go over my post again before these assumptions are made. Charles went against the "code" where the Prince did not out the mistress. Charles did. And it forced an APB divorce. I have no sympathy for Tryon either.
Charles made his feelings well known via the Dimbleby book. He admitted he married Diana when he preferred Camilla. He also was consulted by Penny Junor in her book about Camilla. Junor made it known that she talked to both C and C and she had access to the accounts of their friends. She admitted it. What else is there to know? Charles has people to do his dirty work for him.
So the upper classes are immoral and the middle classes are not? Not everybody in the upper class has sloppy private lives.
Junor loathes Diana and it is well known that she does. She also said Camilla is "endearing" and she has a soft spot for Charles. She is a Diana basher to the nth degree even carping about how Diana mothered the children. Even Charles gave Diana points for her mothering of the boys.
Diana was sympathetic to Kanga. How did they "team up" they just had lunch and she visited the shop. They did not storm the palace with pitchforks.
Camilla manipulated better than the other women and she became the nanny figure to Charles. Charles also outed her publicly so he had to create the "great love story." Interesting how she spends time in her own home away from Charles. Interesting that Charles did not make her his bride back in the early 70s and moved on. Some great love. Plus many women would have said no to being a mistress of a Prince. I think Camilla craved the power and influence and bling and threw her weight around.
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2017, 05:03:06 PM
Of course she wanted to change him. But he wanted to transform her into a wife that put up and shut up and in essence break her spirits and hopes of a real marriage. Oh yes, Charles was affectionate to Camilla when he cheated on her oh so many times and up and chose someone else to marry and be the mother of his children. If he did not love Diana, the man behaved abominably marrying her anyway, to get those heirs.
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2017, 05:05:08 PM
Quote from: tiaras on October 28, 2017, 03:08:08 PM
Their morals, if they have any, are very questionable. Nothing much has changed as Kate was overheard saying to chelsy cheating is just part of the deal. A lot of these women want the lifestyle, they're not thinking long term.
There is no evidence of Kate having to share William. If there were a "Camilla" in his life it would be well known by now. I think William shows a lot more respect to his wife than Charles ever did with Diana. He does not have a pushy mistress calling the shots in the marriage. What Kate said is hearsay.
I see we're heading into the "tastes great" "less filling" territory for TV commercial viewers in the 80s :lol:
I dont want to speak for
@royalanthropologist but im left wondering if "deserve" is the best choice of words, even I have to raise my eyebrow at that, and its going to be a right loud shot across the bow.
I think she did a fantastic job of navigating the press scrutiny pre wedding, and while it was something she wanted, she had her life turned upside down well out of proportion to anyone prior joining the RF in such a short span of time.
She was the breath of fresh air, the shot in the arm the RF and the UK were needing at that time, she had the required kids in short order and healthy as a dollar(or pound). She was great at state functions and walkabouts (as we know she was TOO great).
In the early 80s at least, the RF needed her more than she needed them, Charles had to be married off, and was facing a ever shrinking list of options, and for it to be someone who to boot turned around the country's sorry mood was a huge bonus.
I do think Diana while in love with the idea of Charles, and maybe even some things about him, she also positioned herself to be in the right place at the right time, and be exactly what the RF was looking for, its such a shame she wasnt as skillful in thinking out the post wedding years.
I think of it like theyre now talking about kids today taking on college debt, yes technically, theyre old enough to enter a contract, but theyre not old/wise enough to fully understand the long term consequences of the decision like the people on the other side of the transaction, the bankers and university administrators.
Dianas marriage was kinda like that, the RF and the courtiers knew exactly what they wanted and what was going on, but they let Diana walk into all that and learn it all after they thought it was too late to get out.
So in those areas, id say Diana "deserved" if thats what she wanted, to marry Charles, but I dont think it was the best thing for either of them. I think, depending on your cosmological world view, that the marriage was a chance for both of them to learn. For Charles,like he said in a letter in 78,the effect of, to find someone who could help him communicate more with all walks of people. For Diana, it was the chance to learn to think more pragmatically, and both of them failed that test.
For me, the big issue is the lack of care they had taken (both families) in using an emotionally fragile woman who ive yet to see anyone else that could make you want to do the opposite, and provide for her the best of care and attention, warts and all. I think neither family deserved Diana :flower:
As for Kanga, I think her family has sort of thrown her under the bus, the docs dont go into enough detail about her mothering, so I cant comment to that. She reminds me in a way, of what Diana would have been like if she was the mistress and not the wife, it might have been another reason why they teamed up, aside from the whole "enemy of my enemy" thing.
Again, I bring up the actuarial oddity of Camillas car accident she fled thinking it was an attempt on her life, Diana's death, and Kangas "fall" and subsequent death, all in about a 6 month period in 97. Be a great Columbo episode "just one more thing, your royal highness" :teehee: :lol:
It was sad Charles didnt at least, in private, say goodbye to her, but she knew the game, her public displays at the end of her life made that hard for him to be seen around her.
@sandy. The people who know both women intimately actually describe Diana as the manipulative one so your opinion may not have universal acceptance. My comments on APB not deserving sympathy is your continued insistence that he was only forced to divorce Camilla because she had been outed. He was not. The marriage had ceased to be an exclusive one long time ago and it was an open secret that Charles was with Camilla and APB had his own mistress.
You also seem to assume that Camilla being in Raymill is a bad decision. It is not. This is another example of why Camilla is far shrewder and pragmatic than Diana ever was. If she is annoyed with Charles, she spends a few days in Raymill. She does not do a Panorama or write a Morton about it. That is a very fundamental difference between the two women which has meant that whereas one's marriage failed the other's is successful.
Besides Raymill is a great place for Camilla to see her own children and grand children without standing on ceremony. Raymill is a masterstroke as far as I am concerned. Camilla really understands Charles and how to behave when you are in that position.
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2017, 05:17:54 PM
I have actually wondered about that "near accident". The swiftness with which Camilla fled makes me think she really did think an attempt was being made on her life but we will never know. Charles paid the bill and the other woman was effectively shut up.
I agree with
@Duch_Luver_4ever that Diana was possibly one of the finest Princesses of Wales for some of the public roles. Of course there were a few mishaps when she was being rather childish in bringing public quarrels to the public (Korea etc.) But on the whole she was incredibly good at the public side of the job. The thing is that Charles could not have picked a more unsuitable wife for himself if he tried. The domestic life was so incompatible that it overshadowed even the public successes. Both of them were a great team in public but at loggerheads in private.
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2017, 05:20:30 PM
BTW Sandy, in 1983 there was no evidence at all that Camilla was anything other than a faithful and dutiful husband. We all know how that turned out. William may yet shatter another fairy tale fantasy of ideal royal marriages.
The people who like Charles talk about Diana as "manipulative." How did you think Camilla got where she is today? Manipulation. The Queen Mum called her a "schemer". Your opinions about Diana do not have universal acceptance. And those about Camilla.
Yes, Diana and Charles and Camilla's biographers all say that the PB divorce was triggered by Charles blabbing that she was his mistress. I don't think it was a coincidence that soon after the PBs filed divorce papers. Outing a mistress was "not done" by royals. Charles got heavily criticized for it, even by Camilla's father. It does not mean I have sympathy for him--he did not want to continue the marriage after his wife's lover outed him as a cuckold. APB's mistress did not trumpet to the world her affair with Camilla's husband. This is all on Prince Charles.
Why would an accident victim need to be "effectively shut up." Camilla should have stayed at the scene. Anybody else would have been charged with leaving the scene of an accident.
Charles also brought the public quarrel to Korea. Diana was not the only one.
Diana was not offered a place to live outside of the royal residences. Charles did not pay for her to keep her apartment in London. Or buy her her own place. Camilla had to have help monetarily to keep her Raymill home before she married Charles.
It was an "open secret" about the arrangement of Charles. But an "open secret" is not like the Prince of Wales blabbing on international television that Camilla is his mistress
Charles was not a "dutiful" husband in 1983. All sources say he was seeing Camilla socially and at the hunts by then. He kept in touch with her. There is no evidence of William treating Kate like that. And Camilla was his mistress before he courted Diana. Charles admitted it. William did not have any mistresses who came forward and tried to "mentor" Kate.
Charles Spencer is an example of someone that definitely does not like POW but actually referred to his sister as manipulative. BTW it is Diana's own grandmother that called her "an actress" so there are plenty of third party insults to bandy about IMO.
You also puzzle me with the contradiction in your logic. On one had you support Diana letting it all out to show the hypocrisy that was going on then on the other you complain that Charles let it all hang out. Is it your opinion that Diana was right to talk about her affairs but Charles should not have talked about his? That seems a bit of a double standard there.
Camilla was given prior advice to always call the security team at Highgrove if anything happened to her. That is what she did. Camilla was not charged for the same reason Diana was not charged with stalking the Hoares. They were protected by their association with Charles.
As for separate homes. Charles left KP for good in 1986. Although she did not have the title deeds for it, this was her home. Nobody was going to move her or invade her home. Instead of thinking about it as an advantage, pushed matters insisting that Charles had to be with her...so that they could continue quarreling and throwing things at each other???
A more pragmatic and well-advised woman would have seen this as an ideal opportunity to have some distance between her and a husband she was quarreling with. Instead Diana took it as an insult and pushed Charles until the queen eventually ordered a divorce. Her attitude was "I want a real marriage with my husband here and paying full attention to me".
Someone ought to have told her: "You don't get that if you are a Princess. Make the best of what you have now instead of asking for the impossible". Diana thought she could react like an ordinary woman and perhaps force Charles back home. Not shrewd, pragmatic or considered. Just being emotional...that was Diana to a T.
Your faith in William's fidelity may be shattered one of these days. I am certain he is not the squeaky clean perfect prince you think he is. Just because Kate is a clever girl does not mean that marriage is all roses.
I think all parties were manipulative to a certain extent, its just that Diana was always behind the game, she was younger, and hadnt acquired the comfort with playing it, until say the mid to late 90s, thats where her family and friends dropped the ball. It really wasnt C&the RF job to teach her that aspect, but they did have the job of making her fit into the RF easier and make the marriage a success, you know that whole duty and all the RF likes to cloak themselves in when they want our money.....what ended up being a hot war between the Wales could have remained a cold one if preparations were better, but like many wars, both sides made lethal misunderstanding of the other side.
The domestic life could have been better if theyd taken into account the "sunk costs" that come with marrying a young immature woman. The good looks and healthy womb did have some other things that needed looking after but they didnt want to do that, and I do feel that the RF caused a lot of their trouble with Diana in thinking she was trapped in the family with no way out or no voice.
As for the accident, yes it is interesting, I remember at the time, pre Paris laughing my head off reading in the news the reason she fled the scene, I thought it would be preposterous that Charles or the RF would want her dead at the time. Post Paris, learning about Barry, heck even other events like 9-11 opened my eyes. It makes me want to research Tiggy more, as both D&C had no patience for her, maybe theres more there than meets the eye.
As for Raymill, that was a genius stroke for Camilla, much as I dislike her role in hurting Diana, even Snoopy could admire the Red Barons flying technique :lol: She made sure she was cash poor so Charles would have to support her, making marriage one step closer, or at the very least, not being left in the lurch Finacially for being a loyal mistress to Charles. Theres a good Vanity Fair article about the whole thing.
Although I do think the divorce of the PB's was great speeded along with dimbleby, true they had grown kids almost and were likely tired of each other and didnt have any domestic reason to stay together, so I doubt it was anything like trowing dishes and screaming and fighting on the front lawn.
As for Kate and William, theyre at about 1987 in terms of C&Ds marriage in terms of years married, and theyre at least keeping the fantasy going better if nothing else.
Saw your post RA, while typing mine, yes, I do wish Diana had been more pragmatic, not because it was right what was going on, but it would have been so much better for her health, and ultimately shed likely still be alive. Think about it, Khan could have stayed in the shadows and comforted Diana while Charles had Camilla, shed live at KP, hed live at Highgrove, and while not what we all wanted in 81, I think the whole world, needed to grow up a bit.
As for W&K, I hope for their sake they keep a lid on any hanky panky going on, I do think the public would finally have enough of the monarchy if it came out William has a "Camilla" not that I approve of such things, but im pragmatic enough to know these things happen, but W&K have a lot invested in the whole "we've learned from my parents mistakes and are having what they should have had" that a lot of their good will for that and losing Diana as a kid will go by the wayside.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 28, 2017, 05:41:56 PM
Charles Spencer is an example of someone that definitely does not like POW but actually referred to his sister as manipulative. BTW it is Diana's own grandmother that called her "an actress" so there are plenty of third party insults to bandy about IMO.
You also puzzle me with the contradiction in your logic. On one had you support Diana letting it all out to show the hypocrisy that was going on then on the other you complain that Charles let it all hang out. Is it your opinion that Diana was right to talk about her affairs but Charles should not have talked about his? That seems a bit of a double standard there.
Camilla was given prior advice to always call the security team at Highgrove if anything happened to her. That is what she did. Camilla was not charged for the same reason Diana was not charged with stalking the Hoares. They were protected by their association with Charles.
As for separate homes. Charles left KP for good in 1986. Although she did not have the title deeds for it, this was her home. Nobody was going to move her or invade her home. Instead of thinking about it as an advantage, pushed matters insisting that Charles had to be with her...so that they could continue quarreling and throwing things at each other???
A more pragmatic and well-advised woman would have seen this as an ideal opportunity to have some distance between her and a husband she was quarreling with. Instead Diana took it as an insult and pushed Charles until the queen eventually ordered a divorce. Her attitude was "I want a real marriage with my husband here and paying full attention to me".
Someone ought to have told her: "You don't get that if you are a Princess. Make the best of what you have now instead of asking for the impossible". Diana thought she could react like an ordinary woman and perhaps force Charles back home. Not shrewd, pragmatic or considered. Just being emotional...that was Diana to a T.
Your faith in William's fidelity may be shattered one of these days. I am certain he is not the squeaky clean perfect prince you think he is. Just because Kate is a clever girl does not mean that marriage is all roses.
And Charles Spencer himself is flawless? Since when? He and his sister had a fight over that cottage at Althorp. Diana's comments to him have not been recorded but I imagine they would have been classic insults. They made up their fight. This is the same man who took a date to Diana's funeral, while still married to his first wife. Why is he in any position to be judgmental. They had a fight, the man is no psychiatrist. He is a very flawed person in his own right.
Diana was an ordinary woman not a robot. Why should she be expected to put up and shut up. It was no longer the 14th century.
So far, William has not imitated Daddy's behavior and having a mistress call the shots.
Diana did not "stalk" anybody. What does that have to do with Camilla fleeing the scene of an accident? Diana never did that. If you accuse Diana of Stalking, why not Mrs Parker Bowles who had no business butting into the Wales marriage. Camilla was still wrong. But she had a sugar daddy to bail her out.
And what about charging Hoare with chasing the wife of his friend? Of course nothing but nothing is this man's fault. Diana 'made him' do it.
Charles confessions caused a divorce of the PBs. And let it all hang out a year before Diana's interview.
The Someone who ought to have told her was The Prince of Wales himself before he even thought about proposing to her. Give her the facts not wait until after they married for her to find out the hard way she has to share her husband.
Kate gets to have another baby. Something Diana was forbidden by Charles (and Camilla) after she had the heir and spare.
The advice and support
@Duch_Luver_4ever is why you need a mum beside you in these situations. Unfortunately Diana's mum was similarly impulsive so she was bound to agitate her even further. Think about it, Diana had that ring and then gave it all up for what? Her last years showed that she was much better off inside the family than outside it.
@sandy I was just pointing out the error in your comment that it is only people who like Charles who called Diana manipulative. They were not. She could be manipulative in her later years precisely because she thought it was her only way of winning battles and affection.
Btw Camilla has never stalked anyone. I think it is a misuse of English to say she has. Ditto for charging Hoare for chasing another man's wife. That is not a crime in the UK. The "stalking" I am referring to is Diana's crank calls. I used it to show you that no one who is linked to the POW in such an intimate way is going to be charged for a traffic offense or even kooky behavior.
You hit the nail when you say "Diana was an ordinary woman not a robot". That was the root of her problems. She thought she was an ordinary wife that could have a long public tantrum because of her inattentive husband. You don't do that if you are a princess or else you will lose it all. She did and the rest is history.
She would only have been charged if Hoare and his wife had wanted it, and they didn't want to embarrass her or Charles who was a friend of Hoare's at frist anyway. The police problaby issued her a private warning and so did Hoare and then he let things alone and he and his wife have never talked publicly about Diana again.
Royal, I think Carole and Michael would not tolerate Kate being treated badly.
Diana died about a year after the divorce. So how can any conclusions be reached about her future. Some wish the worst of her, one writer on Larry King as good as said she was better off dead. Disgusting.
There is no error in my comment, Royal. You have a different opinion. I said a brother and sister calling names in a fight is not any definite judgment on the nature of the two. The purpose of the board is to express opinions not pointing out the very alleged "errors" of another poster. YOu have your own opinion. My opinion is not an Error.
Diana was up against two masters of manipulation C and C and Charles' toadying friends. She had to put her side out.
And Diana never stalked. She was not arrested for stalking. No restraining orders. Camilla pursued Charles even after he got engaged. She should have backed off.
Hoare would never talk about Diana. He would be asked why he got involved with her when he was married. He would er and um over that. He knew better than to blab and try to justify himself.
Every single person in that family is an ordinary person,. Even Prince Charles, He is not above decency and morals though he acted as though he was. Charles is still throwing his tantrums confessing his "pain" to Penny Junor. Charles never spelled out to Lady Diana All that was expected of her.
Just like I have the right to express an opinion about an opinion? It is a factual error to say that it is only people who like Charles who called Diana manipulative. Even her own friends admitted she could be manipulative.
Hoare cannot and should not be charged for anything. He never made any crank calls. All he did was dump Diana and go back to his wife. She could not deal with the rejection and made silent calls to his wife, a very serious offense in the UK if the victim decides to take it further.
You say "Camilla should have backed off". Charles made a decision as a grown man that he no longer wanted to be with Diana and preferred Camilla. It was his decision. He was not lured away. Indeed I would say that Diana's behavior at home made it more likely he would cheat on her and leave her for Camilla. Some men soon tire of suspicious and overly emotional wives.
Charles is definitely not an ordinary person. Neither was Diana (although she liked to fantasize she was). That is why we are here discussing a relationship that ended a quarter of a century ago. People don't do that for ordinary people.
Yes, you have your opinion and I have mine. Which "friends" said she was manipulative? The ones who were Charles friends and Charles' elderly cousins the Mountbatten sisters and an ancient Lady in Waiting. Her loyal friends spoke out for her. And using Diana's brother as an example when they were name calling is not any definitive "charge."
The Queen Mother called Camilla a schemer and she was Charles' biggest booster.
Charles made the decision he preferred Camilla before he married Diana. He told this to Dimbleby. He should not have married DIana in that case.
Yes, Camilla should have backed off.It was her decision too.
But he proposed and she accepted. Then after accepting she wanted to change him. You do that at your peril particularly if you already know that your husband is not exactly madly in love with you.
The attacks on Camilla as the "other woman" are very typical of our society. Even women on the verge of losing their marriages do it. Instead of confronting the real problems in their relationship with their husband, they try to blame it on the other woman that she lured him away.
I have even heard that most ridiculous statement that "Camilla stole Diana's life, husband and family". I mean really, as if Charles was some kind of innocent being led astray. Camilla would not have gotten anyway had Charles not wanted her. He did and pledged undying love to her.
BTW Diana was manipulative. I cannot be asked to research all the publicly available information about Diana's manipulative behavior. It has always been in the public space.
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2017, 06:53:06 PM
You also seem to be belaboring under the misapprehension that the QM disliked Camilla personally or that she disproved of her relationship with Charles. She did not. Camilla made Charles happy and that was the most important thing as far as QM was concerned. That is why she gave them her homes to be with each other.
The QM's disapproval of Camilla was about the possible consequences of the relationship on the monarchy, not the woman as a person. With Diana, her disapproval was both personal and institutional. She was no fan of Diana and made her feelings very well known. Once she got wind that Charles was not happy with Diana, that was the end of Diana as far as the QM was concerned. Her name was never to be mentioned in Clarence house again. This was not a case of QM feeling for Diana's plight as the abandoned wife. She was concerned about the institution and the impact on her grandson. As for Diana, her view was that "good riddance...out of sight, out of mind".
Yes, but without her knowing all the facts. He did not say Diana I really prefer Camilla and I always will I hope I can learn to love you. He just proposed to her and DIana thought he did that because he loved her and wanted to spend the rest of his life with her. Full disclosure was important in this case. Diana was brought into the marriage without knowing all the facts. If he had been as candid with her as he was to be later with Dimbleby she would have had a chance to move on before he proposed to her.
Camilla was the other woman. Her presence was damaging since she had contempt for Diana and was not going to leave the scene.
Camilla got most of what Diana had. Camilla would have had much to lose if the C and D marriage worked.
I think Charles undying love was for himself. If he really had wanted Camilla he would have married her in the early seventies and not have been involved with anybody else
Diana was up against expert manipulators. She got her side out, if that is manipulation then good for her for fighting back.
Much good that fight did her. A woman with the world at her feet ended being killed during a tawdry set of circumstances during a holiday with a rather shady character being instructed by his over-ambitious father. Was it worth it? I have my doubts. Had Diana thought more carefully and clearly about her situation, she would have realized that life inside the BRF was a much better prospect than what she ended up with.
Your assertion that Charles' great love is for himself is not convincing to me. Not loving Diana does not mean that Charles is incapable of loyalty or loving someone else. As Camilla's second marriage has shown, Charles is a totally different person when he is with someone he loves and gets on with. Those people who have been on the receiving end of his affection speak of a generous and very kind much. He was very cruel to Diana because he wanted her out of his life and was trying to get away.
It did her a lot of good. She got her side out there. If she had not all of what C and C's friends say would have been the "story" of Diana today.
I don't think Dodi was "tawdry." He was not a criminal or anything like that. His father was good friends with Diana's father and stepmother.
I still believe Charles' great love is himself. He wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He would have moved heaven and earth to marry Camilla back in the seventies if he truly loved her. And he would not have married anyone else nor have had his numerous affairs. He traded in a possible future with Camilla to continuing to sow wild oats in the seventies.
Charles is the same person. His marrying Camilla IMO has not changed his bitterness and his holding grudges. Even this year two Poor Poor Charles books came out. A happy person would have moved on. Not Charles.
He was very cruel to Diana because he married her knowing he did not love her. To me that showed repulsive behavior.
There have been people on the receiving end of Charles' rancor and coldness, not just Diana.
Diana's end was pathetically sad, there is no sugarcoating that fact. Dodi was a cocaine addict who spent his time frittering away his father's money; doing little else. If she was looking for a kind considerate man, I am afraid she was quite off the mark. Dodi had just broken up with his fiance because his father wanted him to pursue Diana for publicity.
The former princess of wales was floating this relationship to the world press and flogging it out like some cheap tale for all to see. This was a daughter of the Earl Spencer and once destined to be queen of the UK yet this is what she had been reduced to...running away from the very press she had invited to take compromising photos of her kissing Dodi. That did Diana good? I don't think so.
Whatever you believe about Charles, he has married Camilla against all odds and against all determined opposition. They have been happily married for over 10 years, something Diana never got. Camilla understand and supports Charles;something Diana never did. Yes, Charles can be cold to people who are unpleasant to him or displease him. Just like Diana could be cold and unpleasant when provoked. It is a human trait. Nothing extraordinary.
To say that the C&C marriage is anywhere as bad as the C&D marriage takes the biscuit. Charles has completely changed. He is relaxed, happy and less morose than he ever was. With Diana he was actually quite run down with all the stresses of a bad, toxic and mutually harmful marriage. The body language experts can tell us more but you are the first person I have ever heard saying that Charles is the same with Camilla as he was with Diana.
One thing that has not changed is that he still does show any concern for Diana in any shape or form. He most likely feels sad about her death but she is not someone that he prioritized or thought of as being supportive of him in any serious way. She became a problem to him later on and was very relieved to be rid of her with a final divorce. His feelings about her still remain the same and it shows. In that you are correct.
An accident is tragic. Diana's life was supposed to be beginning a new life. Dodi was reportedly not on drugs at the time he was seeing Diana. Dodi and Diana were not engaged to be married or anything like that. She was dating him. She was not necessarily going to marry him. I think Charles was her biggest mistake. And was not kind and considerate, just self centered. He only got where he is because he lucked out in the gene pool, the first son of the heiress presumptive to the throne.
What did she flaunt? Some photos of them together. It is liked saying a royal and his or her date photographed flaunted their relationship. So in their first picture on a public date did Camilla "flaunt" her relationship or shown grinning with pleasure wearing the bling, was "flaunting." Or is it because it is Diana that did this.
Charles wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He only married Camilla after he did his duty and had his legitimate heirs then saw off the mother of the heirs.
Charles has not changed. He had photos early in the marriage of looking happy with Diana. He seems rather bitter to me cooperating with Junor and all that and moaning about his lot and his boarding school and his parents to anybody who will listen. Not the sign of a contented person. Camilla seems rather insecure having to fire two women who Charles spent time with, Tiggy and Elizabeth. Junor even writes about how Camilla is wary of other women around Charles. NOt the sign of a really secure relationship though I doubt there will be any divorce. Camilla got all the marbles.
If you look at the early photos of Diana and Charles he did look happy with her, joking and laughing. Too bad Camilla had to butt in.
Why do you seem to revel in Diana's unhappiness with Charles? Charles is not the be all and end all. Other women rejected him.
If you don't spend 24/7 with Charles, all you see are Charles putting on goofy faces in his appearances. How is it known just how he acts behind closed doors. He is known to have a temper.
Why would he show concern for Diana after she died? Oh yes she became a problem and just had to be disposed of after she contributed two eggs for him to fertilize so he could produce heirs. Then in the trash can she went. I think what Charles did was disgusting. I think Diana was happy to be out of his orbit. And Charles loathes Diana so much he does cooperate with Junor who loathes Diana and probably has fantasies about Prince Charles and wishes she were the "endearing" Camilla
I was talking about Diana's revelations to Morton which gave her side to offset the trash Charles' pals put out about her to the media.
I don't think Charles has changed in the least. His two latest biographies just is a catalog of the same resentments he had over 20 years ago during his confessions to Dimbleby. Only now Diana is dead and he can use Junor to trash her to the extreme since Diana can't defend herself anymore.
The accident was tragic but it was the circumstances surrounding it that were tawdry. As a crown princess Diana would never have been seen anywhere with Dodi in those circumstances. She gave up her marriage and position to end up with that lot.
Saying that Charles was her biggest mistake seems nonsensical to me. Without Charles, Diana would be some obscure aristocratic woman. Not even in his worst moments did Charles ever put Diana in a second hand car write-off car driven by an intoxicated driver.
I like quoting and somewhat changing your quotes because they offer important insights. So "Diana only got where she was because she lucked out in the gene pool, the daughter of an Earl"?
Diana called the tabloid press to her holiday to take those photos. They were all surprised at what she was playing at and some speculated that she was trying to send messages to C&C. Others said she was sending messages to Khan. Really pathetic behavior for a 36 year old woman in her position and with her experience of the media. I might expect that in a 14 year old school girl who has been dumped by her boyfriend but not the former Princess of Wales.
Charles did not "see off the mother of his heirs". He just could no longer live with Diana because she was making the home unpleasant due to her suspicions about Camilla. He tried to stick it but gradually drifted away. Camilla did not butt in. She was invited by Charles and given prominence by Diana's responses.
You say something that completely contradicts something earlier: "He had photos early in the marriage of looking happy with Diana". Are you now telling us that Charles was actually happy and in love with Diana? Because if you say so, it completely undermines you theory that he only used her for heirs.
Camilla is not insecure. She is neither needy nor whiny. That is part of her attraction. Her household is peaceful and no briefings against her husband happen on her part. If she was insecure like Diana, she would have insisted on living permanently with Charles.
You keep saying things like "other women rejected him" as if it is some kind of handicap. Does that mean that no woman is ever supposed to say no to Charles? Everyone gets rejected in life at some point. It is just that people with poor internal resources see it as an insurmountable crisis when someone says no. Charles was much better than Diana at dealing with rejection and was not permanently complaining about those women who allegedly rejected him. He just moved on.
I do not revel in Diana's unhappiness as you state. I only point out that the image of a happy independent woman after the divorce has cracks. She was not happy and deeply regretted the end of her marriage because she realized what she had just given up. Her personal relationships were falling like a pack of cards. She was not on speaking terms with her mother and brother. Friends had been dropped off and staff were leaving. Her personal life was mess despite the things she was doing publicly like the land mines campaign.
The goofy faces thing is just a personal insult and there is not much I can say about that apart from posing this question: Was Diana also making goofy faces when she smiled or was her smile a good smile?
I say Charles is happy because he says so and shows so. You really have to stretch imagination and logic to suggest that he is unhappy with Camilla. There is absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion. Even the most vitriolic Diana cabal in the media acknowledge that Camilla makes Charles happy and is a much better wife to him than Diana ever was. BTW people with a temper can be very happy. It is not a barrier to happiness.
Charles does not loathe Diana and never did. He just doesn't care. You can't loathe someone you do not really care about. He was angry about the lies (and some truths) she was saying about him in the media but the fact that she died so young means that that is not really an issue for him anymore. As far as he is concerned, he has rebuilt his life with someone he loves and trusts.
The two eggs to fertilize is a tad dramatic. Neither Charles nor Diana has ever said such a thing. It does not have any credibility and is one of those tabloid yarns that have grown around this story.
Morton was the first major mistake Diana made in her marriage. It heralded the end. From then on it was all downhill. You wash your dirty laundry in public and expect to remain Princess of Wales? Diana was very poorly advised if she thought Morton was a triumph. It turned the BRF against her forever and caused many to distrust her. She was exposed as a liar, fantasist, vengeful and malicious.
Panorama just confirmed all those four things and also the fact that Diana like the Bourbons had "learnt nothing and forgot nothing". She seemed to think that a media scoop was worth the loss of her position and confidence of the BRF. She mistakenly imagined the BRF and Charles were going to let her get away with it like they did with Morton. They surprised her with the finality of their response. She was now out and unprotected. That sent her to her tragic end.
Diana was divorced. Dodi was not "tawdry." Princess Margaret's liaisons were a lot more tawdrier and she was born a royal!
DIana did not marry Dodi so she did not end up with him. They were dating.
Diana did not luck out in the gene pool as much as Charles did. She was merely the daughter of an earl, he was born to the heiress presumptive to the throne.
Morton was no mistake. It offset the gossip. Charles mistake was condoning his friends leaking stories about his then wife. It was downhill from there. The minute Charles started whinging about Diana's popularity to his friends it was all downhill. They "helped" Charles by leaking the stories and providing safe houses to C and C.
No it's not dramatic. Diana was the "vessel" for Charles to have his heirs with. He could not clone himself. I did not say they "said" it. Charles biographers all said he needed to marry to produce heirs and he needed to select the suitable girl.
"Camilla makes Charles happy." I notice the main thing among Charles fans is the need for him to be "happy." It's not who he makes happy it is that people must make him happy. Sounds very self centered to me. His "happiness" came at great expense to others.
I said Junor loathes Diana. It is unknown how Charles feels about Diana. But he got to have his cake and eat it too. And his sons are her sons too. So he can't completely x her out. The boys were not cloned.
He does pull goofy faces. It is not an insult. He mugs for the cameras. I think he's trying to play the lovable codger to crowds
http://wpmedia.o.canada.com/2014/07/175080277_27873025.jpg
Junor who adores Camilla did say she watches other women around Charles. She saw off Tiggy and Elizabeth Buchanan. If she were secure she would have ignored them and let them keep their jobs. Camilla sounded whiny in her interview last spring playing the victim,.
There were no cracks in Diana's façade of the free woman, she was experiencing a starting over and she appeared to be quite interested in prospects for her future role
Diana would have been IMO healthy and happy and still alive if Charles had bypassed her. I think that's what she really wanted, a happy marriage with a loving husband and family
Correction: Diana was on speaking terms with her brother at the time she died. They had made up. Her mother spoke indiscreetly to the press about the divorce terms so they had a falling out. Diana stayed with her loyal friends not the backstabbers who provided safe houses for C and C.
Diana was having her Summer vacation. She apparently enjoyed Dodi's company. It did not mean anything sinister was going on. Her personal life was not a mess. She was only a one year divorcee certainly it was not expected she'd remarry that year. She probably would have dated others over the next few years and not rushed into marriage
One of the first rules of marriage: make your spouse happy if you want to stay married. Diana wanted to stay married but she was not making her husband happy. The fact that he left should have been no surprise to her. Charles no longer wanted to remain married so he put no effort in the marriage. The constant complaints, tantrums and mood swings just eventually got to him.
Yes Charles being happy is quite important. If he is not happy, he divorces you and things get a bit messy. I know that sounds a bit like Soprano but it is the reality. Diana's mother should have explained to her that what she really needed to work on was her relationship with Charles because it would ultimately determine whether she remained Princess of Wales. Alternatively she needed to negotiate an amicable divorce that would leave her in a good situation without aggravating the BRF. As Diana learnt to her cost; no amount of media, fans or any kind of pressure can make the POW remain with you when he no longer wants to.
Diana wanted to be the Princess of Wales. The happy marriage was a bonus but her principle reason for accepting Charles proposal was that it offered her the chance to be princess of wales. She got her priorities wrong once she got the role and as a result was eventually pushed out. You take on the POW and BRF at your peril.
She started thinking like an ordinary housewife instead of a princess. She forgot that it is Charles who raised her to her current role and started insulting the family that had given her all that she had. She started consorting with enemies of the monarchy and starting battles she was bound to lose eventually. That was very foolish of her.
@sandy you really some some interesting things. Charles and Camilla mugging for cameras as if they are the first public officials to do so? Even Diana would pose for cameras, actually looking for them and inviting the press to take them?
One of the first rules of marriage: it is for two people. NOt for a woman who must cater to a selfish man and the man who has no respect for her.
That goes both ways. Not just the woman being in the role of making the spouse happy. Marriage is supposed to be a two way street. Charles was certainly not making HIS spouse happy. Charles did not "leave" there was no Rhett Butler moment. They lived separate lives for a few years before the divorce.
Why is it so important to keep Charles happy? If Diana was not "made happy" (to put it very mildly) she had every right to complain and eventually move on.
How could Diana work on a relationship when the husband preferred the other woman? Charles could have made Diana happy by ditching the mistress. He did not care two cents about his wife's feelings. Charles maybe would have been made happy if Diana had been a doormat but I doubt it. He would continue to resent her. Maybe she'd have to put a paper bag over her head or stay home so people would only notice HIM.
Diana did not start out like an ordinary housewife. Unless ordinary housewives do royal tours with a Prince and begin royal work right after they get married.
Charles insulted his own family.
Charles just looks silly when he mugs and it looks very forced.
I see you are also sanitizing what Francis said about her daughter when she dated Dodi. Their final falling out was not about the divorce but about something else entirely. Frances used terms that even Prince Phillip would balk at to describe her daughter's behavior.
You may be right that they made up with her brother but not before he had described her as being mentally disturbed, a liar and manipulative. These were two of Diana's relationships and they were going south. She was making mistake after mistake and compounding what she got wrong in her marriage. I understand William was advising to stop being too public. I wish she had listened to him.
Dodi wasn't tawdry?? Come on??? he was an amiable but incredibly dim man... he had never had any real occupation, he lived on his father's money, and even then left unpaid bills everywhere he went. He was sleeping with a model whom he was half engaged to, but slipped away form her to court Diana at his fathers behest. Hhe had had a drug problem. He irritated his bodyguards by his stupid behaviour, to the point where they could not protect him, because he was always changing plans and not telling them, or asking them to do stupid things like speed up, when they were stuck in traffic. His messing about was sadly whwat got him and Diana killed, because he didn't make sensible plans for himself and Diana and their guards to get home that night. They could have stayed in the Ritz and sent someone to pick up their clothes. They could have driven at a sensible speed.
And he ditched his fiancée/girlfriend when his father told him to do so, to try to court Diana...
@sandy I get it that you don't like Charles but insults about someone's physical appearance really do not do it for me. So I will just leave that one.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 28, 2017, 09:32:07 PM
I see you are also sanitizing what Francis said about her daughter when she dated Dodi. Their final falling out was not about the divorce but about something else entirely. Frances used terms that even Prince Phillip would balk at to describe her daughter's behavior.
You may be right that they made up with her brother but not before he had described her as being mentally disturbed, a liar and manipulative. These were two of Diana's relationships and they were going south. She was making mistake after mistake and compounding what she got wrong in her marriage. I understand William was advising to stop being too public. I wish she had listened to him.
What are you talking about? I am talking about Frances in regard to an indiscreet interview with Hello Magazine. You are talking about yet another subject.
Diana's mother complained about Hasnet Khan. A respectable doctor. ANd made bigoted comments about him.
No, Diana's falling out with her mother came months before she even started seeing Dodi. Her mother reported this herself that it was over the indiscreet interview. Read the book about Frances (authorized biography) and see for yourself.
Diana's brother is the same man you revile. Now you cite him as a reliable "source" when he and his sister were hurling insults at each other. Diana's brother is laughable to make such comments when he is no saint. ANd he was abusive to his wife. And probably hurled the same insults at her. He put down his first three children because they were not sons. Some role model he is.
And Diana's mother's comments were hearsay from Burrell. Burrell said Diana was in tears after she spoke to her mother allegedly making bigoted comments about Khan. Diana's mother was known to drink and perhaps she was feeling no pain when she shouted at Diana over the phone.
Charles tried working on the marriage. Diana was having depression and experiencing mood swings. For three years he was with her and there is never any suggestion that he was actually sleeping with Camilla at the time. Diana just got it into her head that she had to complain as much as possible and for as long as possible to get the Camilla threat away. Well, that is how you actually lose your husband. Ask him plenty of times about an old flame and chances are that he will get sick of you.
I might also add that Diana was quite selfish in that relationship and had no respect for Charles. Everything she did showed that she did not respect or love him. To answer your question: it is very important to make Charles happy if you want to remain married to him. The same applies to any marriage. If Diana had wanted to remain married to him, she would have made an effort not to turn her household into a battleground. That is one of the quickest route to send a man away.
Yes, Charles tried very hard (sarcasm). He kept in touch with his mistress and got quacks to try to treat Diana's bulimia. Charles admitted to his biographer he preferred Camilla when he married Diana and he was in touch with Camilla the whole time I often wonder if Charles had gotten sick would he get the same level of disgust with the illness, that people get with Diana's bulimia. I think Charles poor me attitude puts off a lot of people. Charles was the selfish one. He would not drop his mistress and married Diana knowing he preferred the mistress. What a loser he is.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 28, 2017, 09:33:51 PM
@sandy I get it that you don't like Charles but insults about someone's physical appearance really do not do it for me. So I will just leave that one.
A beautiful or handsome person can make goofy faces. Charles puts them on and I think he looks ridiculous doing so. Unless his face freezes he does not always look like that. So I am not putting down his appearance. Just the mugging.
Sandy. Diana's closest relationships were going south. Her family invariably described her in terms that would shame even POW. It was not a happy family. They found her difficult and said so. It was not as if the only person she fell out with was Charles. Even servants were resigning because she was just erratic sometimes.
You don't know whether Charles puts on the face or not. You don't because smiling is controlled by facial muscles and emotional responses. What you are doing is making a petty insult because you don't like Charles. That is your right but I am not part of that and I cannot give you a coherent response to it.
Going south? Really? Diana still had her circle of loyal friends Monckton, Bowker, Bartholomew, Lucia Flecha De la Lima, and Lana Marks among others. WHy do you seem to wish she would be alone and friendless? Just curious.
Diana's family NEVER made public derogatory statements about her. Ever. Her stepmother even during her last year remembered her stepdaughter fondly. Diana was not erratic.
Diana's servants did not trash her publicly.
The ones who do are Ms. Junor and Charles relatives and friends. I wonder why.
Well that is not Charles' natural face and he does mug. Why do you think he does not mug? It is not a petty insult. Camilla mugs too and looks rather clumsy doing so.
Quote from: amabel on October 28, 2017, 09:32:46 PM
Dodi wasn't tawdry?? Come on??? he was an amiable but incredibly dim man... he had never had any real occupation, he lived on his father's money, and even then left unpaid bills everywhere he went. He was sleeping with a model whom he was half engaged to, but slipped away form her to court Diana at his fathers behest. Hhe had had a drug problem. He irritated his bodyguards by his stupid behaviour, to the point where they could not protect him, because he was always changing plans and not telling them, or asking them to do stupid things like speed up, when they were stuck in traffic. His messing about was sadly whwat got him and Diana killed, because he didn't make sensible plans for himself and Diana and their guards to get home that night. They could have stayed in the Ritz and sent someone to pick up their clothes. They could have driven at a sensible speed.
And he ditched his fiancée/girlfriend when his father told him to do so, to try to court Diana...
Diana dated him. She did not marry him. I don't think he was tawdry. He was a lost soul. And his one and only wife had only good things to say about him.
Charles behavior IMO was a lot seedier with his "set" of friends and their wives. But that's another story.
I don't think Dodi was the sharpest knife in the drawer and his moment of rebellion against his father was ill timed to say the least. But he was not using drugs when he dated Diana and no, I don't think him tawdry.
Calling him a "loser" just about summarizes your view of him Sandy. The thing is Charles has people around him who do not think he is a loser. They love him and protect him, something he never got with his first wife. Diana was not a pleasant wife to him. She may have had some valid reasons for being unpleasant but the fact is that she was unpleasant and unreasonable. He got tired of her. Many other people did the same.
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2017, 09:51:03 PM
BTW if you have never lived with someone that is suffering from a mental illness, you have no right to judge the responses of those who do. It is not a walk in the park. Even Diana herself admitted that she was not well and caused issues in the house because of it.
I think he was a loser. You call Diana erratic and other things. So I can post my opinion too.
Charles behaved like a loser and shot himself in the foot doing so. He lost the image of the Golden Prince and he is not well liked by all to say the least.
Diana had bulimia nervosa and Charles called in the wrong people. Even laughably, Van Der Post. The mystery here is why he did not call in Lipsedge the one who treated Sarah. He was dating Sarah and knew about her treatments for her eating disorder were from Dr Lipsedge.
I don't know. Perhaps the BRF and Charles had never had experience of someone like that in their family. A girl who was jolly before was now rude and erratic. They didn't understand what was going on plus mental illness has always been a taboo subject in the posh classes.
Charles did not really shoot himself in the foot. When the summary is done: he has two wonderful children, step children, an extended family, his right to the throne and the woman he has always loved. I really don't consider that to be shooting oneself in the shoes. He is much happier than he was with Diana.
The "image of the Golden Prince" is another illusion and I for one I am glad that such fairy tales have been shattered. There are no golden princes that rescue beautiful maidens. That is storybook mush that has no business getting anywhere near the crown of the UK.
As for Charles not being liked, it is not the end of the world. You win some you lose some. I think those who do not like him spend more time thinking about POW than he thinks about them so even then they are the ones who are troubled, not him.
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2017, 10:06:30 PM
"Diana's servants did not trash her publicly."
You might need to update your reading list
@sandy. Diana's servants have written extensively about her and some of what they say is not very complementary. They reveal a woman that was very different from her public persona. She was described as being malicious, capricious, manipulative and vengeful. It is all out there and sometimes the reviews were so harsh her sons had to make a comment to complain about the books.
The fact of the matter remains, Diana was falling out with her closest family. It was not just Charles who found her difficult to deal with.
Diana was not rude and erratic. Diana had bulimia nervosa and morning sickness with William. She was no Zelda Fitzgerald. Of course the royals did not understand they dismissed Diana as rude and erratic and did not understand that she was uncomfortable. Diana never stopped being "jolly" there are photos of her on that Caribbean trip with Charles in Winter 1982 and she looked pretty healthy and happy and she was unaware of the cameras. Hardly the actions of the alleged mental patient.
Yes, Charles did shoot himself in the foot. Many times. Outing his mistress, getting involved with his friends' wives, trashing his parents, and so on.
He did not have those wonderful children by himself. As much as you think he'd like to forget Diana's existence he was not a Greek God whose offspring sprung from his head. They had a mother too and they talked about her last Summer and at other times. He did not have those grandchildren either without Diana.
I doubt he spends much time with the "extended" family. I think he does have decency enough to let the father and grandfather of Camilla's children have the major role.
Yes, there was the image of the Golden Prince. He was the world's most eligible bachelor and the "action man." He decidedly was not a Golden Prince. IMO.
I think Charles does care very much about how people feel about him. Why do you think he hired Bolland and other spin doctors? He is about image.
I don't think Camilla was the woman he "always loved." He rejected her back in the early seventies. And he married another woman and had other women in his life.
Are you talking about Wendy Berrie? She made some choice comments about Charles as well as Diana. ANd her book got banned in Britain. She mentioned Charles throwing things in Diana's direction and pulling out a sink.
God if Charles is a loser, I'd love to know what Poor Dodi was, I don't want to rubbish the guy as he died so horribly, but he never had a moment of success in his life. People liked him because he was amiable, and good natured but no one respected him.
Its true that charles' popularity suffered from the divorce, but in the end, he is now POW, with a wife he's happy with, sons and grandchildren, and he's reasonably well liked again in the UK, which is what matters.
He's also been very successful in his job as POW and few people would deny that he has worked hard, tried to use his position to make a difference and to help people. In due course he will be King and his wife will be beside him, almost certainly as his Queen. he has had a lot of personal happiness in the last years, and has acquired a lot of admiration for his work.
A Prince CAN be a loser. They are no deities. Some royals have been disasters. He does work hard but he has messed up badly in his private life and also has been criticized for interfering in government affairs
To be fair, Dodi's name does appear in various major films including the hit Chariots of Fire. He did do some work. I still think him a lost soul.
There are some who do not respect Charles either.
Charles and Diana's sons speak well of their mother, I am sure they love their father but it is telling how William has adopted Kate's family.
Charles is not popular with all.
And Charles will be King but there is still much criticism over the possibility of Camilla having the title of Queen. Charles may waffle over this and gauge public opinion. But what Charles wants Charles gets.
Charles own "happiness" came at a great price. IMO.
Quote from: sandy on October 28, 2017, 10:16:38 PM
A Prince CAN be a loser. They are no deities. Some royals have been disasters. He does work hard but he has messed up badly in his private life and also has been criticized for interfering in government affairs
To be fair, Dodi's name does appear in various major films including the hit Chariots of Fire. He did do some work. I still think him a lost soul.
There are some who do not respect Charles either.
Dodi DIDNT Do any work Sandy, he only got his name on films because his father put money intot them. he was kicked off the set of Chariots for handing out drugs to the cast. Please don't try to make out that he did anything in his life...He left unpaid bills behind him everywhere. His father tried to rouse some ambition in him but it was hopeless. He went to Sandhurst and asked to leave..
if Charles is a loser, Dodi must be the biggest loser in the world.
But his name still does appear on these films. He was another wealthy man's son. I think him a lost soul not a spiteful person. I think he was dominated by his father his entire life. Dodi is not the biggest loser in the world. There are people like Harvey Weinstein out there. And others. Why put down a dead man who really was harmless. He's dead and gone. Weinstein was supposedly a powerhouse in films and Streep called him a "god" yet he was a complete sleaze
Diana I think liked Dodi and enjoyed his company. But it was not like she was dating an axe murderer or something
Jackie O. married Aristotle Onassis who made billions but was not popular at all and was reviled by the Kennedy family.
I doubt Dodi and Diana would have married
I think Charles a loser because he had a sloppy private life. The story of his sharing wives with Tryon and Parker Bowles is very sordid. I don't call that "winning" behavior. Nor marrying someone he knew he did not love He named his mistress and put down his parents.
Charles complaining about his upbringing also gets tired after a while.
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2017, 10:44:04 PM
I just found an article that talks about the reason for Diana not speaking to her mother.
Tragic life of Frances Shand Kydd | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-305277/Tragic-life-Frances-Shand-Kydd.html)
Hmmm. Dodi's name was on the films at least? If Charles is a loser then poor Dodi is not being left any room at all.
I think it is absolutely ludicrous to state that a man that raises millions of dollars for charity, heads one of the leading estates in the world and is the future king of the UK a loser. To make matters worse, to base this on his private life (25 years ago) which the current president of the USA makes appear like the annals of a priest. Just goes to show you the kind of hyperbole and sentimental nonsense that surrounds this story. I am sorry but that is quite some nonsense. Charles is a very successful and influential man who has made the best of his opportunities. The fact that he married the wrong woman and divorced her is not a life failing. It is a wrong choice that he corrected and is much happier since.
Where Weinstein comes in is quite beyond me? As far as I am aware nobody has ever accused Dodi of being a sexual predator so that is some weird interjection there.
Then that comparison between Onassis and the POW? I mean, really? Are we now reduced to looking for any person that has ever done something bad and saying that at least he is better than Charles? The responses to Charles are extreme in my view and say more about his detractors than him.
I want to correct another untruth. It is an outright lie to say that William has adopted the Middletons. He has not. As far as I am aware William is very much a Windsor and is always careful to show that he is Charles' son on all of his official documents otherwise no throne for him. His only right to the throne is that he is Charles son. He would be a very foolish young man to change that. Besides he has said many, many times that he loves, respects and admires his father. These adoption stories are lies and they need to be called out.
It is also misleading to say that Charles is not popular at all. He is. Currently he stands at ratings of about 60%, nearly twice the ratings of the Swedish King and the US President. I am proof enough here that not everybody has bought into the sentimental hyperbole.
Charles very much has his supporters and you might be very surprised at the turnout for his coronation. Ditto for Camilla. Those who know her personally find her to be pleasant and mature; the right consort for Charles and very different from his first wife who brought him nothing but trouble throughout their doomed marriage (a notable exception being the children).
He won an Oscar.
My calling Charles a loser brings up talk of Dodi. Diana did not marry Dodi. Whether she would have is subject to speculation.
I don't admire Charles, I credit him for his work and work ethic but it is too bad he did not take a better path in his private life or was susceptible to bad advisers.
The current President can be voted out of office. Charles is a royal as Prince of Wales and later King until the day he dies. No term limits for him.
Why not bring up Weinstein? Why not bring up Onassis. Jackie married Onassis for security. It is a logical comparison to compare Diana looking for security in a second husband. Although Ari was controversial she married him. Diana merely dated Dodi who was also considered controversial (or his father was).
No it is true about William. He calls Michael "Dad" and he spent time with them at Christmas instead of at Sandringham. IT is a well known fact that William and the Middletons are close. I use the term "adopted them" not in the literal sense of course.
Of course William is Charles' son and appears with him but he is still close to this in-laws. Which is somewhat unprecedented. I did not mean that the Middletons did go take out adoption papers! Though some people on discussion boards have dubbed him Bill Middleton.
Who was surveyed in the poll? It is not proof enough if the whole population was not consulted.
Why wouldn't Charles have a high turnout at the Coronation? Do you know Camilla personally? I am surprised at how some people judge Camilla based on a few seconds of seeing her at an appearance. She's not going to be nasty to people. She's supposed to be pleasant when she does walkabouts. If she were the 'right consort" apparently Charles did not see her that way in the early seventies. He married Diana, and if Diana had turned him down he would still not have married Camilla.
Charles brought nothing but trouble to Diana from the get go. And Camilla brought her trouble too
If one believes what Junor writes then Camilla is a living saint who slept with Charles to "rescue" him from the "mad" wife and Camilla is the Savior of the Monarchy. What drivel.
Quoteif Charles is a loser, Dodi must be the biggest loser in the world.
What a sad existence that Dodi led for decades. :no:
Jacques Peretti on the life and death of Dodi Fayed | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/11/dodi-fayed) The Guardian's article about the playboy.
QuoteCut adrift from the royal system, Diana at this point had no one she could really trust. Her few remaining confidants were dubious characters, such as clairvoyants and numerologists, whom she listened to with avid attentiveness. She was pursued by the paparazzi wherever she went and still needed and craved the security and protection the royal system had offered her. In short, she was desperate to find a protector. Not so surprising then, the friendship with Mohamed al-Fayed, with his Onassis-sized wealth and obsession with security, surveillance and bodyguards.
For al-Fayed's part, it was no secret that since losing his battle to gain a British passport, culminating in the cash-for-questions fiasco that brought down the Major government, and then being snubbed by the royal family when they withdrew their patronage of Harrods, he was keen to build an alternative power base, with Diana at its centre. Al-Fayed encouraged Dodi to see Diana, and Diana was clearly happy to be seen with Dodi. But where, in all this, was Dodi?
QuoteAl-Fayed tried to set his son up in business, buying him a Ferrari dealership and even putting him on the board of Harrod's, but Dodi failed at both. He also bankrolled Dodi's most extravagant dream - to become a Hollywood producer, putting up the funding for Dodi's company Allied Stars, which made Chariots of Fire and won Dodi an Oscar.
@sandy says: "Of course William is Charles' son and appears with him but he is still close to this in-laws. Which is somewhat unprecedented."
That is just ridiculous. So William is the first man in the world to be close to his in-laws? Absolutely ridiculous assertion.
BTW Charles friends are very clear that Camilla was very instrumental in getting him out of the depression he was going through during the failure of his marriage. It does not matter what you think or believe in this instance because the two principles in this marriage are happy with each other. He chose her to be his wife and companion, stating on several occasions that he is very happy. Diana was not a good wife to Charles at all. The home became a war zone and he got fed up of the constant quarrels plus the never ending drama.
No, I do not know Camilla personally but those that have met her say she is nothing like some people want us to believe. Her own step children rubbished that nonsense about the "wicked step mother", saying that they "love her to bits". I think their opinion counts more than a bit of tabloid gossip IMO.
Then you have this gem: "Who was surveyed in the poll? It is not proof enough if the whole population was not consulted." Nobody has the time inclination or need to survey the entire UK population about whether or not they like Charles. The vast majority of people have moved own with their lives, not stuck in the 1980s time warp of bitterness.
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2017, 07:01:16 AM
btw. Thanks
@TLLK for that article. It is incredulous to me that Dodi is somehow presented as a better option for Diana than Charles. The guy was going nowhere and his father was just using Diana. Diana had gone from one of the premier royal positions in the world to jet-setting with shady characters. Bad decision after bad decision ending in tragedy.
Well, Charles has spent quite a bit of time with shady characters himself, some of whom he regarded as advisers and friends, Jimmy Saville, Armand Hammer, anyone, not to mention van der Post and his lies and fantasies.
And, in spite of his father's spin, Diana wasn't hooking up with Dodi for life, just having a summer romance. They both trusted that Henri Paul would drive carefully. I don't think that royals or celebs go through their temporary drivers' credentials before they get in a car. They just trust the hotel admin to be doing the right thing by them.
Charles also chose Diana to be his wife and companion, and SHE wasn't his mistress first. He wasn't a good husband to Diana. She disliked the constant quarrels and kept out of his way as much as possible leaving Highgrove to him, an opportunity Camilla made the most of.
The decision to divorce wasn't made by Diana or by Charles but by the Queen, who decided that the War of the Wales had gone on long enough.
Those who met Diana said she was lovely, kind, caring and giving. But then, people who meet royalty generally say that, I suppose you would say. Yes, they do and with Camilla too.
Harry said he loved Camilla to bits when he was 21 in a short interview. He hasn't said anything about her since, and neither has William.
I don't particularly care for the Cambridges. However, although William may indeed turn out to be an unfaithful husband, it hasn't happened yet. And William as a young single man did not follow in father's footsteps by bedding the wives of his best friends.
Yes Charles got 60% in that poll. However, Royal, you left out a few details. Such as the fact that his mother the Queen's popularity was in the 80's, both Charles's sons were in the high 70s and his daughter in law (only in the BRF a few years) was in the mid 70s while he, the Prince of Wales, was in the 'also-rans' at the back of the pack with minor royals and others including his own wife, whose polling numbers were atrocious. But then they always are.
I have made my point and you have confirmed it
@Curryong . It is inaccurate to say that Charles "is not popular at all" like someone was trying to tell us. 60% is a very respectable approval rating, particularly if you are being pursued by a determined contingent of bitter strangers who will not let go after 20 years despite not knowing you personally. Charles has his supporters and that is precisely why the attempt to get him out of the line of succession failed miserably. His supporters in the establishment would not stand for such nonsense. They will be there when he is crowned and the empty streets of the Diana fan club's dreams will not happen. Not everybody bought the fairy tale.
You are quite right that Charles has met many shady people including Saville. The difference is that he did not go on a holiday with them and invite the press to picture him kissing them or enter into a paparazzi cat and mouse game that ended in tragedy. The article provided by TLLK says it all. Diana had an incredibly poor sense of judgement and a knack for making all the wrong decisions even at 36 years when she ought to have known better.
William and Harry are not under obligation to constantly say that they like or dislike Camilla to satisfy Diana fans. They made their point and have behaved admirably well throughout this process. It is other people that are trying to read nasty motives into their actions. Those young men are not vengeful, bitter, manipulative or obsessed with revenge. They know and love their parents just about more than anybody else that claims to be an expert on the BRF.
The Queen made the decision to allow a divorce but by then Charles was completely fed up of Diana's antics. He had left her in 1986 and never looked back. Once the queen suggested it, he immediately jumped and demanded a divorce. It was Diana that was reluctant, taking weeks to respond and saying how it was the 'saddest day of her life". I can only imagine that their home life was a bit like these forums: constant criticism of C&C and not a single insight into how Diana contributed to her own downfall and the breakdown of her marriage. You turn your home into a war zone and you end up like Diana. That is just how it is.
Diana liked the drama of the marital quarrels because she assumed it would give her leverage. In that as in many things she was completely wrong. Her demands and outbursts just killed any little affection that Charles had for her. When she had lost him for good, she started a campaign of trying to win him back. Diana was constantly wanting to be involved in Charles' life and affairs when he had long lost any interest in her.
I remember reading about a very sad event when Charles had an accident and Diana came to visit him. One of the guards was embarrassed by Charles' behavior. He made it clear he did not want Diana there until she finally left bruised by the display. You can see it in her eyes when she stood outside. Charles had been very rude and unkind to her and she was still reeling from the episode. Afterwards Camilla came and he was reportedly calm once more.
Diana was trying to get involved in his life but he did not want her in it any more. The relationship had deteriorated so much that he could not even behave like a gentleman when she came to visit him in hospital. If that doesn't show you that your husband has gone forever then I don't know what he had to do to keep her away.
She only kept away from Highgrove because Charles made it absolutely clear that was his space and he did not want her there. Nobody wanted her at Highgrove and she knew it. Rather than facing the humiliation of finding C&C there inflagrante, she decided to stay in KP. Even then she was in KP brooding about how to take revenge.
The confrontation at Annabel's birthday is a case in point. Diana was spoiling for a fight but Camilla just coldly ignored her as well as Charles on the way back home. If she did not want quarrels what was she doing at that birthday? She knew very well the Highgrove set and her husband did not want her there but she still came to have it out with her rival.
Even in the last year of her life she was still telling friends about how "Camilla was not a nice woman" and how she "did not want to be compared to C&C". Diana had become bitter and obsessed. She liked attention and the drama of her failing marriage. The role of the wronged woman became an addiction and she never lost an opportunity to tell anybody who would listen about how badly she had been treated. Hence that ill-advised Panorama interview that came out of nowhere. Things had calmed down by then but she had to take it up a notch further and then got a response she hadn't expected.
I imagine Diana was like that in her home too, constantly complaining about C&C. Her behavior helped to push her husband away. That is not to say that there were no pull factors in terms of Camilla or even Charles' own ambivalent feelings to Diana in the first place. My point is that Diana was not pleasant to live with. She was great at public events but those that lived with her describe a very difficult person to live with. Charles did not abandon a sweet, loving, supportive and loyal wife. Quite the opposite. He left a woman who had become impossible to live with and whose personality was nothing like the sweet innocent jolly girl he had first courted.
Maybe some people wanted Diana at Highgrove. I can name two: William and Harry. Diana never found C and C there having sex.
I would say C and C are the ones who are still bitter.
Others besides Diana did not consider Camilla a "nice woman." AMong them: Tiggy pointedly did not invite Camilla to her wedding; Elizabeth BUchanan was sacked by Camilla; her brother in law did not like her; and she is no saint.
Diana WAS invited to the party. Charles being cold showed the sort he was. And she did not "fight" with Camilla, she told her she wanted her husband.
I would say Diana was fed up with Charles' antics.
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2017, 10:35:21 AM
Quote from: TLLK on October 29, 2017, 04:48:41 AM
What a sad existence that Dodi led for decades. :no:
Jacques Peretti on the life and death of Dodi Fayed | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/11/dodi-fayed) The Guardian's article about the playboy.
I said he was a lost soul. I hope he had some bright moments in his life. He is not some horrid villain. And Diana was having a Summer romance with him.
They did not get married. Why trash a man who lived a short life.
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2017, 10:40:27 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 29, 2017, 06:56:04 AM
@sandy says: "Of course William is Charles' son and appears with him but he is still close to this in-laws. Which is somewhat unprecedented."
That is just ridiculous. So William is the first man in the world to be close to his in-laws? Absolutely ridiculous assertion.
BTW Charles friends are very clear that Camilla was very instrumental in getting him out of the depression he was going through during the failure of his marriage. It does not matter what you think or believe in this instance because the two principles in this marriage are happy with each other. He chose her to be his wife and companion, stating on several occasions that he is very happy. Diana was not a good wife to Charles at all. The home became a war zone and he got fed up of the constant quarrels plus the never ending drama.
No, I do not know Camilla personally but those that have met her say she is nothing like some people want us to believe. Her own step children rubbished that nonsense about the "wicked step mother", saying that they "love her to bits". I think their opinion counts more than a bit of tabloid gossip IMO.
Then you have this gem: "Who was surveyed in the poll? It is not proof enough if the whole population was not consulted." Nobody has the time inclination or need to survey the entire UK population about whether or not they like Charles. The vast majority of people have moved own with their lives, not stuck in the 1980s time warp of bitterness.
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2017, 07:01:16 AM
btw. Thanks @TLLK for that article. It is incredulous to me that Dodi is somehow presented as a better option for Diana than Charles. The guy was going nowhere and his father was just using Diana. Diana had gone from one of the premier royal positions in the world to jet-setting with shady characters. Bad decision after bad decision ending in tragedy.
So did Charles spend a lot of time with Papa Spencer and Mama Shand Kydd? No. So why isn't it unprecedented for William to be close to his in-laws. Prince Philip surely was not close to his in-laws, quite the opposite.
No royal, it is not just ridiculous.
What gem? Another of your put downs of course. You don't mention who was surveyed. That's an integral part of poll results giving the data on who was surveyed. Or do they just pick out results out of the air. People need to be surveyed and unless it's a census taking, not everybody is questioned.
If Charles is out of his depression how come he still whinged to the writers of the books about him and Camilla that came out just this year. And apparently he is still bitter over Diana and his own lack of being universally loved.
Harry only made one comment about Camilla and that was ages ago. He spent 100 more times talking of his mother and not just to please the "Diana fans." Believe it or not Will and Harry adored their mother.
I doubt Harry and William spend all that much time with Camilla. She is no Carol Brady.
No. I rather suspect W&H preferred to see their mother in KP without their father present. That would mean there was less drama. Imagine the children having to witness scenes, tantrums and recriminations.
So why did she "want her husband" when she was fed up of his antics? I would have thought the sensible thing was to remain in KP and make the best of her life there instead of picking fights without someone who had long defeated her in the battle for Charles' affections.
You are traducing Charles once again Sandy. There is no evidence to suggest that Charles has contributed to any book about Diana this year. That is a lie. Junor has spoken to Charles's friends and Camilla but not Charles. In fact Camilla does not ever mention Diana in her interviews.
Then this constant reference to W&H spending time with Camilla. Why would Camilla want to be Carol Brady (don't even know who she is)? Why would she want to spend time with W&H and more importantly why would they want to spend time with her? They are not tied at the hip and they see each other at state and formal occasions. Camilla has no need to validate her worth by getting involved in people's every intimate moment. She is an independent woman who is not prone to bitterness. That is part of her attraction for Charles. No tantrums, no recriminations, no neediness.
Then this tangent about Twiggy. What does Camilla have to do with Twiggy's wedding? Were they close in any way? I don't get it why not getting an invitation is a big deal. Camilla has certainly never indicated any disappointment about not going to that wedding. It has nothing to do with her. It is actually Diana who was slandering Twiggy and the lawyers had to be called in. Camilla doesn't play those high school games. She is a mature self-confident woman.
BTW, Charles actually like Johnny Spencer and Rainer. It was Diana who was nasty to Rainer, not the POW.
The calming of Charles by Camilla make Charles after his polo injury sound like a big baby. He was rude to Diana that day. And she did get over the 'hurt'. She should have taken Charles behavior from whence it came.
Royal, Camilla did not just "ignore" Diana she responded to her.
You wanted Diana to be some big reject.
Believe it or not there were people that were disgusted with C and C's behavior. Camilla behaving "snobbish" with Diana is just ludicrous.
So how come Charles clung to a woman married to another man. Diana was right to complain.
There are plenty of photos with Diana and Charles with their sons, even after the divorce. So the boys did see both parents, together, at the same time.
Diana told Camilla how she felt and it was about time. Though not that Camilla cared about anybody else. she looked out for number one and of course wanted to see off other women who got near Charles. Tiggy and Elizabeth B. come to mind.
Diana and Charles were not separated when she spoke to Camilla at Anabel's party. Diana got an invitation and she had every right to attend that party.
Junor said she met with Charles and Camilla re: the book about Camilla. Smith and Junor had access to Charles' friends . That is a fact. Charles of course had something to do with it. He lets others do the dirty work. Junor and Charles and Camilla socialize together and Camilla and Penny went on a trip together (photographs prove it).
Look up Carol Brady and find out.
Camilla is no independent woman. For much of her life she depended on a man. First her husband and throughout it all her influential and wealthy lover. She had a very very brief job as a secretary which she reportedly showed up late to. Camilla is not independent. She did nothing on her own, unless it involved her husband or lover.
Tiggy invited Charles and the boys. At the time Camilla was Charles lady friend (this after Diana died) and she had apartments at Clarence House. Tiggy pointedly excluded Camilla who would have been Charles' "date." Camilla called Tiggy the Hired Help. It shows that there are people other than Diana who dislike the woman. Camilla played plenty of high school games--trashing the wife via letters to Charles and talking like a 14 year old to Charles on those tapes
Charles was not close to John Spencer and Raine. Diana was close friends with Raine from 1992 to her death. But of course that fact is totally ignored by you.
You know I am not even too sure anymore that Camilla responded in that way. Diana always told lies when it came to C&C and the BRF for the most part so I would not be surprised if she changed the story here a bit. Some say Camilla made a mock curtsy others say that she asked her what she wanted. It is all up in the air, mostly from the ramblings of an embittered abandoned wife.
Diana had a right to complain and she did complain herself right out of her marriage. Her wronged woman routine started getting on Charles' nerves and he left the marital home.
I think Diana was spot on about Camilla. You choose to believe Camilla ignored Diana. It is forgotten that Diana still was a senior member of the royal family, even though Camilla would have had to grit her teeth she could not be rude to her (except in nasty letters and comments to Charles).
How do you know it was a 'mock" curtsy. I read it was a curtsy. Camilla as you always said knows royal protocol.
So you would have wanted Diana as a meek yes Charles no Charles and be treated like dirt. She still would have been treated with contempt by her husband and his mistress. She had some self respect.
Well isn't it too bad it got on Charles' nerves. He started the whole mess by thinking it OK to sleep with his friends' wives and not marrying a woman for love but just to have heirs.
Diana had to make a pretty simple decision: Do I want to remain married to this man or not? Then, she would have behaved in such a way as to achieve whichever objective she wanted. The problem for her is that she wanted to remained married to him and behaved in a way that was most likely to make him leave her. That is a lack of joined-up thinking. You make a fuss and he leaves. You do not make a fuss and he stays. Simple equation. You do not make a fuss and then hope he will not leave.
BTW if Camilla curtsied to Diana on that occasion, it was definitely a mock curtsy. Diana was now a woman who was Charles wife in name only. Camilla knew that Charles was never going back to Diana. Therefore any curtsy would be an insult in my view.
So she should have been a doormat then. She still would have been reviled by Camilla for "being in the way." Charles still would have had contempt for her.
He did not leave her. They led separate lives a few years before the divorce. No Rhett Butler moments.
So Diana should have been a little mouse to CHarles and yes sir no sir to him. And hoped the Great Man smiled at her once in a while she would have been oh so grateful.
Of Course Camilla knew, she was in control the whole way.
How do you know it was a mock curtsy. Let alone it being "definitely". You were not there.There were other people around so Saint Camilla IMOwould not want them to see her without the halo and the rude person she is.
Camilla was worse than I thought her if it were a mock curtsy. What is a mock curtsy, doing a little dance and twirling skirts?
Charles could have made a simple decision. Did he want to remain married to Diana and work on his marriage. Then he would have behaved in a way where there was no other woman on the side and have some respect for his wife. Then he would have been someone committed to a marriage. Charles also could have made another simple decision. Think carefully, did he want to marry a woman he did not love and he preferred someone else? Maybe he could think about the ramifications if his partner realized she played second fiddle. Then he should have broken up with Lady Diana. Or he could have admitted his true feelings before the proposal and she could have broken up with him. Even earlier, another simple decision, is it moral to be friends with two men and sleep with their wives? And stop thinking he was above all ethics. If he made that decision he could have settled down with a wife without the baggage of having a mistress.
Camilla and Charles were not separated. If Camilla did "mock" curtsy (what is that?) she showed what a vindictive person she really is. For all intents and purposes C and D were still married as were the Parker Bowleses.
If your husband's mistress curtsies to you, it is an insult. They are not showing you any respect and if you think they are, you are quite naive. Diana would have been quite naive to imagine that Camilla was showing her respect if she curtsied. Camilla fundamentally despised Diana, thought she was crazy and ought to be locked up. The curtsy if it happened would have been a mockery.
Diana need not have become a mouse.... but if she turned into a lioness (as she did); she might as well be prepared for the consequences. She is the mouse that roared and then the pack turned on her. She could not cope with the feedback. I would have thought a sensible person would have considered all those eventualities before embarking on her embittered wife routine.
The moment Diana decided to make a fuss is the moment her marriage started failing. Charles was not going to stand there and put up with her tantrums or mood swings for eternity. There would come a time when he would get fed up and leave, which is exactly what he did. If we believe her that she wanted the marriage to work, the drama was the wrong move. It pushed Charles away and withered away the little affection he had ever had for her. She became an irritant in his life.
Charles made that decision actually and was quite brutal in executing it. He no longer wanted to be with Diana so he abandoned the marriage. That decision was quite final and he never went back on it. It was Diana who actually wanted to remain in the marriage. He had long lost interest in her and would only have been delighted if she had kept to herself or taken lovers discreetly. Charles has never ever said he was sad about the separation or divorce. Never. Neither has he ever stated publicly or privately (as far as we know) that he misses anything about the marriage to Diana.
He no longer wanted to be in that relationship and was only trapped because of the restrictions on divorce. Otherwise he would have dumped her in 1983 or shortly thereafter. The way C&D were behaving, it is a miracle they lasted those years. Had they been ordinary couples, that married would not have seen out its second anniversary.
By the time of the confrontation the C&D marriage was an empty shell. Charles had not slept with Diana for at least 3 years. They were not living in the same house. It was a marriage on paper only. Apparently she had tried to seduce Charles with lingerie before that event and he had told her she looked "ridiculous". There was no marriage, just a contract tying them together.
Quote
btw. Thanks @TLLK for that article. It is incredulous to me that Dodi is somehow presented as a better option for Diana than Charles. The guy was going nowhere and his father was just using Diana.
Yes I agree that Dodi was truly "going nowhere" and was duty bound by Egyptian tradition to follow his father's instructions when it came to enhancing the Al Fayed's rise in British society. I'm sorry that it came at such a terrible price. :no:
QuoteBut Dodi wasn't interested in just any girls. He was interested in famous girls. He hired Pat Kingsley, the legendary publicist of Tom Cruise and Madonna, to make sure he was photographed with his famous dates getting out of limousines and going into LA restaurants. But though Dodi had a reputation for being a playboy, it is far from clear that he was actually dating or even sleeping with any of these women. But he was certainly seen with them. Photographed with them.
I'd thought that if anyone meant anything to Dodi, Denice might have. But I was beginning to realise that the deeper I digged, the shallower the story became. A picture was emerging of a man who, in spite of his immense wealth, struggled to make human connections and used famous women to create an image: of a playboy.
- :no: This is very sad as it appears that he truly had few that he'd bonded with in his lifetime.
QuoteTime went by and Dodi remained trapped in this strange luxury bubble, feeling unable to please his father but desperate to do something that would gain his approval. Cue Diana and the summer of 1997. Events were conspiring to bring three people together who needed each other: Diana, unravelling, on the rebound from surgeon Hasnat Khan and keen to use Dodi to get back at him; al-Fayed, at the end of a long road of humiliation at the hands of the British establishment, and Dodi, keen to do something in his life that his father would consider worthwhile.
Ironically, at the one moment Dodi realised his father's ambitions for him, he had simultaneously engineered a situation in which he might break free from him for the first time in his life. In an adjacent bay to the one in which the Jonikal was moored, Dodi had another yacht, with another woman on it: Kelly Fisher, a model, who was engaged to marry Dodi and wore his mother's engagement ring as proof.
A rather pathetic scenario IMHO. :(
Too many posts to jump in on the last couple pages, by this time im sure we all know what were all going to say....
Excellent info as usual
@TLLK very sad, it makes me think of two questions: did he just view Diana as yet another famous girl to be seen with, albeit likely the pinnacle at that time of world fame, or did he see what some of us saw in her as far as a lovely adorable girl?
Second, and it just hit me reading the last quoted bit....do you think that Diana and MAF were both using Dodi in different, yet oddly similar ways for their own agendas? (im sure we'll get letters over this one) :ahhh:
Bonus question while stirring the pot, aside from looks, as far as a practical arrangement, if a marriage was to happen between Diana and the Fayeds, do you think it would have been better for Diana to marry MAF and have more direct access to his resources and better security than he afforded Dodi?
I have read the last couple of pages with amusement. First I would like to know why do a few of you think Charles happiness is paramount than those around him? Is he supposed to be some sort of god? Charles is no better than anyone else even if he was born with the HRH the belief in divine right went out the widow years ago. Second is Charles a loser? As Pow no but in a human sense yes Royal brings up his Charity fundraising well Diana raised just as much however she didn't stoop to courting the seedy people Charles has ala Armand Hammer and others to raise money. Having a successful Duchy Royal you give Charles too much credit leading some to believe he is some financial wizard he isn't he has sound advisers making the investments. What makes Charles a loser? to start with his whining tendencies and his belief that he is someone special and others are nothing more than there to serve him and that I might include his parents. Dodi Fayed was also a loser in the sense he had to still be the little boy dependent on his Daddy to give him his allowance and to be honest he was very easily led though his solution to making and maintaining friends was to spread his wealth and buying people for affection and Diana touched on that in a conversation with Rosa Monckton. Camilla is another story the only time she was ever nice and respectful to Diana was the courtship and engagement to make sure this time Charles married and produced the required heirs she herself could never bear. Once Diana produced the boys all bets were off and she totally asserted herself knowing just how to push Diana's buttons. The most telling remark Diana ever made was during her confrontation with Camilla who during the exchange Camilla said to her you have money and position and adoration I believe the adoration was said what more do you want? Diana answered "My Husband" that said it all Diana wanted the love and respect of Charles not the money, position and titles funny how the C&C fans gloss over that one little fact.
Quote from: TLLK on October 29, 2017, 04:02:23 PM
Yes I agree that Dodi was truly "going nowhere" and was duty bound by Egyptian tradition to follow his father's instructions when it came to enhancing the Al Fayed's rise in British society. I'm sorry that it came at such a terrible price. :no:
- :no:
I dotn think it had anything to do with Egyptian Tradtion. it was the fact that Dodi was being paid for by his father and had to do what the old man said.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 29, 2017, 02:43:02 PM
If your husband's mistress curtsies to you, it is an insult. They are not showing you any respect and if you think they are, you are quite naive. Diana would have been quite naive to imagine that Camilla was showing her respect if she curtsied. Camilla fundamentally despised Diana, thought she was crazy and ought to be locked up. The curtsy if it happened would have been a mockery.
Diana need not have become a mouse.... but if she turned into a lioness (as she did); she might as well be prepared for the consequences. She is the mouse that roared and then the pack turned on her. She could not cope with the feedback. I would have thought a sensible person would have considered all those eventualities before embarking on her embittered wife routine.
The moment Diana decided to make a fuss is the moment her marriage started failing. Charles was not going to stand there and put up with her tantrums or mood swings for eternity. There would come a time when he would get fed up and leave, which is exactly what he did. If we believe her that she wanted the marriage to work, the drama was the wrong move. It pushed Charles away and withered away the little affection he had ever had for her. She became an irritant in his life.
Charles made that decision actually and was quite brutal in executing it. He no longer wanted to be with Diana so he abandoned the marriage. That decision was quite final and he never went back on it. It was Diana who actually wanted to remain in the marriage. He had long lost interest in her and would only have been delighted if she had kept to herself or taken lovers discreetly. Charles has never ever said he was sad about the separation or divorce. Never. Neither has he ever stated publicly or privately (as far as we know) that he misses anything about the marriage to Diana.
He no longer wanted to be in that relationship and was only trapped because of the restrictions on divorce. Otherwise he would have dumped her in 1983 or shortly thereafter. The way C&D were behaving, it is a miracle they lasted those years. Had they been ordinary couples, that married would not have seen out its second anniversary.
By the time of the confrontation the C&D marriage was an empty shell. Charles had not slept with Diana for at least 3 years. They were not living in the same house. It was a marriage on paper only. Apparently she had tried to seduce Charles with lingerie before that event and he had told her she looked "ridiculous". There was no marriage, just a contract tying them together.
An insult? Really? I never knew that. So someone curtsying is insulting a royal. This is just plain royal protocol. Even Diana's sister Sarah was seen curtsying to Charles, her ex brother in law, in Paris, when they collected Diana's body. She surely was not being insulting to the Prince of Wales.
Camilla could loathe Diana and vice versa but she could not show her true colors around the people near them when Diana walked in. She curtsyed to Diana
The feedback was from Charles own friends who wanted to please their master by leaking nasty stories.
A sensible man would never have bedded his friends' wives. And he would have been a better person for it. Charles did not follow the path of a sensible man.
The lingerie story is a fabrication. Diana never said that. She said the day she confronted Camilla she and Charles quarreled and she said "how could you have done this," hardly the mood for love. Earlier on maybe she wore lingerie she had to have had sex with Charles since they produced those heirs. And it was not just two times.
Diana would not debase her self to plead with the Great Man after they had a quarrel.
There was a time when Charles would throw things in Diana's direction, make fun of her bulimia, put her down in front of other people, and pull a sink out in a fit of temper. There were times when Diana walked away from HIM, believe it or not Charles is not some deity.
oh for gods sake, it is obvious that if Camilla DID curtsy to Diana when they had their confrontation, she was doing it in a sarcastic way....
Only Camilla knows the spirit into which she went into that curtsy. So it is a matter that is speculative only. Camilla will never ever comment on it. If she thumbed her nose at Diana or made faces then I would assume that sarcasm was in place. She would have had to be a nasty piece of work to curtsy "sarcastically" I wonder if she got etiquette lessons on the sarcastic curtsy. Unless she said Diana, I am curtsying you sarcastically.This is a new one on me.
Edward VII's mistresses, , curtsyed to Alexandra and how is it known which of them was "sarcastic." Or they thought badly of the wife.
If indeed Camilla was sarcastic then she was a nastier woman than I thought she was. I hope Diana was sarcastic with her if that were the case.
Unless in a fit of giggles Camilla told Junor she curtsyed sarcastically.
IF this is the sort of woman for Charles it is indeed a reflection on his bad taste. IMO.
On some level IMO Charles likes women fighting over him.
Quote from: amabel on October 29, 2017, 05:52:35 PM
I dotn think it had anything to do with Egyptian Tradtion. it was the fact that Dodi was being paid for by his father and had to do what the old man said.
Yes I'm aware that he was being bankrolled by his father, but I do believe that Egyptian family traditional behavior with the father calling the shots was definitely a factor.
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2017, 07:39:25 PM
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on October 29, 2017, 05:10:03 PM
Too many posts to jump in on the last couple pages, by this time im sure we all know what were all going to say....
Excellent info as usual @TLLK very sad, it makes me think of two questions: did he just view Diana as yet another famous girl to be seen with, albeit likely the pinnacle at that time of world fame, or did he see what some of us saw in her as far as a lovely adorable girl?
Second, and it just hit me reading the last quoted bit....do you think that Diana and MAF were both using Dodi in different, yet oddly similar ways for their own agendas? (im sure we'll get letters over this one) :ahhh:
Bonus question while stirring the pot, aside from looks, as far as a practical arrangement, if a marriage was to happen between Diana and the Fayeds, do you think it would have been better for Diana to marry MAF and have more direct access to his resources and better security than he afforded Dodi?
You're welcome. Yes I do believe that initially Dodi was instructed by his father to pursue a relationship with Diana knowing that his son had a penchant for being seen with famous female public figures. I do believe that he likely found her to be charming, but who knows what either really thought about the other? This seemed to be a relationship based upon mutual convenience IMHO.
I tend to believe that Diana would have known that marrying MAF would have been social suicide in the UK and that she would not have entered into such a relationship.
Quote from: sandy on October 29, 2017, 07:15:04 PM
Only Camilla knows the spirit into which she went into that curtsy. So it is a matter that is speculative only. Camilla will never ever comment on it. If she thumbed her nose at Diana or made faces then I would assume that sarcasm was in place. She would have had to be a nasty piece of work to curtsy "sarcastically" I wonder if she got etiquette lessons on the sarcastic curtsy. Unless she said Diana, I am curtsying you sarcastically.This is a new one on me.
IF this
I can't believe that you actually think that IF Camilla did curtsy to her, she was doing it in a spirit of "formal politeness to the Princess Of wales. "
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2017, 07:49:56 PM
Marrying MAF??? Who on earth thinks that was possible?
The man was married, muc older than Diana, vulgar and disliked by most of the upper crust. If Diana had ever considered marrying a man like that/???
TLLK, I think that Dodi did what he liked, provided Dad didn't intervene. I'm sure MAF would have preferred it if his son had had some "get up and go" and took up some of the opportunities that were open to him as the son of a very rich man, such as learning the family business or getting into the Army or British upper class and making something of himself. Clearly he wasn't able to/didn't want to. And I think that MAF let him idle around when he could see that Dodi wasn't going to do anyting with his life.
But when MAF saw the chance of a divorced bored Diana maybe looking for a new and rich partner, he cracked the whip and said "leave the model alone, and get here and start paying court to Diana".. and if he had insisted Doidi would have broken completely with his girlfriend (at least for the time being) and proposed to Diana. All to do with the fact that I think Dodi was paid for by MAF and so, had to obey orders...
@sandy. Are you telling us that Camilla was paying deference to Diana by curtsying to her? Somehow I find that unbelievable. Camilla referred to Diana as Barbie and a mad cow. Now you tell us she was curtsying out of respect for Diana. I do not for a moment believe that one.
As for
@Trudie saying that all Diana wanted was the love and respect of Charles, not the titles and privileges. I don't believe that either. She really did fight for those titles and privileges so it was part of the package. What Diana wanted was a man who was hopelessly in love with her and would put up with virtually any demand she set. Of course if you live your life like that you are bound to be disappointed.
She pushed, quarreled and manipulated until he gave up on the relationship. She was not some sweet wife who never did any harm to her cold heartless husband. Far, far from it. By the time he left, Charles was completely fed up with what she was doing. Even the queen finally realized that there was no hope for any kind of reconciliation. Meanwhile Diana paradoxically said she did not want a divorce. Deluded or what?
Well Wallis Simpson knew darn well David's parents did not approve of her but still curtseyed to them when presented at court. It is called keeping up appearances IMO. The parents were polite but George V expressed criticism of "that woman" behind the scenes.
Camilla knew darn well how Diana felt about her and how she felt about Diana but followed custom by curtseying I doubt she felt any "deference" but it is keeping up appearances.
I thought it out of place for Sarah to curtsy to Prince Charles during the tragic time of collecting Diana's body. But again, I guess keeping up appearances rules.
Someone who is low class like Camilla WOULD call the wife names. Shame on her.
I found Camilla decidedly not sweet but I thought her manipulative and ruthless at getting what she wanted. Charles lost his moral compass before he married Diana, sleeping with his friends' wives. A nice man with some morals would never have done that. But that was his set nice to someone's face but knifing in the back and sharing their wives. And the husbands allowing it because after all it IS the Prince of Wales. A lot of women would have done a lot more than push if they walked into a marriage with the husband and the mistress.
Royal, there is no record anywhere of Charles storming out the door of a royal residence and "leaving" Diana. That is the stuff of Cartland novels. IMO. They grew apart and led separate lives. Nobody stormed out of the house. Where would CHarles "storm to?" Camilla's bedroom?
I find Charles very heartless to do what he did not only to Diana but to others. Camilla IMO was a ruthless social climber who undermined another woman.
Why would Diana say she wanted a divorce on TV. You say Charles wanted one but he never said he did on TV. So was that deluded of him or what
Quote from: TLLK on October 29, 2017, 07:34:56 PM
Yes I'm aware that he was being bankrolled by his father, but I do believe that Egyptian family traditional behavior with the father calling the shots was definitely a factor.
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2017, 07:39:25 PM
You're welcome. Yes I do believe that initially Dodi was instructed by his father to pursue a relationship with Diana knowing that his son had a penchant for being seen with famous female public figures. I do believe that he likely found her to be charming, but who knows what either really thought about the other? This seemed to be a relationship based upon mutual convenience IMHO.
I tend to believe that Diana would have known that marrying MAF would have been social suicide in the UK and that she would not have entered into such a relationship.
I doubt Diana would have married him. She was dating him and appeared to have fun on the yacht. SOmetimes there are no 'motives' just dating for fun.
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2017, 08:01:33 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 29, 2017, 07:43:57 PM
I can't believe that you actually think that IF Camilla did curtsy to her, she was doing it in a spirit of "formal politeness to the Princess Of wales. "
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2017, 07:49:56 PM
Marrying MAF??? Who on earth thinks that was possible?
The man was married, muc older than Diana, vulgar and disliked by most of the upper crust. If Diana had ever considered marrying a man like that/???
TLLK, I think that Dodi did what he liked, provided Dad didn't intervene. I'm sure MAF would have preferred it if his son had had some "get up and go" and took up some of the opportunities that were open to him as the son of a very rich man, such as learning the family business or getting into the Army or British upper class and making something of himself. Clearly he wasn't able to/didn't want to. And I think that MAF let him idle around when he could see that Dodi wasn't going to do anyting with his life.
But when MAF saw the chance of a divorced bored Diana maybe looking for a new and rich partner, he cracked the whip and said "leave the model alone, and get here and start paying court to Diana".. and if he had insisted Doidi would have broken completely with his girlfriend (at least for the time being) and proposed to Diana. All to do with the fact that I think Dodi was paid for by MAF and so, had to obey orders...
Huh! MAF marrying Diana. I agree that is quite the stretch. He had a wife and four children and he is still with the same wife. Why would he even think of it.
Dodi proposing did not mean Diana would say yes.
I am sorry but the idea that Camilla was paying deference to a hysterical Diana complaining about her affair with her husband is laughable. Absolutely laughable. It is argument for arguments sake and makes no sense at all.
Let me put it to you like this about Camilla and Diana. At home Diana was being a nightmare. She was moody, tearful, needy and quarrelsome. Camilla outside was the calm influence. I think after some time Charles just thought Diana was not worth the bother and that Camilla gave him a "quiet life" so to speak.
Camilla was just an easier person to be with. They were around the same age, had the same interests, similar tastes and of course were actually in love with each other. By contrast living with Diana was just not a good experience for him. She bored him with her interests and tired him with her demands for his absolute loyalty.
Diana did everything in her power to precipitate a divorce and then went on to say she did not want a divorce. Just like she did everything to push Charles away and then complained that he left. Charles left her. There is no sugar coating that one. He drifted out of the home and stopped sleeping with her. When she wanted a third child, he was having none of it. He left her. She did not leave him.
Oh please. this was a private meeting between Camilla and Diana, it has nothing to do with "Keeping up appearances." How on earth can you actually think that?
IF it happened as Diana Appears to have told the story, then she attacked Camilla verbally, Camilla gave her an ironic curtsy in reply....
Oh please, there were people around Amabel. It was a birthday party with many aristos and socialites present. So if nobody was around, how was it known that the sarcastic curtsy happened. Can you describe a sarcastic curtsy. I suppose Camilla in a fit of girlish giggles might have joked about it with her gal pal Penny Junor.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 29, 2017, 08:09:12 PM
I am sorry but the idea that Camilla was paying deference to a hysterical Diana complaining about her affair with her husband is laughable. Absolutely laughable. It is argument for arguments sake and makes no sense at all.
Let me put it to you like this about Camilla and Diana. At home Diana was being a nightmare. She was moody, tearful, needy and quarrelsome. Camilla outside was the calm influence. I think after some time Charles just thought Diana was not worth the bother and that Camilla gave him a "quiet life" so to speak.
Camilla was just an easier person to be with. They were around the same age, had the same interests, similar tastes and of course were actually in love with each other. By contrast living with Diana was just not a good experience for him. She bored him with her interests and tired him with her demands for his absolute loyalty.
Diana did everything in her power to precipitate a divorce and then went on to say she did not want a divorce. Just like she did everything to push Charles away and then complained that he left. Charles left her. There is no sugar coating that one. He drifted out of the home and stopped sleeping with her. When she wanted a third child, he was having none of it. He left her. She did not leave him.
Did you read my post? I said keeping up appearances which does not necessarily mean "Deference."
Diana was quite calm not hysterical. Do you wish she had been hysterical? Why? She was very calm according to the witnesses.
Charles pushed Diana away. You had indicated that yourself. Diana was in a no win situation. He insisted on keeping Camilla around. And once he did his duty and produced the heirs that was that. Why is the woman always to blame? Charles is no saint By any stretch of the imagination.
No Charles did not just "leave her". That's Barbara Cartland fodder. They led separate lives then divorced. Diana did not go crawling to Charles. I guess he might have wanted that being so perfect and all that.
I would say being with a man who sneaks around, tells his married mistress he loves her while married to someone else, gives her presents, wears her presents, and expects his way or the highway. He sounds like a huge nightmare to me and so does the mistress.
Oh it must have seemed needy by Charles for Diana to even quibble about what he wanted to do. If he wanted to play house with the mistress then it was his right, and the wife had better toe the line. I guess Charles lived in the sixteenth century.
Charles must have been hysterical when he put down his wife in public. But I guess because of who he is that is his perfect right to be abusive.
Any woman that did what Diana did is going to have her marriage ending in a flash. Nobody wants to live in a war zone, no matter how beautiful or popular you are. Diana was the one that wanted the marriage to continue. Charles did not. She was the one who was in a weaker situation but failed to realize it. If you want your husband to stay with you, the last thing you do is drama. If you do drama, don't get surprised if he leaves.
If you are saying that Charles never left the home then it completely undermines every argument you have ever made about Charles abandoning Diana. So are you now saying it was in fact Diana who left or that they both left? I don't believe that for one second. It was not a relationship of two people who loved and wanted each other equally.
Diana was always the one that had an interest in maintaining the marriage because she would ultimately be the loser in any divorce arrangement. Indeed, that is what exactly happened. As she was downgraded and stripped of her title; Charles was not affected. He was a dynast and the rules did not apply to him in the same way as her. She was dispensable to the crown, he was not.
Diana was thinking in the moment and not ahead or in the past. A shrewder woman would have realized that upon the birth of Harry, Charles could really leave without any consequence. The heirs had been born and could not be unborn. The only thing that binded him was the conventions that frowned on divorce for a person in his position. Diana had absolutely no power to make him stay in the house if he did not want to.
What then were her options? In my view she either had to stop turning the home into a war zone or go her own separate way (even whilst maintaining a formal marriage for state occasions). She did neither of those things but stayed there, hoping to be a thorn in his side even as he ignored her and became ruder to her by the day. Then she took lovers to make him jealous and to validate herself. That too failed and weakened her arguments of victim hood. Poor decision-making on her part and an inability to think things through.
Oh yes, Diana asked for it complaining about Camilla. She should have meekly made nice with Camilla, shared recipes with her and been delighted that she made Charles happy. She should have lived for a time the great man, patted her on the head and had a little smile for her.
Charles was enthralled by the mistress who was crude enough to trash the wife.
Which home? They did have several residences. Diana stayed at KP primarily but yes, it is documented she also spent time at Highgrove. Charles was busy playing house with Camilla and expressly brought Highgrove so he'd be within driving distance of Mrs Parker Bowles. Before he even courted Diana. How clever.
Diana was not the loser in the divorce settlement, she got a very generous settlement, shared custody of the sons she had with Charles and kept her KP apartments. No it did not happen that she was the loser. She was not dispensable to the crown as the mother of a future King. The boys did not spring from Charles' head.
A shrewder man and a moral one would not have played house with his friends' wives. He would have moved on when his girlfriend married someone else. But oh no Charles had this big sense of entitlement.
What "house." It makes it sound they lived in the suburbs. They had mansions and residences not a "house."
Oh no Charles could hold his breath and turn blue if he were discouraged from pursuing his pleasures.
Charles did more than his share in turning things into war zones. So do you think Diana should have admired the lovely cufflinks that Dahling Camilla gave him to wear on his honeymoon? I guess wives should behave like doormats.
Diana did not take lovers to make the great man jealous. She did not want to join a convent while hubby played house with his married mistress. It's not always all about Charles. How did the relationships fail? Because she did not run away with Hewitt and marry him? Then she would have lost custody of the children. She was only a year divorced and did you expect her to marry immediately. Maybe she wanted to enjoy being single for a while without a dysfunctional husband and his greedy mistress. It is interesting how her bulimia symptoms diminished after she moved on with Hewitt.
Being "mother to a future king" in no way protects you if they want you out as Diana learnt. Diana is not here but that in no way affects the succession of Charles or his sons. Once the child is born that is it. They are the dynast. You are not. You may be protected as long as you are a widow or married to the dynast but nothing more.
It is preposterous to suggest that Diana lost nothing in her divorce settlement. She lost quite a lot. She was no longer HRH The Princess of Wales and could never be queen. She was forbidden from representing the monarch. Important and influential members of the BRF like PM and QM disliked her immensely. Some could hardly maintain their manners in her presence. Upon Charles' succession she would have to get his express permission to travel on official duties or to attend state events.
What she was left with was Clairvoyants, spiritualists, fortune tellers, some of her loyal friends, the charity set, her children and a grievance industry that continues to this day. A woman that at one point was meeting Heads of States was left drifting with the likes of Dodi. Instead of getting the protection that would be her due, she was being ferried write off cars driven by drunken drivers and pursued by paparazzi who were calling her names that are not repeatable. She was being spat at by members of the press to get a good picture for their publications.
The money in her divorce settlement is what Charles actually spends on his expenses in a year. Peanuts when you think about it. She lost and hence the bitterness about it all. If Diana was advantaged by her divorce, we would not have some of her fans constantly moaning about how badly she was treated.
You are refusing to accept the reality that Charles got everything he wanted. He has his heirs, the woman he loves and the crown. That seemed impossible in 1983. He was trapped into a loveless marriage with a woman he did not like and who was unpleasant to live with but could not divorce her. The woman he really loved was married to someone else. Charles at that point was destined to a life of misery with Diana and stolen moments with his true love Camilla.
Then Diana went into her bitter wife mode and everything seemed to fall in place for Charles. At first she seemed to be winning the PR game and had lots of supporters but ultimately she was playing a game she was going to lose. She engineered her reluctant exit from the BRF, leaving the way open for Charles to marry Camilla.
I agree with you that Charles was not shrewd about the whole thing but his position has always protected him from his mistakes. You take on the heir to the throne at your peril. A wise man would never have courted or proposed to Diana. A wise man would have married Camilla when he first had a chance and lived happily with her for the rest of his life. Had he married Camilla in 1974, they would now be celebrating their 45th anniversary. He was too weak to do what was right for him and paid the price for it. The disaster that was his first marriage was Charles' purgatory for his weakness and indecision.
Yes, it did protect her. Charles and his sons? You mean Charles and Diana and their sons. Charles could not have had them without Diana. William would not say I'm a dynast Mummy now beat it out of here. He would have wanted her close by. Much like Elizabeth II would want her mother around. Why do you see women as inferior or chattel? I am curious.
Diana had the title Princess of Wales. She did not lose that. I do think had she lived William would have restored the HRH. Yes, I think she got a generous settlement. The QM BTW disliked Camilla immensely so much so that Charles had to wait until she died to marry Camilla. Princess Margaret had contempt for Camilla calling her 'that mistress.' So Camilla could not win with them either.
How do you know the royals could hardly contain their manners with Diana? Who was there to watch on this board?
BTW Diana was still meeting important people after the divorce: Nelson Mandela (who admired Diana), Henry Kissinger, Mother Theresa. Not a bad group of admirers for a woman you see as a nobody.
Do you think she deserved to be called names by the paparazzi? They are the ones to be trashed. Diana did not "ask for" abuse any more than other famous people who get harassed by the paps. DO you think Jackie O. asked for her being stalked by the paparazzi too? Just curious
No Diana won. No matter how you and the C and C fans attempt to debase her and Charles and his cronies attempt to diminish her it has failed. There were lines of people to see the costume exhibit this year and William and Harry paid tribute to their mother. Just this year too.
A wise man would not have bedded his friends' wives and got involved in a sordid private life. He did not marry Camilla and he moved on. I don't think he necessarily would have been happy with her. He apparently was not happy enough with her back then to marry her and have her as the mother of his heirs. She was not considered good enough by him apparently. Charles was too weak to do right by Diana and not bring her into his sordid lifestyle. He wanted to have his cake and eat it too and he thinks he did.
Diana was not bitter though you seem to be delighted to think that she was. A bitter woman would have sat back, Diana was planning a future role for herself. Diana won the PR game. Charles has lost popularity and Camilla is way down the list in opinion polls. Charles paved the way to marry Camilla by blabbing to the media that she was his mistress thus forcing the Camilla-APB divorce. And he had to wait years to marry her.
Of course Charles got what he wanted but at a price. He got to have his cake and eat it too or so he thinks. Charles I think loves himself the most. And you like this man yet say he married someone he did not like. That speaks volumes of the sheer awful behavior and attitude of the man. By lauding him for his rotten behavior, you are helping to show him for who he really is.
Diana was badly treated you said it yourself Charles married a woman he did not like. It shows there is something really wrong with him.
Why would he care that Camilla was married to someone else? Or Kanga married to someone else? It did not stop him from having affairs with both women. What sort of man acts that way, and they were married to his friends too.
Unless Diana remarried Charles (heaven freeze over before that was to happen), she would never again be "HRH The Princess of Wales". Neither would William restore such a title precisely because it belongs to the wife of the POW and Diana was no longer that.
Diana, Princess of Wales is a courtesy style that uses "Princess of Wales" as if it was a name. Upon remarriage Diana would go back to Lady Diana, Mrs XXX. She was no longer HRH The Princess of Wales and could never claim any privileges related to that role.
The QM disliked Camilla so much that she allowed her to use her home for trysts with Charles? Strange logic.
Saying Diana was not bitter is another ridiculous assertion. She was and showed it many, many times by her words and behavior.
You say Diana won the PR game. I say she did not. Being called names and being chased to your death by paparazzi is not winning in my book. Diana invited the press to her holiday with Dodi and they helped to kill her during that holiday. Once again terrible decision-making.
As usual I will plagiarize one of your comments to show the kind of nonsense that has surrounded this debate:
"Diana married a man she did not like. It shows there was something really wrong with her."
So? Diana would be Lady Diana again and hopefully have had a wonderful second marriage had she lived.
I did not say William would restore the Princess of Wales title, I said he wanted to restore the HRH. He did not talk about the PRincess of Wales title because Diana got to keep that.
That was when Camilla was "safely" married, she hypocritically let her grandson have sleepovers in one of her residences, with Camilla. Once the Parker Bowleses divorced she stopped receiving Camilla and called her a "schemer." If she approved so much of Camilla, then she would have been pushing them to marry. She did quite the opposite. Charles had to wait until she died to marry.
Yes, the Queen Mum did have strange logic and hypocrisy. Clearly the trysts were sanctioned when Camilla was still "safely married" to another man.
No, you seem to have wanted her to be bitter. Her friends who knew her a lot better than you do. Said she was optimistic about her future. She did not sit around and sulk like her ex husband tends to do when he whinges about his being miserable when he was growing up. I think the insistence she was bitter and unhappy is ridiculous. She certainly did a poor imitation of someone bitter and unhappy.
Charles and Camilla try desperately to attempt to whitewash their behavior. I see Junor's book about her as a great big flop because Junor went overboard in her sycophancy over the woman.
I say Diana won it. If she lost, Charles would be universally beloved and popular something he apparently wishes had happened. Camilla is way down in lists of royals in terms of popularity or in her case lack of it.
You said Charles married a woman he did not like. I didn't. Your changing the names means nothing. Diana unlike Charles said she married for love. So your changing words is a moot point.
So Diana married for love because she said so? Just like she said she never cooperated with Morton? Just like she said she threw herself down stairs to get Charles' attention? Just like she said she never made crank calls to Hoare?
Pardon me for my skepticism.
Diana was the classic embittered ex-wife. Revenge, destruction of Charles was her agenda from about 1989 when she realized that he would never ever return to her under any circumstances. If he behavior in Morton and Panorama was not bitter then I dread to think what she would be like when bitter.
The QM had a fairly straightforward policy. Anyone that makes her beloved grandson happy and is loyal to her daughter is welcome. Anyone who is not is not welcome. Diana fell into the latter category and was hence never mentioned again in QM's household.
QMs fear about Camilla were more constitutional than personal. With Diana it was both personal and constitutional. She liked neither Diana as a person nor what she was doing in terms of the constitution.
Yes, if you read Morton and heard Bashir she clearly said she loved Charles.
Charles never said he loved her publicly or through a biographer. He told Dimbleby he preferred Camilla when he married Diana.
Skepticism? It is a fact. The record is that Diana said she loved Charles. Charles never said he loved her. So what are you skeptical about. Do you disbelieve Charles?
What do the phone calls have to do with the discussion. I keep pointing out that Hoare gets a free pass for his pursuit of Diana and Diana is criticized for it. Hoare was a very willing participant in their relationship. Clearly.
Diana was not the classic embittered wife. Charles was and is the classic embittered man over his "lot" and his "bad" childhood. Even after marrying Camilla he still whinges.
The Queen Mum criticized Camilla after she divorced and if it were "constitutional" she would not have held a grudge against Camilla as a person. It was personal with the Queen Mum.
I think The Queen disliked both Camilla and Diana. If she had any liking for Camilla she would have wanted to see a wedding before she passed on. She didn't.
Charles did a lot to try to destroy Diana. 1) he put her down in public 2) flaunted the relationship with the mistress 3) and never really let go of his grudge, cooperating with Junor and condoning the trashing of Diana 4) he made fun of Diana's bulimia. And so on.
. How interesting that on Charles' 50th birthday held by the Charles parents, the Queen Mum did not welcome the Camilla to the party and insist she attend and she did not attend not attend Charles 50th birthday party where Camilla was in attendance. Oh yes, that shows the QM's real enthusiasm and how she welcomed Camilla. And even after the Queen Mum died, Camilla was not allowed to sit next to Charles at Jubilee events for the Queen in 2002.
It still remains a fact that the Queen Mum did not receive Camilla after she and APB divorced. She was not welcome. Clearly.
What did Diana do in 1989 to "destroy" Charles. Charles set was quite busy trying to undermine Diana even leaking stories. Charles Dimbleby book was a big whine fest and Charles confessed he was sleeping with married Camilla in his interview and via the book. He and his toadies did their all to try to destroy Diana and even after she died they still do.
Going round and round in circles about minute and ultimately useless details. The bottom line is this: C&D made a mess of their marriage and it went down the drain. Both C&D were unpleasant to each other but ultimately Diana was the one that stood more to lose. She was impulsive, emotional and short sighted. She wanted to remain married to Charles but undermined that very same objective with her erratic and ott behavior. Diana turned her home into a war zone and eventually Charles got fed up. Just like I am sure many on this forum are fed up of the same old complaints and arguments.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 29, 2017, 11:57:43 PM
So Diana married for love because she said so? Just like she said she never cooperated with Morton? Just like she said she threw herself down stairs to get Charles' attention? Just like she said she never made crank calls to Hoare?
Pardon me for my skepticism.
Diana was the classic embittered ex-wife. Revenge, destruction of Charles was her agenda from about 1989 when she realized that he would never ever return to her under any circumstances. If he behavior in Morton and Panorama was not bitter then I dread to think what she would be like when bitter.
The QM had a fairly straightforward policy. Anyone that makes her beloved grandson happy and is loyal to her daughter is welcome. Anyone who is not is not welcome. Diana fell into the latter category and was hence never mentioned again in QM's household.
QMs fear about Camilla were more constitutional than personal. With Diana it was both personal and constitutional. She liked neither Diana as a person nor what she was doing in terms of the constitution.
Yes, Diana did because she said so.
Double post auto-merged: October 30, 2017, 10:28:13 AM
No you are being disagreed with via facts not useless details. Charles made a mess by bringing a woman in that he did not love. That's why it went down the drain.
Diana "won" because she got out from under the thumb of her husband and the mistress. And Charles lost because his own behavior hurt his popularity.
Charles was short sighted, stubborn, over entitled, selfish, and lost his moral compass when he thought it OK to sleep with his friends' wives. You seem to give that a pass. Camilla was and is hard as nails to anybody who gets in her way, nervy, pushy, and greedy. The two are not universally liked by any means.
No Diana was not erratic and ott behavior. So what do you call Charles temper tantrums? Charles got fed up because he wanted it his way or the highway. Diana would not put up with. So you think it OK for a woman to suffer in silence while the husband behaved like a dog.
Why are you speaking for other members of the forum now. I notice some of them disagree with you. Charles is no saint, and neither is Camilla yet Diana is unmercifully trashed and she is the one who had to work on the marriage not the husband, as you keep emphasizing.
Diana was not some purchase Charles made and when he was not satisfied returned the product. The man (with his two married mistresses watching) married Diana but once he got those heirs that was that. He did not try very hard he knew the mistress was around waiting.
Charles turned the home into a war zone by making the mistress part of the package. And put down his wife and was done with her after he got those heirs.
Charles turned other people's homes into war zones. Like the Tryons and the Parker Bowleses. Sleeping with the wives and all that.
Double post auto-merged: October 30, 2017, 10:55:18 AM
Charles had some choice lies: having his friends insist he and Camilla were "just friends" (after the Morton book) and then retracted this in the Dimbleby book, said he'd never marry again, never told Diana the truth about Camilla or his expectations about marriage before he exchanged vows with her, and approving of stories like the Harvey the dog story which was easily refuted;
This statement below is an outright lie
@sandy"Charles turned other people's homes into war zones. Like the Tryons and the Parker Bowleses."
There is not a shred of evidence of any of those families were anything like the warzone that was the Waleses home in KP. Camilla was actually quite amicable about her divorce and is still on friendly terms with her ex. Not every woman was like Diana in terms of taking on the role of embittered avenging ex-wife.
It is a strange world when a woman ceases to be HRH The Princess of Wales, is divorced against her wishes and ends up killed in a Paris tunnel after being pursued by the paparazzi; but somehow "won". If that is victory then thanks but no thanks. I would personally rather be HRH The Prince of Wales or HRH The Duchess of Cornwall than get that kind of "victory".
Being a figurehead for a 20-year old grievance industry is cold comfort to Diana and was even more meager compensation for what she had lost when she was alive. I am sure when she first got married, she did not hope that the height of her achievements would be as a symbol of manufactured victimhood and faux feminism.
Well he broke up two marriages. No it is not a "lie." And I don't think it was all sunshine in the Tryon and PBs households.
What do you mean by "war zone." Like Charles pulling out a sink at highgrove?
Diana did win. She got her message out even though she died. And if she did not everybody would believe all the lies of Junor and Charles' pals. Charles popularity has eroded and Camilla still is down in the royal polls as the least popular. Even though Charles spent megabucks on spin doctors too.
Charles seems to me to be a bitter man, dredging up old grievances with Junor and Bedell. The poor poor Charles self pitying spin.
William and Harry presented wonderful programs about their mother to offset the constant dragging of Diana's name through the mud by Junor and other Charles toadies.
People do die. Nobody is immortal. Diana met her demise in an accident and like others who died young died tragically (like Princess Grace). I don't think death at a young age makes people "losers." It is the nature of the world people live in. Someone can go to a concert and get shot by a terrorist. It does not make them "losers."
I'm sure you'd like to be in Camilla's shoes since you appear to admire her like Penny Junor who calls her "sexy and endearing." I would not want to be like Camilla, not the way she joined the family. Camilla can be bedecked with jewels and grin but I find nothing admirable about her. And not everybody likes her to say the least.
I think Charles is the epitome of manufactured victim hood. Camilla being the rep for abused women is the biggest joke ever.
But you are obviously not a feminist since you apparently did not expect Charles to have to please Diana or even bother working on the marriage. It is all Diana's fault in your book and she should have put up with the abuse for the HRH. I think Charles emotionally abused her.
I don't think Camilla was amicable when she called her first husband the stuffed stoat and "it." I can only imagine the vitriol in that household.
@sandy wrote:
"But you are obviously not a feminist since you apparently did not expect Charles to have to please Diana or even bother working on the marriage."
That statement shows you know very little about me and possibly even less about feminism.
Like I said, If I had a choice of Diana's or Camilla's life; I would choose Camilla's. That is just me I guess. I don't fancy the kind of drama and perpetual victim hood that surrounded Diana's life.
I thought working on a marriage was for two people. You appear to limit your criticism to Diana who was the one who had to do what Charles wanted and "behave herself." What about Charles' flaws and his inability to be more open to his wife's concerns about the marriage. it seemed to be his way or the highway. No, I don't see Diana as "failing." I put more blame on Charles because he went into the marriage for expediency's sake and expected the wife to toe the line on everything. Charles tends to blame others for his own shortcomings.
I don't see Camilla as a role model. Plenty of women made their own way and did not need to undermine another woman to make her way to the top nor depend on the benefits of being a royal mistress.
My statement is an observation that you rarely make judgements about Charles. Typical is DIANA your repeated statements about making the home a war zone and ignore Charles' role in the issues. Or deny that he had anything to do with any issues at all. I see a tendency for you to blame the woman and even make Diana seem a "failure" because she moved on and insist she was bitter and had no friends and you appear to have wanted her to have a failed future.
Diana is labeled as "erratic" because she did not like the marital situation of the mistress calling the shots and Charles' refusal to stop seeing her. If Charles wanted a real marriage he should have dropped the other woman. If that was impossible, he should have found a woman to sign an agreement over accepting all of HIS terms. Or if he could not have found such a woman continuing his lifestyle without bringing a wife into it. He could have found a girlfriend of Camilla's who would have been thrilled to share him. Get an "insider" to do the dirty work. Diana was 12 years younger and had different ideas about marriage, imagine the gall of her to expect a real relationship with a self centered man like Charles.
I think it is precisely that repetition of all that was wrong with Charles, day in day out that eventually persuaded him that it was not worth his while to continue trying to be in that relationship. Complaining without a result or strategy is an exhausting and ultimately futile exercise. You become unpleasant to be around, a real relationship killer. There are millions of women and men who have come through failed relationships. They do not spend the rest of their lives complaining about it.
Quote from: sandy on October 29, 2017, 09:57:10 PM
Oh please, there were people around Amabel. It was a birthday party with many aristos and socialites present. So if nobody was around, how was it known that the sarcastic curtsy happened. Can you describe a sarcastic curtsy. I suppose Camilla in a fit of girlish giggles might have joked about it with her gal pal Penny Junor.
Did you read my post? I said keeping up appearances which does not necessarily mean "Deference."
Diana was quite calm not hysterical. Do you wish she had been hysterical? Why? She was very calm according to the witnesses.
No
so iyou're saying that Diana attacked her rival in public? My understanding was that she found Camilla with some people and asked them to leave...
No I was responding to royal who claims she was hysterical. You are addressing the wrong person here Amabel--I said she was calm. Or are you addressing Royalanthropologist who made the claim. There seems to be some confusion here.
You responded to my statement which Clearly says:
"Diana was quite calm not hysterical. "
And this is what royalanthropologist said:
"I am sorry but the idea that Camilla was paying deference to a hysterical Diana complaining about her affair with her husband is laughable. Absolutely laughable. It is argument for arguments sake and makes no sense at all. "
So you see you are addressing the wrong person. Send it to royalanthropologist instead.
Charles and a friend of his were with Camilla when Diana said she wanted to talk to Camilla. (I don't know if there was anybody else there besides the friend)
Double post auto-merged: October 30, 2017, 06:48:15 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 30, 2017, 06:14:35 PM
I think it is precisely that repetition of all that was wrong with Charles, day in day out that eventually persuaded him that it was not worth his while to continue trying to be in that relationship. Complaining without a result or strategy is an exhausting and ultimately futile exercise. You become unpleasant to be around, a real relationship killer. There are millions of women and men who have come through failed relationships. They do not spend the rest of their lives complaining about it.
And it is your repetition of what you think is wrong with Diana.
Charles IMO was a big relationship killer. It was his way or the highway.
Charles certainly is the patron saint of Chronic Complainers.
I actually think Amabel was pointing out how ridiculous it is to even suggest that Camilla was paying respects to Diana with a curtsy. She agrees with me that if that curtsy happened it was a sarcastic one meant to mock its recipient. My message came in between because I was typing mid-term. It is actually quite ridiculous what you suggested Sandy. Quite, quite ridiculous.
She did not say that. She said Diana was calm. Which is what I had said but attributed your thoughts to me. The curtsy discussion was further up on the thread.
What is a sarcastic curtsy. Any different from a regular one?
Diana was still a senior royal. Camilla was rude if she were sarcastic. But that's Camilla.
Camilla was keeping up appearances. Did she learn about sarcastic curtsys in finishing school?
No royal, my posts are not ridiculous. I disagree with you and amabel. ANd when you keep "defending" Camilla that way you make her look worse that I thought her. While you defend her you make her look rude and crude.
So go ahead insist that it was a sarcastic curtsy you are really making Camilla look bad.
BTW
@sandy. I suspect after listening to his wife repeating her complaints for the upteenth time, Charles decided to do a runner. Women who keep their marriages know this. Being a needy nag will eventually drive away even the most devoted husband. If that husband is not in love with you, he will go even faster.
Saying that "I am right, it is my right, I am the wife, I need attention, I have the ring, I have the children, I have public support, I am the victim here" etc. will get you nowhere. You end up abandoned and tossed aside like Diana. You actually do the work for the other woman because you make the home unbearable for your husband and someone else presents themselves as the ideal alternative...an oasis of calm. I rather suspect something like that happened in the CCD triangle. Diana was the bitter nagging wife and Camilla was the fun mistress. Doesn't take much to work out which one the man will choose, does it?
Double post auto-merged: October 30, 2017, 07:24:09 PM
You write:
"You are out of line putting down another poster's opinions."
That from someone who has told me about what I think and what my motives are (not a feminist, wishing ill luck on Diana etc)? I
insist that suggestion was ridiculous and you know it. Camilla did not have an ounce of respect for Diana and would never ever curtsy to her out of respect because there was none. If she did indeed curtsy, it was to mock Diana.
And do you know how often Diana made these complaints? So why did not "runner" Charles pay any attention to her concerns. He put up with the complaints and did not do the "runner" so he could get the heir and spare. If Charles were not in love with her he had no business marrying Diana. You are making him look even worse with your praising him and calling his wife a Needy Nag. That is sexist IMO. What about Charles' horrid behavior. I said before you seem to favor men in any domestic disputes and back then up and label the wife a "nag."
So Charles was right to behave like a dog and dump the wife after she had the babies he needed. And how is Charles making things bearable maintaining contact with the mistress and putting the wife down in public? Oh yes, he is such a god to you.
He deserves someone as crude as Camilla.
I removed the comment before you wrote that royal.It's not there anymore
I still think you favor the male. You don't call Charles names like "nag" which I find sexist and demeaning to women.
So a wife who complains about another woman in the marriage is a "nag." I don't get your attitude to women.
Fun mistress, yeah right. She was not fun to Kanga, Tiggy, Elizabeth, Diana and others who got in her way. The Fun Mistress broke up two homes in the process. Charles and Fawcett must have the oasis of calm since Camilla spends her time in another house.
You forget Charles already chose Camilla before he married Diana which was disgusting behavior on his part to bring Diana into the sordid mess.
So do you think women should put up and shut up lest they be labelled "nags." Tell that to people that run women's shelters and see how far you get.
I am curious why you don't criticize Charles (or very rarely) and you trash Diana for complaining and blame her for it all. Charles caused many of the problems in the marriage yet you give him free passes galore
Funny how Charles did not elect the Fun Mistress to be his wife in the early seventies. Guess the Fun Mistress was not good enough to marry and have babies with.
It is laughable that former mistress Camilla expects deference and curtsys. I find that the most ridiculous thing of all. Diana was worth more than 100 Camillas who come a dime a dozen. Charles was too stupid to appreciate Diana.
If "needy nag" is sexist then "lecher" or "dog" is too. That is the beauty of the English language.
Nagging is saying that same thing over and over again. Diana conceived in her mind that she had to fight Camilla by making her the big issue in her marriage. She investigated and pushed until her prophesy became self-fulfilling. If you want a happy marriage, you have to make an effort to make your home a pleasant space. Becoming a collection of repeated grievances against your husband will drive him away faster than you can say the word nag.
You keep going back to the Raymill house for some strange reason. That house is a master stroke by Camilla, absolute genius. She is always the alluring mistress, away just enough to keep him interested. Just look at their photos in Malaysia and you will see what I mean. Camilla is not in his face complaining about this and that. Diana really had no clue about men, did she?
BTW Diana had absolutely nothing in common with those women in the shelters. She was an over-privileged and over-indulged woman who did not know she had it so good. That is what is so ridiculous about this manufactured victim hood. The idea that one of the most privileged women ever is somehow the epitome of feminist victim hood. Absolute piffle!
But you still blame the woman more than the man. Diana was not the sort to put up and shut up and no woman should be expected to do this. I think if divorce were encouraged Diana would have been the one to do the runner. But she wanted the happy marriage and babies since she was young and naive and thought Charles was an honorable man. Why couldn't Charles make changes. I think all that Diana managed to do according to an interview was to get him to wear a type of tie but he would not shake off the mistress who had her own agenda. Laughably I think Charles went to Camilla for marriage counseling.
How do you know how many times Diana complained? She did not say I complained about Camilla 100 times this month or anything like that. Oh please Camilla is not an alluring anything. You don't know about their sex life or if Camilla puts on a negligee at Raymill and seduces Charles. She does spend time away at her own home and I doubt she'd be alluring with Charles when she has the grandkids and her ex husband over.
Why would Camilla complain, she won the lottery. And Junor crows about how Camilla is oh so watchful about other women getting too close to Charles. She saw off a Elizabeth Buchanan and tiggy and probably others. Camilla is no genius by any stretch of the imagination. She just is able to manipulate.
A wealthy woman can be hurt by a husband. Diana had it good? Really after you talk about how Charles chucked her out like the day's trash or "did a runner." The victimhood was real. And you think she was happy to find out that the man did not love her and wanted the mistress around. that is thrilling for a wife? Really? Then wives must have weird ideas of what makes them happy.
As far as "It is laughable that former mistress Camilla expects deference and curtsys". I am fairly confident that Camilla would not be offended if you didn't curtsy to her. That is something that you do or don't do of your own volition. It is not a requirement.
The "Diana was worth more than 100 Camillas who come a dime a dozen." I actually detect a hint of sexism in this statement but it is really not that important to either me or Camilla.
Then you tell us that : "Charles was too stupid to appreciate Diana." I guess the same applies to James Hewitt, Oliver Hoare, and Hasnat Khan. They all failed to see just how great Diana was and that she was only trying to help them with her presence in their lives.
Charles found Diana unpleasant to live with and left. That is all there is to it. If she wanted him to stay, she might have changed her strategy to ensure that happened. Nagging and constant complaints did not do the trick. Instead it drove him away further and permanently.
I would not be having that issue. Since I would not show up at her appearances.
I'm talking about 2 women? I do think Diana was a better person. She went into the marriage in good faith. Camilla was involved again with Charles when Laura was still a baby (according to Junor). I don't admire people like that.
Charles was Diana's Husband, the others were not It is like comparing Charles and how he treated his other mistresses besides Camilla. I can see a comparison to the way he treated Kanga. Love them and Leave them. Though actually Charles loved himself so I would just use "Leave them."
Diana found Charles unpleasant to live with. How could Diana have changed her strategy. Invited Camilla into Highgrove to spend the night with her husband or been a yes Charles no Charles person. It would maybe have increased the contempt C and C had for her. Camilla could cackle that the wife was a doormat. Diana was in a no win situation.
Charles should not have married Diana if he did not love her but he married her to get royal babies then chucked her out like yesterday's trash.
If you are not the type to "put up and shut up", don't get surprised when your husband walks out on you. It is just a natural conclusion to things. There is a price to pay for the decisions to make. Diana chose the wronged woman routine and the price for that was her marriage. Whether she was happy to pay that price, I don't know. I just found it perplexing that she somehow imagined that after the fights and quarrels at home Charles would remain with her.
Don't be surprised when a wife walks out on a husband who makes the marriage his way or the highway. And has little respect for the wife.
Diana was a wronged woman. She found out the man she married was keeping the mistress around and he did not love her.
What price did Diana pay. She did not die in the auto accident because of anything to do with the marriage. If Charles had met her at least half way things would have been different in all likelihood.
Diana was still very popular with the public and she was admired by world leaders including Mandela.
So Diana had no right to complain to the great man? Really? You still give him free passes galore.
I actually think it is wise not to show up at events for people you don't like. We all have enough stresses in our lives without getting bogged down by unnecessary encounters with people we do not like.
You think she was a better person, some don't. Charles quite clearly prefers Camilla's company to Diana's. Life can be tough in that way.
If Diana wanted him to stay, she might have found a way to deal with his infidelity without turning the home into a war zone. It is not as if there are no royal women out there that have dealt with and seen off mistresses. Diana just chose tactics whose ultimate effect was to drive Charles further and further away.
Double post auto-merged: October 30, 2017, 08:07:41 PM
About that motor accident. Paris would never have happened if Diana was HRH The Princess of Wales. For a start she would have a team of competent people dealing with her security. Secondly, no one of Dodi's character would be allowed to whisk her away in a messed up second car on a wild chase down Paris. The divorce was very, very costly to Diana.
It is not necessarily IMO a good thing for Charles to prefer Camilla, a reflection on him.
Charles did not prefer Camilla's company when he moved on back in the early seventies. He chose another to marry and have his heirs.
How would Diana deal with his infidelity? The man got marriage counseling from his mistress and his sycophantic friends. If Charles had gone to marriage counseling with Diana and put some effort in the marriage himself I think there would have been a better outcome. Charles preferred the mistress, he already drove himself away from Diana even before he married her. He needed those heirs.
We tend to want to be with people who love us, respect us and understand us. That is our choice and fundamental human right. Charles is perfectly entitled to his tastes and preferences. I see no practical benefit in him getting stuck with a woman he does not love, dislikes, disrespects and generally wants to be away from just because she happens to be very good with people or have powerful PR instinct.
Diana did not do it for Charles and Camilla evidently does. Charles preferred a woman who would not scream at him, throw things, have tantrums, suffer wild mood swings, report him to the press etc. Camilla fitted the bill so he moved on to her and has stuck with her ever since.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 30, 2017, 07:13:38 PM
I actually think Amabel was pointing out how ridiculous it is to even suggest that Camilla was paying respects to Diana with a curtsy. She agrees with me that if that curtsy happened it was a sarcastic one meant to mock its recipient.
of course it was. As I understood it, the meeting took place between the 2 of them. Diana asked any others who were around to leave them, and spoke to Camilla lone. Later, she told other people what had happened.. and possibly Cam did too. But it is indeed ridiculous to assume thtat (if Camilla did curstsy to Diana) she did so in any spirit but mocking her.
How would Diana know it was in a mocking way amabel unless she rolled her eyes or something. There is no record of that. Ingrid Seward and other writers did not say it was sarcastic they said it was the custom to curtsy to a senior royal. It is a matter of interpretation and perhaps the wish to see Diana put down. If she did this, it makes me dislike Camilla even more.
But royal, Charles married the woman knowing he did not love her. I think it wrong to disrespect and treat a wife that way.
If Charles wanted the marriage to work with Diana, he should have dropped the other woman. His grandfather was attached to a married woman but decided after discussion with his father to give her up for good. So he was ready to be a husband and he married Lady Elizabeth Bowles Lyon who had No Camilla figure in her life, thanks to the good sense of George (then Bertie Duke of York).
Charles lacked the common sense to do that. If he really loved Camilla which would hurt any marriage he made, he should have not married. Charles tended to think in more "philosophical" terms not the realities of marriage.
Diana did not suffer "wild mood swings." You keep on demeaning her. Charles is known for periods of moodiness and temper tantrums yet you never mention that. He blames others for his own choices and has character flaws himself. He threw objects towards Diana and screamed at her and pulled out a sink in a fit of temper, he put her down. The man was not Mr Charm. Diana was frustrated. His friends reported HER to the press.
Diana fitted the bill to be wife and mother of his heirs. Otherwise he would have married Camilla in the early seventies if he thought she fitted the bill. And if it had not been Diana it would have been another woman who would have the heirs. And the woman would not have been Camilla. Charles made his choice in the early seventies of how he saw Camilla.
Anyone with half a brain would know it was mocking. If Camilla was verbally attacked by Diana, whether in public or in private, and she curtsied she was mocking Diana. She was in effect saying "you're making a fool of yourself" and no doubt, after her mocking curtsey she slipped away.. and left Diana to go home and cry... which I gather she did. Do you really think that if Camilla had Diana telling her "I know you're sleeping with my husband" she was going to say "oh I must be in the wrong then" and give it up?? If she felt "got at" by Diana crticiisng her at a party, do you realy think she felt she must cursty to this young woman who was having a go at her?
How would they know? I know Camilla had contempt for Diana. But do you think amabel, Seward and others have 'half a brain'? Because they said Camilla curtseyed for protocol. Protocol not "deference."
Diana was not making a fool of herself. Camilla should have been ashamed of herself, she was still the other woman and had nothing to be haughty about.
Diana did find this a catharsis. She did say so.
Diana did not say I know you're sleeping with my husband. Those were not her words.
Diana did not call names. She knew Camilla was not going to change.
Diana did not "have a go" at Camilla. She spoke her feelings. She even said she knew she was "in the way" and it must be hell for them.
I read Camilla did curtsy before Diana as you put it "had a go" at her.
Diana's tapes reveal the moment she confronted Camilla | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4612290/Diana-s-tapes-reveal-moment-confronted-Camilla.html)
According to the account, Diana and Camilla were 'up front' with each other. Diana said she was calm. There was no brawl. Nor hysteria.
Annabel Goldsmith was horrified to think that Diana was not expected at the birthday. Goldsmith was there and thought Diana should have been there too.
Double post auto-merged: October 30, 2017, 11:07:27 PM
Interestingly Diana did say she and Camilla had been greeting each other with a kiss. So how did Camilla show her sarcasm when that happened?
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 30, 2017, 07:41:49 PM
If "needy nag" is sexist then "lecher" or "dog" is too. That is the beauty of the English language.
Nagging is saying that same thing over and over again. Diana conceived in her mind that she had to fight Camilla by making her the big issue in her marriage. She investigated and pushed until her prophesy became self-fulfilling. If you want a happy marriage, you have to make an effort to make your home a pleasant space. Becoming a collection of repeated grievances against your husband will drive him away faster than you can say the word nag.
You keep going back to the Raymill house for some strange reason. That house is a master stroke by Camilla, absolute genius. She is always the alluring mistress, away just enough to keep him interested. Just look at their photos in Malaysia and you will see what I mean. Camilla is not in his face complaining about this and that. Diana really had no clue about men, did she?
BTW Diana had absolutely nothing in common with those women in the shelters. She was an over-privileged and over-indulged woman who did not know she had it so good. That is what is so ridiculous about this manufactured victim hood. The idea that one of the most privileged women ever is somehow the epitome of feminist victim hood. Absolute piffle!
BTW neither does Camilla. Showing up at centers for rape victims and abused women on Camilla's part is the same Camilla herself was over privileged and over indulged her entire life. Now she is also playing Victim but that is Camilla so it's OK by you. APB IMO was as bad as Charles however Camilla knew this going into that marriage waging a competition with him during their dating years Diana had no idea Charles was courting her and sleeping with Camilla at the same time until after the engagement was announced and Camilla inserted herself more and more into the relationship.
Of course Camilla was the fun mistress all she had to do back then was curtsy and jump into bed stroke his ego and send him on his way. APB was more than happy with this and knowing they were meeting up at hunts it freed him up to his own activities while Diana was, acclimating herself to royal duties, bearing royal children and juggling duties while under an intense media microscope and a cold family. Camilla was and never will be a victim of anything other than being unpopular due to her own making with her ambitions to have Charles.
^ camilla didn't keep him interested enough to stop him from sleeping with kanga. It was strange that both of them had charles before and after their pregnancies. That man had a lot of duties lol. Diana's paranoia was a bit intense but she couldn't spend enough time with him and see more of his private side that was reserved for his older circle of close friends and
I'm sure his fear of the media finding out about his love and trysts with cam, stressed the hell out of him. That kind of stress wasn't all on diana. The man hid in the boot of a car late in the night, waiting for cam to warm his bed. The public and media pressure on pc and pd to live out the fairytale fantasy wasn't because of Diana's need for the perfect marriage. It was awfully nice of camilla to give her pointers on how to cater to Charles and ask her when he'll be free, from the jump.
I don't think it was paranoia, Diana was spot on about Camilla.
No it was not the public and media pressure, it was Charles' own decision to marry Diana to get those heirs. He felt that because of who he is he could have his cake and eat it too. Charles could have ignored the pressure but he had to go ahead and marry someone he knew he did not love. If a reputable clergyman could have counseled them, he would have strongly discouraged Charles from marrying Diana or anybody he did not really love. The Archbishop of Canterbury knew all about Camilla but sanctioned the marriage anyway, he admitted this.
^ I don't mean her paranoia was just about camilla. Staff members ordered to lie to her about his whereabouts. But she probably figured it out. I read somewhere that she could tell where he was going just based on the car he drove off in.
There were people from his circle feeding her rumors, according to her lawyer at the time, by 91'. And of course camilla was talking to the sun.
Camilla was having her conversations with the Sun Editor for 10 years.
Diana had her suspicions. Initially there was an emotional attachment but it was definitely not physical in the beginning. Diana then made Camilla the raison d'etre of her marriage. She would not rest until Camilla was permanently banished from Charles heart. Then she started acting it out in the marriage e.g. "filthy rows".
Now that is all very well saying "I was right after all" or that "I am the wife and it is my right". The reality is that her suspicion turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. As Diana became more quarrelsome, discontented, depressed and generally unpleasant to her husband; he drifted away and straight back to his mistress. Then it became physical (circa 1985-1986).
Diana did stop even after she had her own lovers (Hewitt) and KP to herself. She kept up the pressure. Eventually the relationship with Charles was so poisoned that there was not even the remotest chance of a reconciliation. Then Diana started being pathetic (seduction with lingerie and confrontation with Camilla). There was not a chance Charles was ever going to consider returning after all that had happened but he was willing to let the marriage continue as a pretext, with everyone leading their own separate private lives.
Still Diana would not rest. She pushed it even further with Morton. After that Charles was really never going to come back. He must have been incredibly angry with Diana; but once again the BRF were happy for the marriage to continue officially but they compromised on a separation to allow Diana to lead her own private life as well as having access to her children.
Still Diana was not satisfied. She took it much, much further with Bashir. At that point it was no longer a question of a wife squabbling against her husband. It became a constitutional crisis with Diana actually becoming an existential threat to the monarchy. Then the queen finally came into play and ordered a divorce.
My question is this: at every stage of that process did Diana ever think about what she really wanted and whether her actions were furthering her objectives in any meaningful way? Did she imagine that after all those rows, betrayals and media exposes that Charles would ever consider reconciling with her?
To me it all played out like a series of emotional outbursts with no particular strategy. And of course: in the end Diana was the loser. She lost her marriage, title and life. Sometimes you have to think before you act.
I found what Harry said on stage in Chicago today very interesting. (I've posted the clip of some of it here in the Harry thread.) In it he speaks about his mother as his greatest role model. However he also says something in that clip which is very curious. He says of Diana that he wonders how someone who did such good in the world and who cared for others could have been treated as she was by an Institution.
An Institution? The Press that everyone blamed for her death isn't an institution. The Paps aren't an Institution. The British people aren't an Institution. However, the PTB, the Establishment, the BRF, the people with power, they are an Institution. Curious, isn't it? And Harry and William, the future King, are very close.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 01, 2017, 07:36:39 AM
Diana had her suspicions. Initially there was an emotional attachment but it was definitely not physical in the beginning. Diana then made Camilla the raison d'etre of her marriage. She would not rest until Camilla was permanently banished from Charles heart. Then she started acting it out in the marriage e.g. "filthy rows".
Now that is all very well saying "I was right after all" or that "I am the wife and it is my right". The reality is that her suspicion turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. As Diana became more quarrelsome, discontented, depressed and generally unpleasant to her husband; he drifted away and straight back to his mistress. Then it became physical (circa 1985-1986).
Diana did stop even after she had her own lovers (Hewitt) and KP to herself. She kept up the pressure. Eventually the relationship with Charles was so poisoned that there was not even the remotest chance of a reconciliation. Then Diana started being pathetic (seduction with lingerie and confrontation with Camilla). There was not a chance Charles was ever going to consider returning after all that had happened but he was willing to let the marriage continue as a pretext, with everyone leading their own separate private lives.
Still Diana would not rest. She pushed it even further with Morton. After that Charles was really never going to come back. He must have been incredibly angry with Diana; but once again the BRF were happy for the marriage to continue officially but they compromised on a separation to allow Diana to lead her own private life as well as having access to her children.
Still Diana was not satisfied. She took it much, much further with Bashir. At that point it was no longer a question of a wife squabbling against her husband. It became a constitutional crisis with Diana actually becoming an existential threat to the monarchy. Then the queen finally came into play and ordered a divorce.
My question is this: at every stage of that process did Diana ever think about what she really wanted and whether her actions were furthering her objectives in any meaningful way? Did she imagine that after all those rows, betrayals and media exposes that Charles would ever consider reconciling with her?
To me it all played out like a series of emotional outbursts with no particular strategy. And of course: in the end Diana was the loser. She lost her marriage, title and life. Sometimes you have to think before you act.
Charles should never ever have put Diana through this. He should not have married her if he did not love her. Why would a wife have to be in such a position as to have to tell her husband to stop seeing the other woman, and even the honeymoon there were problems because Charles flaunted the mistress' gift, the C and C cufflinks.
Diana had no chance. No she did not drive him away. Camilla was not going anywhere and Charles would continue to see her even if Diana put up and shut up. He resented Diana and got miffed at her popularity. So Diana was damned if she did and damned if she didn't. If she were not popular or slacked off there would be problems but she did her best but Charles still got jealous.
That lingerie story is nonsense. The night she confronted Camilla she was so angry at Charles why would she put on a negligee. She probably felt absolute contempt for him. They went to their separate rooms that night. It is odd how all these strange stories come around after Diana is dead. She never said she did that.
Blaming Diana (like Junor and her ilk do) for Charles' cheating is a big cop out. The Great Man is to blame for this one, since he married Diana knowing he did not love her. DIana was in a no-win situation.
And what about Charles as early as 1983 whingeing to his friends about Diana's popularity. Then these toadies started spreading nasty gossip about Diana and Camilla went to the Sun Editor. If Charles had gotten help for his jealousy issues and not written to his toady friends, and yes, dropped Camilla, there would have been a better outcome. Once he dragged his friends into it there was no turning back. Diana cooperated with Morton in 1992 because she was sick of the nasty gossip spread by Charles' friends.
So what was wrong with Charles dropping Camilla? IF he wanted a marriage, he should have dropped her. Diana was right.
Charles was wrong bringing Diana into this sordid situation.
Charles was the one who lost not everybody makes cop out excuses for him and do say he has a lot to answer for.
Diana won because she had some time away from him and the mistress. It was a marriage worth walking out of. Another woman who could have divorced early on (Diana could not) would have ditched him ages ago. He was not worth fighting over.
Royal, how come you give Charles a free pass over his blabbing to Dimbleby and naming Camilla and his trashing his own parents and admitting he never loved his first wife? You just rush to the Bashir interview like the Dimbleby one never existed. Charles shot himself in the foot with the Dimbleby interview.
Diana was never a threat to the monarchy. Charles was and there was talk of his abdicating (no it was not from Diana) if he married the divorced woman. He had to wait years to marry Camilla.
My question is: Did Prince Charles ever think of other people but himself in his quest to have his cake and eat it too. He decided not to marry Camilla Shand and moved on and continued to sow wild oats. But her marriage meant nothing to him because he still made her the mistress and while she was busy having babies, he helped himself to Lady Tryon. Did he think his actions had no consequences. IT all came back to bite him. He could not marry Camilla to have his babies with, so he had to find a virgin girl to have babies with and for ceremonial purposes. But he was not going to give up the Fun Mistress at the same time. Did CHarles ever think of other people besides himself? No, and he did not care who he hurt. His treatment of Diana was ugly and nasty and it is a pity Diana is blamed for it all. Disgusting in fact. And making the fictional lingerie episode seem like a "victory" for Charles because he put Diana down and rejected her because he preferred the mistress. And all the put downs he did of Diana were because DIana complained. Maybe it is the old adage that the woman "asked for it." When women are physically abused, the husband tells her she "asked for it" because she "nagged" him. And many times it is a complaint about a man seeing another woman.
Such thinking should be passe in this day and age.
QuoteAn Institution? The Press that everyone blamed for her death isn't an institution. The Paps aren't an Institution. The British people aren't an Institution. However, the PTB, the Establishment, the BRF, the people with power, they are an Institution. Curious, isn't it? And Harry and William, the future King, are very close.
Yes it is interesting and I agree as a private citizen that the media/paps are not an institution, however I have to wonder if due to his life experiences, if Harry (and his family) view the media/paps as an "institution?" An "institution" that he must endeavor to work with and do battle with on a near constant basis.
Well with in the US the press being called the "fourth estate" and freedom of the press enshrined, one could call it an institution, most countries have govt run/partial funded press (BBC, CBC, NPR, etc) so its not as clear cut as Executive/Judicial/Legislative branches.
It would be nice though in my mind if hes taking the pi$$ out of the RF for his Mums treatment, hes already called out the old guard for their dealing of mental issues and such.
Although as I wrote in the Harry thread, I think it was a mis step to speak at the Obama Foundation after the scandals over the Clinton Foundation pay for play, it puts him in a political position with little payoff for him (loads for the Obamas tho). With the fashion of the day ppl having to denouce previous positions or behaviors, if this foundation follows the same path, he'll have to do some unnecessary backpedaling. Im guessing the proximity of Toronto to Chicago played a part.....
Quote from: Curryong on November 01, 2017, 10:59:43 AM
I found what Harry said on stage in Chicago today very interesting. (I've posted the clip of some of it here in the Harry thread.) In it he speaks about his mother as his greatest role model. However he also says something in that clip which is very curious. He says of Diana that he wonders how someone who did such good in the world and who cared for others could have been treated as she was by an Institution.
An Institution? The Press that everyone blamed for her death isn't an institution. The Paps aren't an Institution. The British people aren't an Institution. However, the PTB, the Establishment, the BRF, the people with power, they are an Institution. Curious, isn't it? And Harry and William, the future King, are very close.
He may well be referring to the BRF but I must point out that the press is most definitely an institution. Absolutely.
Double post auto-merged: November 01, 2017, 06:45:31 PM
@sandy. Your post is classic Diana:
"It really is my husband's fault. He made me the way I am. He should not have put me in this position. But again, I want a happy family and marriage. I also want to remain married to him."
There is nothing, absolutely nothing that Diana did between 1981 and 1996 that was ever an effective strategy for getting that happy family she so crazed. In fact quite the opposite, everything she did had the consequence of ensuring that there was not a chance Charles would ever reconcile with her. All she was left with was her bitterness, loneliness and the strange self-justification of being a very public and effective victim.
If Diana's primary objective was to expose C&C, become the most famous woman in the world and win a PR war; then I give her 100%. If she wanted to destroy C&C, may be about 50%. They are not particularly popular within Diana's fans but again the other 50% she did not achieve. They married and Camilla got the position that was once Diana's.
However, if Diana wanted a happy family life or to be queen then she got 0%. She made Camilla a nexus of her marriage and in the end she did indeed become a nexus of her marriage. Maybe she should have taken a leaf from Mrs. Hoare and Mrs Carling about dealing with a mistress who will not go away. Those women did not turn their homes into a battleground on account of a mistress. They just discreetly handled the matter and Diana was forgotten as far as their family was concerned.
BTW "love" is not the only reason why people marry. That is a fairy tale idea that sometimes does not fit in with life. It is entirely possible and legitimate to marry in order to have legitimate children. Indeed biologists tell us that procreation is not about "love" at all. Diana was living in Barbara Cartland world if she thought that every marriage was based on "love".
Harry may have mis-spoken in the Q and A session. However, the Press is not enshrined in the Constitution in Britain (the country of course has no written Constitution, merely precedent and statute law) and judging by what Charles and his sons think of the media, especially tabloids) I doubt very much that Harry thinks of the Press as an institution. 'Rabble' would be more the thinking!
I spoke to two friends, one Aussie, one British last night. They have both followed the BRF, and Diana and Harry in particular, for years as have I. Without my mentioning it both zoned in on that one phrase of Harry's conversation and both said they believed that he was referring to the Royal family and TPTB.
By the way, Mrs Carling called Diana out publicly for becoming close to her husband. The Carlings separated and divorced shortly afterwards. I don't call that being discreet. Nor do I believe that she kept her mouth shut in the home about Will Carling's behaviour. I admire her for making it clear his behaviour wasn't acceptable. Keeping your trap shut and being nice while your husband plays away from home isn't admirable in my view. It is enabling behahiour, as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, Mrs Hoare kept quiet. Bully for her. Keeping a shell of a so-called marriage around you while your husband is unfaithful again and again must have done things to her soul, self respect, view of her life marriage, that would be so extraordinarily sad. Like seeing the ruins of an ancient Abbey when it's reason for being and its inhabitants are no longer there.
Yes, some people in Western societies marry for reasons other than love. However, the vast majority of those individuals who wed do so because they are in love with each other. I would suggest that very very few grooms stand at the altar in love with another woman and marrying because they feel the pressure on them is too much to resist.
I know but sometimes you have to think whether making a statement is more important than your personal happiness or safety. You have to admit that if Diana wanted a happy home, she made a pretty hash of things. That is not to say that it was her role alone but I don't think she was that reasonable or easy to live with.
True about most grooms but POW is not most grooms. An ordinary man would have told his father where to go after bullying him all his life and then trying to suggest what he might or might not do with his girlfriend. Likewise the idea of spoiling someone's reputation because you are going out with them seems a tad old fashioned.
As for Harry, I hope to God he is careful. As his mother learnt, you take on the monarchy or its associated institutions at your cost. He is already flirting with danger in his meetings with the Obamas and Clintons (partisan). Then the issue of the girlfriend might raffle a few feathers. The BRF knows how to fight back and its blows can be quite devastating to the individual.
In any case I really question whether the BRF did anything out of ordinary to make Diana suffer. It is true that they did ignore her and later on isolated her when she fell out with Charles; but she was not really their target from the word go. Some of them like PM were surprisingly supportive until she pushed things too far. I would say the queen was even overly patient and indulgent when Diana started making terrible mistakes. In any case, what did Diana expect?
For most families once you fail out with their own, they close ranks. Charles was their flesh and blood. It is natural that they would side with him against an outsider, particularly given the considerable power he is likely to wield when he becomes King. Diana's own family were quite happy to throw her under the bus when she became difficult so that may have made her psychologically too desperate to win approval in the family she married into.
QuoteHarry may have mis-spoken in the Q and A session. However, the Press is not enshrined in the Constitution in Britain (the country of course has no written Constitution, merely precedent and statute law) and judging by what Charles and his sons think of the media, especially tabloids) I doubt very much that Harry thinks of the Press as an institution. 'Rabble' would be more the thinking!
This might be mine and Duch's North American view regarding the press as in institution in our society. Rabble it is!!! :lol:
QuoteYes, some people in Western societies marry for reasons other than love. However, the vast majority of those individuals who wed do so because they are in love with each other. I would suggest that very very few grooms stand at the altar in love with another woman and marrying because they feel the pressure on them is too much to resist.
True statement regarding marriage in the Western World circa 20th century to the present. Likely the only ones who might have had similar feelings are other royals who were supposed to marry someone from their own class/background because they were acceptable: Reportedly Belgium's Princess Josephine-Charlotte and her spouse Prince Jean of Luxembourg each had feelings for other people when they wed. Spain's Infanta Elena and her ex-Jaime Machialar are IMO a more recent example of this type of matchmaking.
Carling did deny an affair. Both Carling and Julia moved on and remarried, happily. I think Carling has a few children now.
Junor praises Camilla for being outspoken and discouraging other women from getting close to Charles. Yet she did not apply the same praise to Diana. Maybe Camilla was wary that when the man marries a mistress he leaves a vacancy. Camilla did get Elizabeth Buchanan sacked who did appear to have a huge crush on Charles and the two spent time together.
Julia C. did have the freedom to divorce her husband. Divorce was discouraged for Diana and Charles early on and Charles had gotten so used to the arrangement with the PBs he did not want to end it when he married Diana. I think he wanted one big happy family. With Diana playing nice with Camilla and being "civilized" even though Camilla was strictly contemptuous of Diana.
Quote from: Curryong on November 01, 2017, 10:59:43 AM
I found what Harry said on stage in Chicago today very interesting. (I've posted the clip of some of it here in the Harry thread.) In it he speaks about his mother as his greatest role model. However he also says something in that clip which is very curious. He says of Diana that he wonders how someone who did such good in the world and who cared for others could have been treated as she was by an Institution.
An Institution? The Press that everyone blamed for her death isn't an institution. The Paps aren't an Institution. The British people aren't an Institution. However, the PTB, the Establishment, the BRF, the people with power, they are an Institution. Curious, isn't it? And Harry and William, the future King, are very close.
the windsors are the 'Institution' of MONARCHY...and happens his dearest father is the next head of this Institution... his darling cold/remote, out of touch granny is the current head of that mess... no one of them have some problem with all slander the memory of Diana suffers in the last 20 years...
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 01, 2017, 06:32:08 PM
He may well be referring to the BRF but I must point out that the press is most definitely an institution. Absolutely.
Double post auto-merged: November 01, 2017, 06:45:31 PM
@sandy. Your post is classic Diana:
"It really is my husband's fault. He made me the way I am. He should not have put me in this position. But again, I want a happy family and marriage. I also want to remain married to him."
There is nothing, absolutely nothing that Diana did between 1981 and 1996 that was ever an effective strategy for getting that happy family she so crazed. In fact quite the opposite, everything she did had the consequence of ensuring that there was not a chance Charles would ever reconcile with her. All she was left with was her bitterness, loneliness and the strange self-justification of being a very public and effective victim.
If Diana's primary objective was to expose C&C, become the most famous woman in the world and win a PR war; then I give her 100%. If she wanted to destroy C&C, may be about 50%. They are not particularly popular within Diana's fans but again the other 50% she did not achieve. They married and Camilla got the position that was once Diana's.
However, if Diana wanted a happy family life or to be queen then she got 0%. She made Camilla a nexus of her marriage and in the end she did indeed become a nexus of her marriage. Maybe she should have taken a leaf from Mrs. Hoare and Mrs Carling about dealing with a mistress who will not go away. Those women did not turn their homes into a battleground on account of a mistress. They just discreetly handled the matter and Diana was forgotten as far as their family was concerned.
BTW "love" is not the only reason why people marry. That is a fairy tale idea that sometimes does not fit in with life. It is entirely possible and legitimate to marry in order to have legitimate children. Indeed biologists tell us that procreation is not about "love" at all. Diana was living in Barbara Cartland world if she thought that every marriage was based on "love".
Um, you made up the quote by Diana and I never said it. It is all yours.
So people are believing in fairy tales if they marry for love. My oh my that would put the reception catering and bridal gown companies out of business. I think it praiseworthy that people do believe in love and marry for it. Not the cynical way that Charles did. Just to get heirs.
I think Mrs Hoare (who had the purse strings in the marriage) was no compliant "little woman." I think she made her feelings well known to her husband. Her husband had an "official" mistress before he had the relationship with Diana. Mrs Hoare always had the upper hand IMO. She held the purse strings.
well there was NOTHING Charles did during that time period to show he worked on the marriage. Several things: he took Camilla's photograph with him on his honeymoon with Diana; he wore the C and C cufflinks on his honeymoon with Diana (Junor did give a minor reproach to Charles over this), he started whining about Diana's popularity and whining to his friends; he kept on seeing and calling Camilla; and he ditched Diana for the mistress. why is it that you keep blaming Diana for everything? Oh that's right...You are a big Camilla fan.
Charles exposed Camilla as his married mistress. Morton did not call Camilla the mistress or lover of Charles. then there was the Camillagate tape which did not force the divorce but Charles blabbing that she was in 1994, exposed Camilla as his married mistress.
Carling denied the affair. Carling did not name diana as "mistress" and neither did Hoare. Charles OTOH crowed to all the world that she was his married mistress.
Double post auto-merged: November 01, 2017, 09:17:20 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 01, 2017, 08:58:12 PM
I know but sometimes you have to think whether making a statement is more important than your personal happiness or safety. You have to admit that if Diana wanted a happy home, she made a pretty hash of things. That is not to say that it was her role alone but I don't think she was that reasonable or easy to live with.
True about most grooms but POW is not most grooms. An ordinary man would have told his father where to go after bullying him all his life and then trying to suggest what he might or might not do with his girlfriend. Likewise the idea of spoiling someone's reputation because you are going out with them seems a tad old fashioned.
As for Harry, I hope to God he is careful. As his mother learnt, you take on the monarchy or its associated institutions at your cost. He is already flirting with danger in his meetings with the Obamas and Clintons (partisan). Then the issue of the girlfriend might raffle a few feathers. The BRF knows how to fight back and its blows can be quite devastating to the individual.
In any case I really question whether the BRF did anything out of ordinary to make Diana suffer. It is true that they did ignore her and later on isolated her when she fell out with Charles; but she was not really their target from the word go. Some of them like PM were surprisingly supportive until she pushed things too far. I would say the queen was even overly patient and indulgent when Diana started making terrible mistakes. In any case, what did Diana expect?
For most families once you fail out with their own, they close ranks. Charles was their flesh and blood. It is natural that they would side with him against an outsider, particularly given the considerable power he is likely to wield when he becomes King. Diana's own family were quite happy to throw her under the bus when she became difficult so that may have made her psychologically too desperate to win approval in the family she married into.
Charles wears all those medals, has all those titles, and wealth but he is still an ordinary flesh and blood man not above "normal" morals and ethics and behavior.
Prince Philip never told Charles he could not marry Camilla. Charles did not even try, he gave her a pass in the early seventies. And did not say, Camilla I am not ready to marry now but I want you to know we have a future together which I very much want. He did not even try! As for Philip "forcing" him to marry Diana that is a lot of rubbish. Charles was 32 and could say no. One part of the advice of PHilip made sense to me. It said if he did not want to marry her let her go. Charles admitted later h e preferred his mistress so his father's advice made perfect sense. Charles tends to blame others.
I think Charles was the difficult one, like a big pampered baby who wanted to get his own way and have his way or the highway. His bedding his friends' wives was just gross and nobody forced him into doing it.
Why do you object to Harry's girlfriend? She is a divorcee just like Camilla was when she married Prince Charles. There were no children involved in Meghan's marriage. And Harry is single. They did not break up each other's marriages to be together.
So you think Harry is difficult while Charles who did worse is not? Because of Meghan?!
Diana's reputation would not have been spoiled if Charles broke up with her before the engagement. He would have been doing her a favor. He should have decided if he wanted to force a PB divorce then or find another woman who would agree with his terms (Maybe someone in the Highgrove set and palsy walsy with Camilla would have agreed to the terms.)
BTW William is friendly with Obama too.
The quote refers to an attitude not a literal list of your words
@sandy and you know that very well I am sure.
You also seem not to understand that C&D had very different perspectives and priorities in that marriage. It was Diana that stood to lose by the divorce. If we believe your interpretation of Diana's version: all Charles wanted was those heirs. To that extent he had achieved what he set out to do. He would not be particularly hurt or concerned if the marriage failed after that. For Diana it was the exact opposite. She wanted to remain in the marriage so in actuality it was her priority to ensure that the home was not in such a state of conflict that Charles no longer wanted to be there.
I have never heard anyone saying that Charles initiated a quarrel about Camilla or any of Diana's affairs. It was Diana that mainly started and pushed the rows. Charles was largely indifferent. In fact she would get more furious if he refused to quarrel with her and went to the garden. She wanted to have the fights. He did not. Some people say that Charles ought to have acceded to Diana's demands in order to stop the rows but that only works when the man is in love with you and not someone else. Diana was using the wrong tactics on the wrong man and he left he subsequently (BTW it is no use denying this when Diana herself told the world about it).
It is also not true to say that Charles did not try at all. He did and even Diana acknowledged he did. He had tolerated Diana's antics for 3-4 years. If what is reported is true, no man would have remained with Diana for even two years. Diana failed to build on what was available and instead became idealistic about what was possible. This man was not madly in love with her and she knew that but behaved as if he was the one that needed her most. Then she wanted this ideal home but did not quite know how to make it happen. Diana was never going to maintain a happy home by nagging Charles about Camilla. That was a shortcut to separation and divorce.
As for the stuff about W&H and Meghan: I feel that you are deliberately misinterpreting my post in order to pivot back to the C&C hatefest. I am sure you know that none of the things you are attributing to me are true or were stated in my post.
A quote is supposed to be from a source. I am not the source of your quote. It is all yours. I am not the source. You can't claim I wrote something I did not. It's yours.
Diana lost nothing. Charles did want the heirs. Smith, who likes Charles, does say he married to have heirs and otherwise he probably would not have married. This from the book she wrote about Charles that was published this year. So don't you believe her? Why do you say it is "my" interpretation. I was not the first or only source of that. Please check your style guides and use quotes when you have a source and don't make up a source and put it in quotes.
Diana said "my life is torture." Why would she want to stay in that sort of marriage. Charles was increasingly putting her down in private and in public.
So you "know" Diana started the rows? Is this because you can't believe Charles is capable of doing anything wrong?! Since when do you "know" who started the rows. Charles wearing those cufflinks would not bring a "pretty cufflinks darling" remark by Diana. Charles did some baiting or was very stupid or maybe both.
Again, why do you give Charles a free pass when it is known (confessed to by Charles himself) that he did not love Diana when he married her? I am curious why you keep ignoring the obvious.
YOu mean she tolerated his antics. Charles said he was not in love with her not madly not anything not in love with her. Diana had the misfortune of marrying Charles. He deserves a crude sneaky woman like Camilla. It is interesting how women closer to his age turned him down. He had to court a nineteen year old who was naïve, but learned the hard way after the marriage.
Yes Charles tried enough to have those heirs.
Oh Diana had no right to complain about Camilla in your world. I think blaming the wife to elevate the mistress is a cop out.
You can't possibly blame Diana for Camilla bagging his friends' wives. I guess you have to find a scapegoat for that gross behavior of Charles, instead of blaming Diana.
You put down Harry because of Mehgan. It was not a "oh how wonderful for Harry he found Meghan." And Harry is in no trouble for being friends with Obama. For one thing, Obama is not President anymore.
You misinterpret many of my posts and in the last reply keep crediting me with YOUR quote.
Its not about Harry being in trouble about being friends with Obama, hes certainly fine to do that, but he also has to be aware that any royal hanging around with a politician exposes themselves to be used for political purposes, or to be claimed to be "politicizing" the RF.
With Prince Andrew having to back away from Jeffrey Epstein, and Charles friendship with Jimmy Saville, Diana and Tony Blair(which came out posthumously) and her appearance in the White House in 96 helped the Clinton re-election bid, one has to be careful about who one day may be problematic.
With the recent Clinton Foundation scandal, appearing at the Obama foundation was ill advised imo, it would be different if they were all appearing together for say, the Red Cross, etc. that would be different.
Quote from: michelle0187 on November 01, 2017, 12:42:44 AM
^ I don't mean her paranoia was just about camilla. Staff members ordered to lie to her about his whereabouts. But she probably figured it out. I read somewhere that she could tell where he was going just based on the car he drove off in.
For gods sake most peolple having affairs lie and get other people to lie. Diana lied about when she was going to see Gilbey in London, saying she was going for back treatment.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 08:25:16 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 01, 2017, 09:28:38 PM
The quote refers to an attitude not a literal list of your words @sandy and you know that very well I am sure.
You also seem not to understand that C&D had very different perspectives and priorities in that marriage. It was Diana that stood to lose by the divorce. If we believe your interpretation of Diana's version: all Charles wanted was those heirs. To that extent he had achieved what he set out to do. He would not be particularly hurt or concerned if the marriage failed after that. For Diana it was the exact opposite. She wanted to remain in the marriage so in actuality it was her priority to ensure that the home was not in such a state of conflict that Charles no longer wanted to be there.
I have never heard anyone saying that Charles initiated a quarrel about Camilla or any of Diana's affairs. It was Diana that mainly started and pushed the rows. Charles was largely indifferent. In fact she would get more furious if he refused to quarrel with her and went to the garden. She wanted to have the fights. He did not. Some people say that Charles ought to have acceded to Diana's demands in order to stop the rows but that only works when the man is in love with you and not someone else. Diana was using the wrong tactics on the wrong man and he left he subsequently (BTW it is no use denying this when Diana herself told the world about it).
It is also not true to say that Charles did not try at all. He did and even Diana acknowledged he did. He had tolerated Diana's antics for 3-4 years. If what is reported is true, no man would have remained with Diana for even two years. Diana failed to build on what was available and instead became idealistic about what was
As
Charles has a bit of a temper but he's not IMO a naturally hot tempered or argumentative person. That's to say if he's crossed or angry, he will lose his temper but he isn't "always up for a row" as the Spencers seem to be.
He did seem to walk away from Diana's arguemtns, and that did make her more furious. They were temperamentally mis matched. he didnt' want to have a big row and make it up in bed, he just wanted a quiet life.. I agree tht he did try with the marriage for some eyars, and I think that when he married Diana, although he wasn't deeply in love with her, he was attracted to her, fond of her, and had ben touched by her ready sympathy when he lost Mountbatten. I think he believed she was a warm hearted girl who would be a loving companion and that they had enough in common to build a marriage. they both love their sons, and had they had a BIT more in common and had Diana not been bulimic, and not IMO mature enough to handle such a public marriage and all the crazy press attention, I think they would have grown into a happy relationship.
But they had almost nothing in common, and he was unable to cope with Diana's suddnen change from a simple country loving girl who seemed happy with him, to a sick unhappy traumatised young woman who hated the country, was constantly depressed or angry, and ill.
@sandy. That tangent about me not liking Meghan (where you got that from is a mystery to me) and use of quotation marks is deliberate on your part (as if I stated that is what you said). You know what I meant but are deliberately trying to muddy the waters with superfluous details in the hope of obscuring the gist of my argument. This is not the first time you are doing this. You pick something from an entire post and try to raise a debate about it in order to mask a wider argument you are not winning.
As you know very well my point is this: Diana did not do anything meaningful to make the marriage work and yet she constantly said that she wanted it to work. You don't express a wish for something to work and then do absolutely nothing to make it work. To say that "Diana lost nothing" in her divorce is a nonsense and you know it is a nonsense. If she lost nothing, she would not have resisted the separation and divorce like she did.
The rest are just tangents and red herrings to mask the real issues.
Its trure that it is nonsense to say that "Diana lost nohting in the divorce." but not true that she didn't try and make the marriage work. She did her best, but she was part of the problem.. and her very nature and charles' were so much at odds that they simply didn't have much chance of a happy marriage. I think that Diana did try, at frist but her emotions (as they often did) kept getting the better of her. She might have had to settle for a "not very close" marriage, where all they really had in common was the children.. but she coudlnt' really do that. She got upset and emotional. She got angry that Charles didn't spend all his time with her, and convinced herself that he was longing for Camila all the time. And the more that Diana raged or cried, problaby Charles DID long more and more for Camilla. So in effect, like many people who are accused of infidelity all the time, he went back tio Cam.
But Diana did make stabs at making the marriage work. SHe tried to learn to ride. They shared love and care for the children...
She tried to get on with the RF in private but she didn't really take to them.. nor I think when they got ot know her better, did they like her very much.
However it is indeed nonsensical to say she lost nothing in the divorce. She got a good money settlement.. but she was not goig to be as rich as if she had remained Charles' wife. SHe lost the HRH, more than that the RF did cool on her and gave up any show of protecting or supporting her, as they would have done in public if she had remained as C's wife. She lost friends among the upper class and was forced to rely on the celebrity class for friends....
I actually agree with Amabel and she has reminded me of how Diana tried. But the emotional neediness of her personality, tendency to histrionics and short term perspective almost always undermined her efforts. POW was not going to sit with her and keep her company to show that he had forgotten Camilla. It was just never going to happen and she was unrealistic thinking it would. Had POW been that kind of man, he would not have achieved anywhere the things that he has achieved in life.
You want a serious rich successful husband but then expect him to be indulging in endless intimate moments with you to keep you happy? Not going to happen. Hewitt was the exact opposite: not wealthy or successful but always there when she wanted (until his job took him off). Once again she ended up not being able to cope with him. What did Diana really want? I think she wanted a fantasy of an ideal husband that she was never going to get. The poor little rich girl that is unhappy about her gilded lifestyle, wanting to be at one with the poor but still enjoying the perks of royalty. Very sad IMO.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 11:34:24 AM
Having said all that: I accept that she became worse the longer she remained married to Charles and in the BRF. Her experiences and tenure as Princess made existing problems worse in my view. A personality like Diana's needs a husband who is very different from Charles and certainly not a senior executive in an ancient establishment. But the paradox is this: she wanted no other husband than one who was like Charles and in Charles' position. A hopeless venture.
According to Charles bio, he DID often "sit with her" and try to soothe her and look after her. But that can be very wearing, looking after someone who is very very emotional and suffering from something like bulimia ,whch causes mood swings.
Exactly. The way people talk about Charles, you would imagine that he was beating her black and blue on a daily basis. It is just so OTT and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexities of being married to someone with emotional difficulties and other mental health issues.
My view is that if you want to have a happy home life, you invest in it and work to get it done. Don't just expect the other party to look after you and make you happy.
Sorry but royalanthropologist IMO Charles didn't invest in a happy home life nor did he work to get it done. Charles always expects others to look after him and make him happy Camilla " Your greatest achievement is to Love Me", Fawcett squeezing the royal toothpaste or holding a container to collect the royal urine sample I dare say Charles is far more needy than Diana ever was but she did invest time into the marriage Charles checked out the moment the ink was barely dry on the marriage certificate.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 02, 2017, 01:40:07 PM
Exactly. The way people talk about Charles, you would imagine that he was beating her black and blue on a daily basis. It is just so OTT and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexities of being married to someone with emotional difficulties and other mental health issues.
My view is that if you want to have a happy home life, you invest in it and work to get it done. Don't just expect the other party to look after you and make you happy.
Charles did not beat Diana but he was emotionally abusive. Charles is not perfect either and has his own issues.
So it was "OK" for Charles to be mean to her because you think she had emotional issues. And he could throw her away like yesterday's garbage because she did not cater to his every need even approving the idea of sharing him.
It is a cop out to blame the wife for "emotional issues" instead of wondering why Charles felt it OK to bed his friends' wives (pre Diana). So who do you blame for that then when Diana was not around? \
Charles is like a needy baby and the quest to make him happy must include labeling the dead ex wife and not blaming him for any part of it.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 05:55:07 PM
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on November 02, 2017, 01:03:21 AM
Its not about Harry being in trouble about being friends with Obama, hes certainly fine to do that, but he also has to be aware that any royal hanging around with a politician exposes themselves to be used for political purposes, or to be claimed to be "politicizing" the RF.
With Prince Andrew having to back away from Jeffrey Epstein, and Charles friendship with Jimmy Saville, Diana and Tony Blair(which came out posthumously) and her appearance in the White House in 96 helped the Clinton re-election bid, one has to be careful about who one day may be problematic.
With the recent Clinton Foundation scandal, appearing at the Obama foundation was ill advised imo, it would be different if they were all appearing together for say, the Red Cross, etc. that would be different.
Joint appearances are fine. I doubt Harry will fork over money to any foundation. Obama is not President any more and served out his two terms.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 05:55:58 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 02, 2017, 09:51:39 AM
@sandy. That tangent about me not liking Meghan (where you got that from is a mystery to me) and use of quotation marks is deliberate on your part (as if I stated that is what you said). You know what I meant but are deliberately trying to muddy the waters with superfluous details in the hope of obscuring the gist of my argument. This is not the first time you are doing this. You pick something from an entire post and try to raise a debate about it in order to mask a wider argument you are not winning.
As you know very well my point is this: Diana did not do anything meaningful to make the marriage work and yet she constantly said that she wanted it to work. You don't express a wish for something to work and then do absolutely nothing to make it work. To say that "Diana lost nothing" in her divorce is a nonsense and you know it is a nonsense. If she lost nothing, she would not have resisted the separation and divorce like she did.
The rest are just tangents and red herrings to mask the real issues.
well you mentioned Meghan. I could ask you about a "tangent."
Diana gained because she was rid of Charles. Well rid of him IMO.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 05:59:28 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 02, 2017, 08:19:00 AM
For gods sake most peolple having affairs lie and get other people to lie. Diana lied about when she was going to see Gilbey in London, saying she was going for back treatment.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 08:25:16 AM
Charles has a bit of a temper but he's not IMO a naturally hot tempered or argumentative person. That's to say if he's crossed or angry, he will lose his temper but he isn't "always up for a row" as the Spencers seem to be.
He did seem to walk away from Diana's arguemtns, and that did make her more furious. They were temperamentally mis matched. he didnt' want to have a big row and make it up in bed, he just wanted a quiet life.. I agree tht he did try with the marriage for some eyars, and I think that when he married Diana, although he wasn't deeply in love with her, he was attracted to her, fond of her, and had ben touched by her ready sympathy when he lost Mountbatten. I think he believed she was a warm hearted girl who would be a loving companion and that they had enough in common to build a marriage. they both love their sons, and had they had a BIT more in common and had Diana not been bulimic, and not IMO mature enough to handle such a public marriage and all the crazy press attention, I think they would have grown into a happy relationship.
But they had almost nothing in common, and he was unable to cope with Diana's suddnen change from a simple country loving girl who seemed happy with him, to a sick unhappy traumatised young woman who hated the country, was constantly depressed or angry, and ill.
Charles did not just have an extramarital affair. He married Diana preferring the other woman, his married Mistress Camilla and had no intention of not contacting her anymore. Camilla is a manipulator and got what she wanted by undermining the wife.
Saying "most people" do something nasty does not excuse C and C.
Did you see the photos that resurfaced showing Diana hunting in Fall 1982. And she was smiling. So your accusations are not entirely true now.
She had morning sickness in 1981 and the bulimia and of course would be moody. Why not cut her some slack?
Charles was not in love with her at all, never mind "deeply" in love. He admitted it later. How would you expect her to feel?
Charles married Diana for expediency's sake and only thought of his needs not hers.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 06:01:32 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 02, 2017, 01:40:07 PM
Exactly. The way people talk about Charles, you would imagine that he was beating her black and blue on a daily basis. It is just so OTT and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexities of being married to someone with emotional difficulties and other mental health issues.
My view is that if you want to have a happy home life, you invest in it and work to get it done. Don't just expect the other party to look after you and make you happy.
Stephen Barry said he had people around who saw to his every need. He did not seem to look much beyond his own needs. He had great expectations, even needing more than one woman in his life. He should not have expected the other party to think it was great that he had the "special friend" that he called up and saw at hunts.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 06:04:06 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 01, 2017, 09:28:38 PM
The quote refers to an attitude not a literal list of your words @sandy and you know that very well I am sure.
You also seem not to understand that C&D had very different perspectives and priorities in that marriage. It was Diana that stood to lose by the divorce. If we believe your interpretation of Diana's version: all Charles wanted was those heirs. To that extent he had achieved what he set out to do. He would not be particularly hurt or concerned if the marriage failed after that. For Diana it was the exact opposite. She wanted to remain in the marriage so in actuality it was her priority to ensure that the home was not in such a state of conflict that Charles no longer wanted to be there.
I have never heard anyone saying that Charles initiated a quarrel about Camilla or any of Diana's affairs. It was Diana that mainly started and pushed the rows. Charles was largely indifferent. In fact she would get more furious if he refused to quarrel with her and went to the garden. She wanted to have the fights. He did not. Some people say that Charles ought to have acceded to Diana's demands in order to stop the rows but that only works when the man is in love with you and not someone else. Diana was using the wrong tactics on the wrong man and he left he subsequently (BTW it is no use denying this when Diana herself told the world about it).
It is also not true to say that Charles did not try at all. He did and even Diana acknowledged he did. He had tolerated Diana's antics for 3-4 years. If what is reported is true, no man would have remained with Diana for even two years. Diana failed to build on what was available and instead became idealistic about what was possible. This man was not madly in love with her and she knew that but behaved as if he was the one that needed her most. Then she wanted this ideal home but did not quite know how to make it happen. Diana was never going to maintain a happy home by nagging Charles about Camilla. That was a shortcut to separation and divorce.
As for the stuff about W&H and Meghan: I feel that you are deliberately misinterpreting my post in order to pivot back to the C&C hatefest. I am sure you know that none of the things you are attributing to me are true or were stated in my post.
It's not my quote royal and you know it.
I'm not pivoting. So did you pivot when you mentioned Meghan and Obama re: harry?
Diana did not want the fights, why would she? HE seemed to want the fights with his baiting comments and wearing his mistress' cufflinks. And you think it not baiting when he crowed he needed two wives. Something you find funny, heaven knows why.
Quote from: Trudie on November 02, 2017, 04:06:26 PM
Sorry but royalanthropologist IMO Charles didn't invest in a happy home life nor did he work to get it done. Charles always expects others to look after him and make him happy Camilla " Your greatest achievement is to Love Me", Fawcett squeezing the royal toothpaste or holding a container to collect the royal urine sample I dare say Charles is far more needy than Diana ever was but she did invest time into the marriage Charles checked out the moment the ink was barely dry on the marriage certificate.
There are two misleading statements about those things you talk about. You are trying to give the impression that Fawcett was squeezing Charles' hand and holding him for a urine sample on a regular basis. The second is an urban legend, the first was a one-off when Charles had a broken arm. Very typical of tabloid lies and hypberbole. You say a lie long enough and it becomes true. Needing assistance when you have a broken arm is not being needy. It is getting patient care.
Then you have the vague "she did invest time into the marriage". How exactly did she invest time in it and he did not? Please explain this is an interesting thing for me. Diana fans always tell us she tried but he didn't so I want to know what exactly she did to save that marriage that he did not?
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2017, 07:10:55 AM
@sandy. I reckon you perfectly understood what I meant but it is easier to debate about the use of quotation marks and my presumed dislike of Meghan than to explain what Diana actually successfully did to make her marriage work.
You say Charles emotionally abused Diana and she did not emotionally abuse him? I consider what she was doing to be emotional abuse of the worst kind too. She was not some sweet lady who was victimized by Charles.
You gave the false impression that Charles did "throw her away like yesterday's garbage because she did not cater to his every need even approving the idea of sharing him." That is not true. Charles stayed with Diana for three to five years. The first three of those years there was no suggestion he was sleeping with Camilla. He tried to understand what was going on when Diana was behaving in an erratic manner.
No ordinary man would have stayed with Diana for two years the way she was behaving in the early part of the marriage. It is a lie to say that Charles threw her away without even trying. He just got fed up and left when Diana became impossible to live with.
You say Charles is a "needy baby" but unlike Diana he has been able to sustain a long lasting relationship with someone. Diana could not do that even after the divorce. Her love life was a mess and she kept playing these silly manipulative games with the people she was involved in. Her very last holiday was an exercise in playing games with the media, Khan, Charles, Camilla or all of them.
Fawcett was not a medical professional. It is not getting "patient care" since Fawcett was not a doctor or nurse.
Diana did invest ten years in the marriage. Who are these Diana fans?
Diana was a sweet lady but found herself in a situation where the man paraded around (on his honeymoon no less) sporting cufflinks from the mistress and keeping her photos around. And hearing the man expressing love for his mistress. A lot of women would have walked out on the honeymoon. Charles victimization of her did consist of her putting her down and saying out loud in front of guests that she and Fergie had "little minds." Making fun of the bulimia, and putting her down in front of courtiers. You say Diana did not behave right because she should have put up with whatever Charles wanted and not complained.
The thing is there are some that C and C were lovers again as early as 1983. However, it was not the point of Charles having sex with a woman, it was the emotional dependence on the mistress that Diana minded. And they did meet up at hunts and house parties and were in touch by phone.
You keep talking about CHarles "walking out on her" and even seem to revel in the (fictional) tale of Charles rejecting DIana in a humiliating way when she put on a negligee. Almost joyful at his "not wanting her anymore." If that is not tossing out a woman like yesterday's garbage I don't know what is.
No ordinary woman would have put up with Charles and the mistress and would have walked. Charles did not try. His getting "fed up" is not an excuse. She was pretty fed up with him too.
He is a needy baby. OTher than Camilla who was the married mistress, he could not sustain any relationships that lasted. He dumped Kanga, Anna Wallace walked away, after knowing him for years Amanda did not want to be his wife, Janet Jenkins had an off and on again relationship with him, and Sarah Spencer did not want him either. He thought it was OK to sleep with his friends' wives so he could not have any real relationships as a friend since it involved helping himself to the wives.
Diana died at age 36 how can you possibly know she would not have sustained a long term relationship. She was only divorced a year yet you act like she was a Miss Havisham who died as an old woman still wearing her wedding gown now in shreds.
how could Diana up and marry and have a family in that last year--she was only divorced ONE year. SO how could she have a long term relationship if she only lived a year after that. Impossible.
Charles love life was a sordid mess and he kept on poaching his friends' wives.
Diana did not play media games. She was not ready to settle down and was dating. And BTW she was like Jackie the most photographed woman on the planet. She did not have to court attention.
royalanthropoligist Sandy summed it all up perfectly.
Hmmm. In my neck of the woods, people who are close to you like friends, family or staff do help out with personal care tasks particularly when you are injured. The fact such information was shared with the media, printed and consumed says a lot more about the participants in that media campaign than Charles himself. Charles is a good man and a great Prince of Wales. His disastrous first marriage does not entitle people to tell outright lies about him without reposte.
What did Diana invest in 10 years that Charles did not? The question is not answered. Quarreling, manipulating, leaking and squabbling your way through a 10-year nightmarish relationship does not seem to me like any kind of investment. I am interested in what things Diana did to make that home a pleasant and an attractive one that would give her husband an alternative to what Camilla offered as a mistress.
No she was not sweet to Charles and has never been sweet to him (except of course before she got that engagement ring when she was showing so much concern for the loss of his uncle Mountbatten). Once the ring was one, Diana transformed. The claws came out and she expected Charles to take it till the end of time.
It is true that Diana was sweet in public to the crowds (as well victimized and marginalized people) but not to Charles. To Charles she was bitter, vengeful and generally unpleasant. Ditto to his family which had given her so much but she did not so much as say a thank you. Instead this sweet lady referred to them as "the Germans" and that "F-in Family". "Sweet Lady" my foot!
You speak of emotional dependence. Why was Charles so emotionally dependent on Camilla when he had a wife at home? Could it be that her own emotional neediness was draining him and he could not wait to get away from her? It can be quite boring interacting with someone with whom you do not share any interests but insists you must be paying attention to them 24/7. Worse, if that person has made it their life mission to become the wronged wife of the century.
Diana dying at 36 does not in any way negate her conduct up to that point. Between 1986 and 1996; Diana tried and failed at many romantic relationships. That I think was a good indicator of where she was at in terms of her emotional maturity and ability to sustain mature romantic relationships.
You say:
"Diana did not play media games."
I say that is an outright lie. Playing media games was Diana's specialty and she was notably successful at it. Her husband could never compete in the realm of media manipulation. Some say Diana was the first true reality television star. The Kardashians had nothing on her in terms of self-exposure and emotional incontinence.
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2017, 11:04:43 AM
Quote from: Trudie on November 03, 2017, 10:57:32 AM
royalanthropoligist Sandy summed it all up perfectly.
Of course she did for you. You agree with her and that is fine. I also totally disagree with both of you; not least because some of the stuff you write is not true and also because you leave out important details if they in any way make Charles look good or Diana bad. That is your right but I will always call out the mischaracterization when I see it.
I don't think the average person would have a "manservant" do the medical stuff. They would get a nurse to assist them when convalescing.
Diana invested 10 years, doing the royal work, having two royal babies, and she and Charles kept up appearances. You keep blaming Diana for everything. Charles had something to do with the leaking, manipulating (Camilla manipulated too), quarreling, having his friends leak stories, and make it plain he considered the wife second fiddle to the mistress.
A wife should not have to compete with a mistress. Charles should have cut all ties with Camilla before he even considered marrying. He was too egocentric to think maybe a wife would not want to share him with a mistress.
Once Charles got married to Diana, the mistress's presence was made known on the honeymoon--those phone calls to Camilla, the little gifts from Camilla that Charles wore, and Charles professing love for Camilla during the honeymoon. How sick is that.
Charles showed his true colors later on.
No it is not a lie royal. That last year you keep presuming the worst of Diana--that last Summer. That she only dated Dodi to make people jealous. How do you know that? I think she enjoyed Dodi's company and enjoyed a Summer romance. She died and she never went out and crowed I only did this to make (fill in the blanks) jealous. I think that is a lot of projecting by someone who loathes Diana.
Comparing her to the Kardashians is a sad joke and a reflection on how you really feel about Diana.
What about Charles' own little soap opera of a life, admitting in public he cheated on his wife. And working with Junor who wrote yet another Diana bashing book.
How could DIana have a "romantic relationship" with any future, before she divorced. Divorce was finally called for in 1995. She had no future with these men.
And Charles was still a married man with a married woman until 1996. It was not a "permanent" relationship either. It took him years to marry Camilla. Camilla was involved with her husband for 22 years. Charles did not get a divorce until 1996.
Did you expect Diana to leave the royal family in 1986 to have a "permanent" relationship with Hewitt. Really! Diana would have lost custody of the children if she did. You seem to forget that.
Charles decided to marry Diana knowing he did not love her. Diana found out after she married him he was not giving up Camilla. You seem to think she should have just put up and shut up about it because the Great Man is always right. He's not, and he even cheated on Camilla with other women all through the years of the "great love story." Pathetic.
OK royal just how did Diana invest in the marriage. For openers Diana tried her hardest to please Charles on engagements only to hear him complain. Diana tried to fit in with his friends, going shooting, taking riding lessons, going to polo etc. Diana supported his work with the Princes Trust appearing with him at concerts etc I have yet to see Camilla support his charity. I want to know just what exactly shows just how much Charles invested when one considers he checked out with the ink barely dry on the marriage certificate.
@sandy writes:
"Diana invested 10 years, doing the royal work, having two royal babies, and she and Charles kept up appearances."
And how exactly is this any different from what Charles was doing? Didn't he do royal work or didn't he have the babies or didn't he keep up the appearances?
As for the manservant stuff, that is his business. Neither the manservant nor POW complainers. It is the outsiders that made a deal out of it. In any case I have proved my point that it was misleading to give the impression that it was a regular occurrence. It was not.
Charles did not "have babies." He fathered them for one thing.
Diana stayed in the marriage for ten years. Charles had his mistresses watch him get married and paraded around wearing his mistress' cufflinks on the honeymoon. Diana came into the marriage in good faith, Charles did not.
And on another thread you appear to condone Charles "walking out" on Diana and after she had the heirs. And applaud the involvement with the Fun Mistress.
Quote from: Trudie on November 03, 2017, 11:59:15 AM
OK royal just how did Diana invest in the marriage. For openers Diana tried her hardest to please Charles on engagements only to hear him complain. Diana tried to fit in with his friends, going shooting, taking riding lessons, going to polo etc. Diana supported his work with the Princes Trust appearing with him at concerts etc I have yet to see Camilla support his charity. I want to know just what exactly shows just how much Charles invested when one considers he checked out with the ink barely dry on the marriage certificate.
Working the crowds is not equivalent to working on the marriage. As far as working the crowds was concerned, Diana was close to 100% successful. She retained that even after her divorce. But as a wife...she was terrible. Just terrible. The idea that Diana tried to fit in with Charles's friends or that somehow Camilla does not support the Princes' trust is preposterous.
I am yet to see anyone but the fringe claiming that Diana supported Charles more than Camilla. She did not. Her popularity was personal to her and did not extend to him. Of course, later on she unsuccessful tried to destroy him using her popularity. That is the exact opposite of a loving and supportive wife.
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2017, 12:22:34 PM
Quote from: sandy on November 03, 2017, 12:12:25 PM
Charles did not "have babies." He fathered them for one thing.
Diana stayed in the marriage for ten years. Charles had his mistresses watch him get married and paraded around wearing his mistress' cufflinks on the honeymoon. Diana came into the marriage in good faith, Charles did not.
And on another thread you appear to condone Charles "walking out" on Diana and after she had the heirs. And applaud the involvement with the Fun Mistress.
A bit sexist isn't it? Man plays no role in having babies and all that? And some people have the nerve to call me sexist???
Clinging onto a marriage and making the other person's life a misery in the process does not seem to be much of an investment. Diana was clinging on for dear life when she realized that Charles had left and was quite capable of not returning to her whatever she did. It was was one row too far for him. For her it was a matter of personal pride. Someone had said no to her and was leaving her. She could not cope, hence all the drama.
It may well be true that Diana came into the marriage "in good faith" but she was a terrible wife to Charles once that ring was on her finger. Had she not been a bad wife to him, Camilla would probably have faded into obscurity.
I do think Charles was right to leave his toxic relationship with Diana. It was doing neither of them any good. In fact I would have preferred if they had divorced amicably in 1983 rather than putting us all through this soap opera of a hellish marriage.
And as a husband Charles was terrible just terrible an awful. Any man going into the marriage preferring the mistress is a walking disaster. He admitted doing this too.
Charles introduced Diana to his friends while they were dating. And she was trying to fit in. This is a fact.
Diana wanted to support Charles but Charles did not want her he wanted to run to the mistress for comfort. He should not have married Diana under those conditions. He just cared about getting those heirs and as you said, he could then walk away once the mission was accomplished.
Charles and Camilla and their cronies are still doing character assassinations on Diana. Junor is buddy buddy with them and the biggest Diana basher, ever.
Charles did not appreciate Diana and childishly pouted and got jealous of her.
Exactly. Just like Diana never appreciated Charles perhaps??? Not a word of praise for him but constant complaints and condemnation. Yes, he was a bad husband but she was also a terrible wife. I see no reason why he had to put up with her bad behavior. Best thing to do is leave and find a new life elsewhere IMO. That is what he did and I think it was the right thing for him. He is much happier now.
I have never ever queried that Diana tried to fit in with Charles, his life and family BEFORE the engagement and marriage. It was after the marriage that things went downhill. Before, she wanted to put her best foot forward and was eager to please. That is why everyone including the queen was shocked at the transformation. How could this previously sweet and fun girl have turned into a nightmare within a space of a few months? They were all perplexed.
Diana admired Charles calling him "amazing" at the outset.She thought the world of him.
Why wouldn't she complain? Should she have simpered over how"wonderful" Charles has two women looking after him?
Why is it so important to some that the man be happy? It's like hoping a baby will enjoy a toy and be happy over it.
How do you know the Queen was "shocked." The woman knew all about Camilla yet condoned the marriage, so I don't know why she would be in shock.
Diana was not a nightmare she was an "annoyance" to the Great Man because she complained.
You ask for the umpteenth time
@sandy:
"Why is it so important to some that the man be happy?"
We've been through this many times Sandy. It is a very, very simple equation:
Charles Happy=No Separation/Divorce.
Charles Not Happy=Separation/Divorce
If Diana wanted to remain married to Charles then the equation has the answer why it is very important for Charles to be happy in his relationship or marriage.
The same applies to Diana but unfortunately for her, Charles never really minded when they were separated or divorced. It was not his priority then and he had no interest in maintaining the relationship. She was the one who was more interested in keeping the marriage going than him. It was an unequal relationship.
You say "she thought the world of him"
Wrong I say. She called him creepy the first time she met him. Later on she called him "the great white hope". That is not thinking the world of him. It is holding your powder dry until the ring is on your finger. Then you let your true feelings show.
I know the queen was shocked because of reading the literature talking about the marriage. Just like you get all your information about C&D. No difference.
There is a fine line between "annoyance" and "nightmare". Charles saw them as one and the same.
I agree about the equation, pragmatically,Charles held the ultimate balance of power, and while she could out do him in the media and the public, she couldnt get his own family to side against him.
Im not so sure its as cut and dried as her holding her powder dry to use once the ring was on her finger. Like any courtship, one tries to put the best foot forward and hide ones worst attributes. I think it was when she realized that she wasnt going to get what she wanted but he would, that she lashed out.
But im sure just as the RF hid the worst about them until she was in and had heirs, im sure Diana hid some things as well. Thats what makes the story so interesting, they're both trying to play the same game, but like Vegas, the house always wins. I wish that had been one time she went by the head and not the heart.
[gmod]Many of these posts are getting personal. Rein it in folks, rein it in. Cheers. SCxx [/gmod]
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 03, 2017, 03:51:12 PM
You ask for the umpteenth time @sandy:
"Why is it so important to some that the man be happy?"
We've been through this many times Sandy. It is a very, very simple equation:
Charles Happy=No Separation/Divorce.
Charles Not Happy=Separation/Divorce
If Diana wanted to remain married to Charles then the equation has the answer why it is very important for Charles to be happy in his relationship or marriage.
The same applies to Diana but unfortunately for her, Charles never really minded when they were separated or divorced. It was not his priority then and he had no interest in maintaining the relationship. She was the one who was more interested in keeping the marriage going than him. It was an unequal relationship.
You say "she thought the world of him"
Wrong I say. She called him creepy the first time she met him. Later on she called him "the great white hope". That is not thinking the world of him. It is holding your powder dry until the ring is on your finger. Then you let your true feelings show.
I know the queen was shocked because of reading the literature talking about the marriage. Just like you get all your information about C&D. No difference.
There is a fine line between "annoyance" and "nightmare". Charles saw them as one and the same.
Fact: Charles was on a weekend house party where Diana was invited by Philip De Pas. She sat next to Charles and said how sad he looked he made a pass at her. He also asked her to return home with him and she said if she left early she'd have been rude to the host. I think if Diana had given in to the pass she'd have been derided as 'too easy.' She hardly knew him then and it took her by surprise. She started dating him later. She was not repelled by him, just taken by surprise by a man she barely knew then.
Charles Foolish/Deceitful - Not telling his wife to be the truth about his feelings for Camilla and marrying her even though he (as he admitted later) he preferred his mistress.
Charles Happy - When he gets what he wants at other people's expense.
The Queen was shocked and hurt by Charles confessions of her "bad" parenting. Charles siblings were quick to defend their parents (this in 1994). Never referred to because it destroys the spin of Charles the Perfect.
Diana said Charles was "amazing" in the engagement interview. SHe was besotted with him , she said so, and witnesses around the couple said so. Her father said she was "over the moon."
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2017, 11:00:38 PM
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on November 03, 2017, 08:07:54 PM
I agree about the equation, pragmatically,Charles held the ultimate balance of power, and while she could out do him in the media and the public, she couldnt get his own family to side against him.
Im not so sure its as cut and dried as her holding her powder dry to use once the ring was on her finger. Like any courtship, one tries to put the best foot forward and hide ones worst attributes. I think it was when she realized that she wasnt going to get what she wanted but he would, that she lashed out.
But im sure just as the RF hid the worst about them until she was in and had heirs, im sure Diana hid some things as well. Thats what makes the story so interesting, they're both trying to play the same game, but like Vegas, the house always wins. I wish that had been one time she went by the head and not the heart.
Diana's mother was not fond of Prince Charles. She specified in her will that he was not to attend her funeral. She was bitter about the royals not letting her see her deceased daughter's body. Diana's father died before the Morton book was published. Raine and Diana initiated a friendship at the time of John Spencer's death. Her brother obviously did not have good things to say about Charles after Diana died. Sarah and Jane never commented publicly about Charles. So most took Diana's side but too little too late.
It was an unequal relationship. Diana stood to lose more than Charles if the relationship ended after 1983. The decision that faced her was whether to work on the marriage or to leave. Working on the marriage includes ensuring that the home does not become a scene for continuous reprimands, rows and tearful recriminations.
If you can't do that, you accept an amicable separation with your unofficial household at KP and him at Highgrove. Diana instead the worst middle way: fight Charles in the home and not leave. Go after him and try to expose him at every opportunity. Try to be in his face as much as possible and invite yourself to places where he is going to be. Leak nasty stories about him and his family to the media as well as using the children as bait. Meanwhile ham it up in the press as the wronged wife of the century.
As a consequence of Diana's decision to pursue this strategy, their relationship became worse and worse by the day. Morton and Panorama were typical of this strategy: doing everything to annoy Charles and poison the well of their relationship but simultaneously also insisting that you do not want a divorce. Many woman who are reluctantly divorced do this so Diana is not unique. They create chaos, disharmony and resentment in the home but still insist that they want their husband back.
Others rather paradoxically call it "fighting for their marriage".
I say: no dear, that is not fighting for your marriage or fighting for your man. It is actually fighting your husband and you will most certainly lose him in the process.
Harry was born in September 1984, so Charles and Diana's relationship didn't end in 1983. This was especially so as Diana described she and Charles as being ultra-close during that pregnancy. And for years Diana held her peace as far as planting bad stories about Charles was concerned. Much of the behavior you've spoken of occurred late in the 1980s/1990s. And why does only Diana have to restrain herself from recriminations, reprimands and rows? Charles dished out plenty of the former himself, especially with regard to Diana's popularity.
Charles could row himself with the best of them, and does 'working on the marriage' include farces like Charles slipping out in his pyjamas for assignations with Mrs PB, (leading to his valet having to wash green stained pyjama bottoms) circling TV programmes in the Radio Times he had no intention of watching, phoning his mistress at every opportunity and going off in the middle of the night in a certain car for assignations? (I don't know who he was fooling because it certainly wasn't the staff!) High-minded, much? Or just like every other cheating spouse in the world?
Diana did spend most of her time at KP and did leave Charles 'at peace' at Highgrove in an unofficial separation after a number of years. She certainly wasn't 'in his face' for most of the time there. He indulged himself at Highgrove with the above grubby activities, before the official separation.
Or is that not 'poisoning the well' of their relationship? But of course, according to you, Charles was responsible for about 10% of the unravelling of his marriage and Diana bears the rest of the load. What is it, 90-95%?
The trouble with you, Royal, is that you believe that human beings who have been terribly hurt in their marriages, as Diana was in loving someone who was never really in love with her, should behave like cold rational calculating machines, taking it all like Sylvia and Sophia, smiling and playing nice while their heart's breaking and never once trying to hit back and always, always making cool rational decisions about the future.
Well, sorry, I've got news for you. Heartbroken people act with their hearts and guts and emotions. I have seen the results of not hitting back among friends and acquaintances over the decades. I don't believe in discounting emotions and passions in relationships. These are human beings we are discussing, not robots. And one of the main reasons I admire Diana so much is that Yes she was flawed, but My God she was also very very human!
oh come, Diana wasn't sitting in KP while Charles "indulged in wicked affair with Camilla"... She was alos having an affair, and when the affair with J Hewit ended, she had another affair...
and where did "hitting back" get her? She was out of the RF, lost her HRH, lost the support of the RF, and in time she began to lose the support of the public.
@Curryong. I actually don't knock Diana for her emotional response. It was her situation and experience. She is the best judge of what her responses would be. Speaking personally as an outsider with a very different personality and lifestyle from hers, I would not really know what went on in her marriage. I only make comments about reaction and consequences of her reactions.
The problem that I saw is that Diana anticipated or expected that the other side would not respond emotionally or even with cold efficiency. Diana was surprised by the brutality and finality of her estrangement from Charles. She described him as being beastly for retaliating against her. Once you take on the "fighting route", you should also be prepared for the results.
I vehemently disagree with her portrayal of her marriage as the worst thing that happened to her. She was raised to a very privileged position and at first the BRF was doing their best to let her in. She had people at her beck and call. The public was wild about her. She was set for life and was destined to be a great anchor in the British Establishment like the QM.
On a personal level Charles was nowhere as dismissive as he was later in the marriage. He was certainly not sleeping with Camilla in the beginning. All these she threw away at the altar of Camilla. It was Camilla do or die.
For the most part, all that came to Camilla was delivered on a platter. Diana was doing all the handy work of destroying the marriage even when Camilla was a way. Diana's suspicions were driving her crazy and she was becoming impossible to live with let alone reason with.
All Camilla had to do was watch and let her self-destruct, which Diana duly did. In her desire to retaliate, Diana actually forgot who brought her to her position and why she was there. She was not the queen's child and should always have remembered that. Never ever push the monarch too far or you will get burnt.
There is something pathetically sad about Diana watching Camilla's 50th birthday and complaining to her therapist "the old hurt is coming back. I am so needy". The necklace Camilla was wearing was like "a dagger to my heart". Diana saw before her eyes what she had lost. Charles was not the ogre she had sold to the world.
In fact it could be argued that he was the only man that could have made her happy. Certainly he was the only one who was able to live with her for over 3 years. The rest were falling away at an alarming rate, partly because of her personalty and position. All this which had once been hers, she had handed to the mistress with her OTT reactions. She was the left consoling herself with the likes of Dodi.
Sylvia and Sophia took another route which has kept them safe, at least in public. They do not complain about their lot because they understand the deal and their situation. You behave and remain queen with all that it entails. The price you accept is that your husband is not going to always be a "proper husband" to you.
Everyone would be surprised and even outraged if Syliva and Sophia's husbands forcibly divorced them or removed their titles. With Diana it was a natural consequence of her reactions. Diana (and some of her supporters) complained about the strength of the punishment she got for speaking out but in my view it was all to be expected once she went down the fighting route. Neither Charles nor the queen was going to sit back and let her do damage to them without a response.
I don't believe in the idea of fighting for fighting's sake. You fight with a purpose, not just lashing out to hurt anybody that is nearby. Diana clearly stated that she wanted the marriage to work...but then did things that were guaranteed to ensure that marriage would never work. That is my definition of aimless lashing out for its own sake and nothing more.
well Diana was prone to do that.. In one bio, I have read that she said to one of her aides, "you know I never meant this to happen", when the divorce was going through..and the aide thought "Huh?? What?? She MADE this happen"
She was the one who fought to get out of the marriage and then seemed afraid and angry when the queen finally decreed a divorce. Left to himself, Charles would have gone on seeing Camilla discreetly and being married to Diana, and leaving her to find a man if she wanted one. Diana kicked up a fuss and went on pushing until she was finally pushed out. The RF and the queen DID want to keep her inside the tent, and were prepared to overlook her having a lover provided she was discreet, even prepared I think to tolerate her being more popular than Charles...and being a bit "outside the box". THey knew she was an asset and they didn't want to lose her. But when she openly fought her husband and the RF, they would not tolerate that forever.
Diana arranged the Bashir interview in secret because she KNEW that the RF would be furious, then was suprirsed when the queen lost her patience and said this is the end, you're getting a divorce
Quote from: amabel on November 04, 2017, 08:54:08 AM
oh come, Diana wasn't sitting in KP while Charles "indulged in wicked affair with Camilla"... She was alos having an affair, and when the affair with J Hewit ended, she had another affair...
and where did "hitting back" get her? She was out of the RF, lost her HRH, lost the support of the RF, and in time she began to lose the support of the public.
Diana did not indulge in any affair until Charles went back to Camilla. He never really"left" Camilla with those phone calls, meetings and so on. DIana was not the type to enter a nunnery at age 23 no less.
DIana was not 'out" of the royal family, she still was mother to a future monarch and was going to be seen at royal events involving William and Harry, and no, she did not lose the support of the public. No way. If she had, there would have been no big funeral for her since "nobody" would have cared.
Hitting back got her story out there. if she had not all the trash from Penny Junor and her ilk would be "accepted."
Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2017, 10:26:11 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 04, 2017, 09:19:40 AM
@Curryong. I actually don't knock Diana for her emotional response. It was her situation and experience. She is the best judge of what her responses would be. Speaking personally as an outsider with a very different personality and lifestyle from hers, I would not really know what went on in her marriage. I only make comments about reaction and consequences of her reactions.
The problem that I saw is that Diana anticipated or expected that the other side would not respond emotionally or even with cold efficiency. Diana was surprised by the brutality and finality of her estrangement from Charles. She described him as being beastly for retaliating against her. Once you take on the "fighting route", you should also be prepared for the results.
I vehemently disagree with her portrayal of her marriage as the worst thing that happened to her. She was raised to a very privileged position and at first the BRF was doing their best to let her in. She had people at her beck and call. The public was wild about her. She was set for life and was destined to be a great anchor in the British Establishment like the QM.
On a personal level Charles was nowhere as dismissive as he was later in the marriage. He was certainly not sleeping with Camilla in the beginning. All these she threw away at the altar of Camilla. It was Camilla do or die.
For the most part, all that came to Camilla was delivered on a platter. Diana was doing all the handy work of destroying the marriage even when Camilla was a way. Diana's suspicions were driving her crazy and she was becoming impossible to live with let alone reason with.
All Camilla had to do was watch and let her self-destruct, which Diana duly did. In her desire to retaliate, Diana actually forgot who brought her to her position and why she was there. She was not the queen's child and should always have remembered that. Never ever push the monarch too far or you will get burnt.
There is something pathetically sad about Diana watching Camilla's 50th birthday and complaining to her therapist "the old hurt is coming back. I am so needy". The necklace Camilla was wearing was like "a dagger to my heart". Diana saw before her eyes what she had lost. Charles was not the ogre she had sold to the world.
In fact it could be argued that he was the only man that could have made her happy. Certainly he was the only one who was able to live with her for over 3 years. The rest were falling away at an alarming rate, partly because of her personalty and position. All this which had once been hers, she had handed to the mistress with her OTT reactions. She was the left consoling herself with the likes of Dodi.
Sylvia and Sophia took another route which has kept them safe, at least in public. They do not complain about their lot because they understand the deal and their situation. You behave and remain queen with all that it entails. The price you accept is that your husband is not going to always be a "proper husband" to you.
Everyone would be surprised and even outraged if Syliva and Sophia's husbands forcibly divorced them or removed their titles. With Diana it was a natural consequence of her reactions. Diana (and some of her supporters) complained about the strength of the punishment she got for speaking out but in my view it was all to be expected once she went down the fighting route. Neither Charles nor the queen was going to sit back and let her do damage to them without a response.
I don't believe in the idea of fighting for fighting's sake. You fight with a purpose, not just lashing out to hurt anybody that is nearby. Diana clearly stated that she wanted the marriage to work...but then did things that were guaranteed to ensure that marriage would never work. That is my definition of aimless lashing out for its own sake and nothing more.
What "brutality." The "brutality" was Charles being more and more contemptuous of her. She said "my life is torture." She moved on and she got a large settlement, and was still the mother of a future King. Camilla could not have taken that from her, since she was not chosen to have royal heirs, by Charles.
Charles indicated early on that he preferred Camilla, he admitted he preferred the mistress when he married Diana. That would cause pain to Diana like his flaunting the C and C cufflinks his mistress gave him
How do you know how Sylvia and Sophia really feel? I doubt they are thrilled to pieces about their lives. And it is known how they are treated by their respective spouses.
Why don't you accuse Charles of "wrecking the marriage." In effect he brought in the toxicity of marrying Diana for expediency's sake and preferring the other woman.
Diana DID want the marriage work and thought CHarles an honorable man who would stop the involvement with the mistress, and he did not.
Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2017, 10:28:25 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 04, 2017, 06:46:38 AM
It was an unequal relationship. Diana stood to lose more than Charles if the relationship ended after 1983. The decision that faced her was whether to work on the marriage or to leave. Working on the marriage includes ensuring that the home does not become a scene for continuous reprimands, rows and tearful recriminations.
If you can't do that, you accept an amicable separation with your unofficial household at KP and him at Highgrove. Diana instead the worst middle way: fight Charles in the home and not leave. Go after him and try to expose him at every opportunity. Try to be in his face as much as possible and invite yourself to places where he is going to be. Leak nasty stories about him and his family to the media as well as using the children as bait. Meanwhile ham it up in the press as the wronged wife of the century.
As a consequence of Diana's decision to pursue this strategy, their relationship became worse and worse by the day. Morton and Panorama were typical of this strategy: doing everything to annoy Charles and poison the well of their relationship but simultaneously also insisting that you do not want a divorce. Many woman who are reluctantly divorced do this so Diana is not unique. They create chaos, disharmony and resentment in the home but still insist that they want their husband back.
Others rather paradoxically call it "fighting for their marriage".
I say: no dear, that is not fighting for your marriage or fighting for your man. It is actually fighting your husband and you will most certainly lose him in the process.
Or the scene of a husband telling the staff to lie to his wife about his whereabouts.
It appears to be forgotten that Charles pals leaked stories to the press about Diana before the Morton book. The ever vigilant Mrs Parker Bowles would give her side to the Sun Editor for 10 years.
If the queen indeed "merely tolerates Camilla" then I for one would take that tolerance any day over the kind of acrimony she had with Diana. Wishing things does not make them so. I think Camilla is sitting comfortably where she is vis-a-vis the queen.
Her son Charles had the acrimony with his mother. He trashed his parents via DImbleby and Bedell Smith and Junor repeated the "poor miserable with his parents CHarles" spin. The acrimony was so bad his siblings had to speak up for their parents.
I could say wishing does not make it so regarding your bad thoughts about Diana.
I don't think the Queen spends a whole lot of time with Camilla. By all accounts, Sophie is her favorite and she IMO is a whole lot more comfortable with her.
Irrelevant details and tangents IMO.
Like I said Camilla is quite happy where she is. She is in a much, much better position with the BRF than Diana ever was. I doubt the queen is ever going to write to Camilla any time soon calling for an early divorce. The BRF were thoroughly sick of Diana's antics by the time she left. With the exception of her sons, everybody was relieved it was all over.
The fiction that her divorce was a "victory" is nothing more than that...a fiction. She had a the world at her feet and gave it all away for a press scoop. If she was not out of the BRF as you claim, she would not have made a fuss about the loss of title and being isolated. She was out. The queen and Charles were just being polite by saying they "considered her a member of the family". The reality is that she was out and she of all people knew it.
Even attending events involving William and Harry (which you seem to equate to being a member of the BRF) would require the express permission from the sovereign. The family would suffer her presence for the sake of the children but still people who were confident enough about their influence on the queen like the QM would from time to time make their feelings known. That is why she eventually decided it was no longer feasible to go to Balmoral. Nobody wanted her there and she could feel the royal chill when she got there.
Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2017, 11:03:58 AM
Quote from: amabel on November 04, 2017, 09:44:49 AM
well Diana was prone to do that.. In one bio, I have read that she said to one of her aides, "you know I never meant this to happen", when the divorce was going through..and the aide thought "Huh?? What?? She MADE this happen"
She was the one who fought to get out of the marriage and then seemed afraid and angry when the queen finally decreed a divorce. Left to himself, Charles would have gone on seeing Camilla discreetly and being married to Diana, and leaving her to find a man if she wanted one. Diana kicked up a fuss and went on pushing until she was finally pushed out. The RF and the queen DID want to keep her inside the tent, and were prepared to overlook her having a lover provided she was discreet, even prepared I think to tolerate her being more popular than Charles...and being a bit "outside the box". THey knew she was an asset and they didn't want to lose her. But when she openly fought her husband and the RF, they would not tolerate that forever.
Diana arranged the Bashir interview in secret because she KNEW that the RF would be furious, then was suprirsed when the queen lost her patience and said this is the end, you're getting a divorce
That just about sums my view of Diana's incoherent thinking. Never meant the divorce to happen when she did everything in her power to ensure it happened??? Diana was living in a fairy tale. She never could quite understand the relationship between her actions and their consequences.
Having said that; I do believe she never really intended for Panorama to become a divorce. Some say that she imagined members of the BRF would be so moved by her performance that they would contritely make amends. How sad was that when you consider what happened next?
You say it's irrelevant. It is relevant. Charles did trash his parents yet you blame Diana for doing what Charles did. I don't get why you dismiss it. Charles did cause his parents hurt by bashing them to DImbleby, Junor and others.
Camilla got into the family in a very controversial way. Apparently Charles gave her a pass back in the early seventies and moved on to sowing wild oats because as he told Dimbleby he was "not ready" to get married. HE could not have been bothered to tell her to wait for him. And he apparently wanted someone else to marry and be the mother of his heirs. He did not choose Camilla but chose her to be the married mistress. And he had other mistresses like Kanga and Janet.
Diana was chosen from those considered suitable to marry and be the mother of his children. Camilla had a "past" and some exes had even come forward over the years. She and Andrew were married for 22 years and had 2 children and ultimately 5 grandchildren. She had a first marriage. SHe had contempt for DIana and undermined her every step of the way. It was no accident IMO that she sent those little cufflinks for Charles to wear on his honeymoon with DIana. She called Diana that "ridiculous creature." She only was able to marry CHarles after the Queen Mum passed on and after years of work with Bolland. She was not welcomed into the family immediately. She is still not liked by all in the public.
Diana still had the heirs and William and Harry talk about her and pay tribute to her and adored and loved her. Diana was not "out" by any stretch of the imagination.
Why would the Queen not give permission for DIana to be involved in events with her children? Do you see the Queen as that "petty."
Did you really want Diana to be seen treated as a pariah? You dislike her but that is a rather harsh assessment. IMO.
It took years for Camilla to be married to CHarles. She was not allowed to sit next to Charles at royal events after Diana passed on. So much for the Queen's "warm" welcome of her.
I think people do "suffer" Camilla' presence to this very day.
How do you know how the Queen was advised about Diana. To me it is more wishful thinking that people did not want DIana to appear at royal events with William and Harry. The Queen would not have had William and Harry without Diana. Charles did not have the children all by himself.
"Camilla had a "past" and some exes had even come forward over the years"???
What an incredibly pompous construct in this century? One of the reasons I like Camilla is that she crushed that fairy tale. Girls with pasts are quite entitled to romance and marriage.
I am sorry but I cannot take seriously any suggestion that divorce for Diana was a victory. It really is not convincing at all. $40 million for a crown?...terrible bargaining skills IMO.
As for Camilla's present position: it really is cold comfort to Diana (and perhaps some of her fans) that: "At least they choose me to be the wife. At least he did not marry her the first time. At least I am the one that bore the children. At least it took 8 years for him to marry her again. At least they did not allow them to sit together before they were married. At least she got in in a controversial way".
Cold comfort indeed. Diana lost that battle and lost it in a spectacular way, partly due to emotional thinking.
Camilla is admired by you for undermining a teenage girl and deliberately undermining her for years and instrumental in breaking up a marriage? Really. So let's give the girl with the past the Nobel Prize. LOL> The women IMO was greedy and out for Number One. She became the married mistress when her daughter was still in diapers. I see nothing admirable about the woman. Charles chose not to marry her. And Diana was praised back then as having a history but no past. Camilla did have exes, even if you are in denial about it. A banker who was her first lover came forward. This is a fact. If you think it all pompous go complain to the media and even Charles who chose not to marry the woman back in the early seventies. If it had not been Diana, it would have been another aristo not Camilla Shand.
Camilla was named by Charles as the mistress. Camilla started out as married mistress when her youngest child was still in diapers. I see that as more sordid than admirable.
Charles had his fairytale, having his cake and eating it too. And he made sure he got it.
Diana won the war. Camilla is not popular with all and way down in popularity polls and many do not want her to be named Queen. Diana had money of her own to live a comfortable secure life. Why would you think women should live in a marriage (you admit Charles loathed her) that was a sham for more money. You would then criticize her for being "mercenary" and "selling out." Diana just can't win with you.
Camilla had to wait 8 years, even with Diana dead and buried. The Queen Mum did not want a C and C wedding in her lifetime. Charles had to spend megabucks for some PR for Camilla.
Camilla did have a past like it or not.
Diana did not win the war. She had a series of successful but temporary PR scoops and iconic status as an enduring symbol for faux feminism and constructed victim hood. After her divorce: she lost her position, title, prospects, status and even later on her life. That is not victory, even by her own admission. She wanted to remain married to Charles, Princess of Wales and later on Queen. All that was no longer possible.
I would also point out that your statement that "Camilla is admired by you for undermining a teenage girl" is misleading on both counts. I admire Camilla for very different reasons from what you are trying to attribute to me: I admire her for shattering that nonsense about unsuitable girls because they had boyfriends before. Secondly Diana was not a teenager on her wedding day, let alone when Charles finally returned to Camilla.
Diana won the war. You wish she had "lost" and been a pariah. It's interesting that said Pariah was admired by Nelson Mandela and Mother Theresa.
She was a victim but she fought back.
She did not lose status, prospects and she still had title Princess of Wales. You only wish she was a big flop. Evidence is out there to the contrary.
If the Girl with the Past had "won" Charles would have fought to marry her back then. He did not even try. He could have avoided making her married mistress if he married he back then. He did not.
There is nothing wrong with a woman marrying her first boyfriend or not having many boyfriends before. Nothing at all wrong. Camilla "shattered nothing," she just set back feminism by making her "career" being a royal mistress and helping to see off the first wife. I would say women who truly achieved something and became PResidents or successes in their own rights are the true heroines.
Diana was a teenager when she got engaged and the time Camilla first "mentored" her.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 04, 2017, 12:04:39 PM
Diana did not win the war. She had a series of successful but temporary PR scoops and iconic status as an enduring symbol for faux feminism and constructed victim hood. After her divorce: she lost her position, title, prospects, status and even later on her life. That is not victory, even by her own admission. She wanted to remain married to Charles, Princess of Wales and later on Queen. All that was no longer possible.
I would also point out that your statement that "Camilla is admired by you for undermining a teenage girl" is misleading on both counts. I admire Camilla for very different reasons from what you are trying to attribute to me: I admire her for shattering that nonsense about unsuitable girls because they had boyfriends before. Secondly Diana was not a teenager on her wedding day, let alone when Charles finally returned to Camilla.
Again you forget a few things first of all the nonsense about unsuitable girls because they had boyfriends before was shattered by Sarah who openly lived with her boyfriend Paddy McNally who even took her I believe it was Windsor to meet Andrew at the beginning of their relationship. As for Diana you are right on the fact she was not a teenager on her wedding day she only turned twenty on July first with the wedding held 28 days later. I suppose she matured real fast in those 28 days.
@sandy. Diana was not a victim. She was a very privileged woman that threw it all away on a whim. Fighting your husband in the press and making a fuss does not turn you into a heroine. It merely means you have a histrionic personality that cannot cope with rejection.
Being admired by Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela is another red herring. It has absolute nothing to do with her divorce or loss of status. They admired her for her charity work.
Diana was NOT The Princess of Wales. You can debate it till the cows come home but it will not change that fact. She was not. That title can only belong to the wife of POW and she was no longer that. She was allowed a courtesy use of "Princess of Wales" as if it was a name, not a title.
In fact had she remarried, even that she would no longer be able to use. Her full title after the Divorce was Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales. But of course her pride would not allow her to use Lady Diana Spencer because it was a come down from what she had once been.
Here is a link to explain it all: Princess of Wales (https://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-01/princess.html)
According to you Sandy: "I would say women who truly achieved something and became PResidents or successes in their own rights are the true heroines. "
Does that mean that Diana was no heroine or was she a special case because she married into the BRF and used it as a platform?
Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2017, 01:03:42 PM
btw
@Trudie. I agree with you that Diana was an immature 20-year old even then. I actually think it was very wrong for someone to be given so much power, prestige and responsibility at such a young age when she was not born to it.
A 30-year old woman who is well-educated and has "lived" might have had a much better shot at it. That is why that thing about "a woman without a past" is so annoying to me, especially when compared with Charles' array of mistresses.
I was just rejecting the notion that Diana was the teenage bride that was preyed upon without her consent.
Yes, she was a victim. She expected a happy marriage but found the husband did not really love her. All the money could not buy any sort of happy life for her with Charles.
I knew you would ask that about Diana. Diana though unlike Camilla was admired by Mandela and Mother Theresa. I think she would have made a name for herself after her divorce as a humanitarian and dedicated charity worker. Camilla OTOH did not do any charity work or anything on her own UNTIL she married the Prince of Wales and during the run up to the marriage when she was learning from Bolland.
Camilla had no "shot" at Charles before her first marriage because he simply did not pursue her as wife material back then.
Diana was naive and you admit Camilla had "lived." Charles wanted someone naive because he wanted the girl of no experience as a bride. Had Diana "lived" when a teenager
Charles would have rejected her
Women who are married to influential men CAN do things on their own. Case in point: Eleanor Roosevelt recognized as a humanitarian and was an admirable woman in her own right. before and after her husband passed on. Even getting to be a UN delegate at an older age.
Diana was not called Lady Diana Spencer AFTER the divorce. She was Princess of Wales. She probably would have gone back to Lady Diana had she remarried. She was still Diana, Princess of Wales. It was not Diana Spencer it was Diana, Princess of Wales, nee Lady Diana Spencer.
Well I guess it must be fantasies to the Queen who let her keep the PRincess of Wales title without the HRH. That's the reality of it. Even if you did not like her to keep the title.
Mandela and Mother Theresa admired Diana no matter how you spin it.
Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2017, 01:44:42 PM
Quote from: Trudie on November 04, 2017, 12:48:27 PM
Again you forget a few things first of all the nonsense about unsuitable girls because they had boyfriends before was shattered by Sarah who openly lived with her boyfriend Paddy McNally who even took her I believe it was Windsor to meet Andrew at the beginning of their relationship. As for Diana you are right on the fact she was not a teenager on her wedding day she only turned twenty on July first with the wedding held 28 days later. I suppose she matured real fast in those 28 days.
I agree. And Edward got to live with Sophie before the marriage. The thing I emphasize is Charles did not pursue Camilla as wife material back then by his own choice.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 04, 2017, 12:54:55 PM
@sandy. Diana was not a victim. She was a very privileged woman that threw it all away on a whim. Fighting your husband in the press and making a fuss does not turn you into a heroine. It merely means you have a histrionic personality that cannot cope with rejection.
Being admired by Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela is another red herring. It has absolute nothing to do with her divorce or loss of status. They admired her for her charity work.
Diana was NOT The Princess of Wales. You can debate it till the cows come home but it will not change that fact. She was not. That title can only belong to the wife of POW and she was no longer that. She was allowed a courtesy use of "Princess of Wales" as if it was a name, not a title.
In fact had she remarried, even that she would no longer be able to use. Her full title after the Divorce was Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales. But of course her pride would not allow her to use Lady Diana Spencer because it was a come down from what she had once been.
Here is a link to explain it all: Princess of Wales (https://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-01/princess.html)
?
Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2017, 01:03:42 PM
btw
A
No, she was not Lady Diana Spencer princess of Wales... She was Diana princess of Wales, without the HRH. She didn't have to revert to her maiden name
@sandy. That sedgeway into Mandela and Mother Theresa is really quite weird. What have those people got to do with Diana's marriage and divorce? Are you telling us that they admired her for the mess she made of her marriage or for her press forays? I thought they admired her for her charity work. They had absolutely nothing to do with her private life.
Then how this relates to Camilla is completely beyond me. I am certain Camilla has met neither Nelson Mandela nor Mother Theresa. They were just not in her circle and I doubt she was losing sleepless nights about them not "admiring" her. Where did that come from?
Interestingly Nelson Mandela dumped his wife for his mistress and actually married her...so maybe he might have a lot more in common with Charles than you care to imagine. I would also doubt he would have the nerve, inclination or interest in judging Camilla for adultery when he had done the same.
I could also start picking apart Mother Theresa to demonstrate why she was not the sweet dear you seem to imagine she was. Someone doing charity does not equate to kindness. "Charity" is excellent PR for celebrities and a job for others. It is a mistake to imagine that "humanitarians" are always smiling and kind because they do it in front of the cameras.
I am sure Charles has stories to tell about the humanitarian Diana. Besides Diana the humanitarian did not leave a single penny to charity in her will, despite the fact that she did make a will and had close to $30 million to her name. Diana the humanitarian did not hesitate to dump hundreds of charities when the whim took her and she wanted to manipulate the BRF for insisting on a separation. Diana the humanitarian was criticized by AIDS charities for turning a planned event into a publicity tour with a celebrity AIDS victim, against the wishes of the consultant doctor. She was not asked back for that reason.
These great humanitarians can be false gods for those that worship the cult of celebrity. Real charity and kindness is done in private. It needs no award, no acknowledgement and certainly no press to take images of a beautiful princess who has dressed down so that she does not look ridiculous against the backdrop of emaciated kids in Africa.
I would also highlight that without Charles, nobody would really know or care who Diana was. She would be just another posh lady leading a mundane life in the shires with the occasional visit to London. It was marrying Charles that catapulted her to all that. She then forgot that little fact and it started going downhill for her.
No it is not weird. I was refuting your insistence that the Divorce "ruined" Diana and she would not be sought out anymore. She was not ruined, she was one of the most famous women on the planet even after Charles. Even after the divorce she won a humanitarian award and was admired by Mandela (who wrote the preface to a book about DIana's Charities).She was not a "nothing" even though you seem to think she was.
If you read the threads more carefully you can see where "that came from."
Mother Theresa became a saint. Your assessment of her was apparently disagreed with.
Your Camilla is certainly no "sweet dear."
So if Charles is a great humanitarian how come he does not put charities in HIS will. Maybe he could use the $$$ for charities instead of for his lavish lifestyle.
It's odd that now the $30 million is a "great" settlement to you before you were practically making it sound she was living on a poverty level and talked about all of Charles money in comparison.
If a celebrity or famous person does not call attention to the charity and does it "quietly" it defeats the purpose of calling attention to the charity. So did you want the humanitarians to conceal what they do. In "private" defeats the purpose. NObody would know about it. Or very few.
And without Charles lucking out and being born first he would just be another Prince Andrew. He just lucked out by the timing of his birth. He would be another posh prince that few paid attention to. ANd leading a mundane life.
NOthing went downhill for Diana. Again, fortunately there were people who unlike you, appreciated her.
You even throw St. Theresa under a bus because she happened to like Diana. If she loved Camilla you would IMO have a very different point of view.
I have neither the time nor inclination to demonstrate that Mother Theresa was far from being a saint or that being admired by Nelson Mandela was not a guarantee that Diana was better off after her divorce. That is not even talking about the murders of hundreds of Africans that Nelson Mandela sanctioned.
Neither can I take seriously any suggestion that Diana benefited from her divorce. It is a nonsensical argument which flies against all evidence and her own statements. Why would she resist something that was going to benefit her? Weird, I say.
I hink that most people would prefer to be alive and in a comortable positon, than to be dead and admired by mother Teresa or Nelson mandela. Diana took fright when the queen ordered the divoce because she was realising that if she was out of the RF, she was going ot lose the protection that being royal gave her.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 05, 2017, 06:26:12 AM
I have neither the time nor inclination to demonstrate that Mother Theresa was far from being a saint or that being admired by Nelson Mandela was not a guarantee that Diana was better off after her divorce. That is not even talking about the murders of hundreds of Africans that Nelson Mandela sanctioned.
Neither can I take seriously any suggestion that Diana benefited from her divorce. It is a nonsensical argument which flies against all evidence and her own statements. Why would she resist something that was going to benefit her? Weird, I say.
Of course she was better off. She got out of a marriage intolerable with the husband not wanting her. You say all the time how much he did not want her. DId you think she had no feelings at all?
No it is not a nonsensical argument just because you don't agree with it.
Amabel, DIana did not "take fright". If she were such a frightened little mouse she would not have fought back. She'd have been a frightened mouse if she had just sat back and tolerated the bad marriage.
If you think nothing of her being admired by world leaders, that's your choice. My point is that royal keeps putting her down as a "nothing" without the royal family. My point is she was not.
So you think she should have just stayed in a marriage for years where the man (as royal has said loathed her). I think that sets back women's rights for centuries.
I think she had every reason to be proud that she WAS admired for charity work not just being a wife of the PRince of Wales.
She did not "leave" the family since she had two royal sons, one a future King.
Honestly I don't get the constant put downs of the woman
Charles lost out too because his popularity was eroded from those years and Camilla is not the most popular person in the world.
AMabel, the divorce did not mean death. She was in an auto accident which killed her. I think you and royal are on two different topics. Royal talks about Diana after the divorce you talk about her being dead. Which is the topic?
I thought it was the LIVE Diana after her divorce. You do make the QUeen sound like a cold woman. Diana was not ousted. She had the royal sons.
Yes Charles lost out, but he in the end, has maintained his place in the succession, has a happy marriage and will in due course be King, living a busy fruitful life with his family and friends. Diana's post divorce life was sadly very short, and not that successful. She would not have ben in a car accident had she not been divorced, becase she would have had sensible PPOS in charge of her security. As you know. She would not have been involved with a man like Dodi Fayed or Mohammad Al Fayed, had she been still married to Charles.
And the queen DIDNT do more than formally recognise her, after the divorce. She treated Diana politely but distantly, as you know very well, she did not even want to make any real statement of greif after Diana's death, to the point wehre she did not do so until pushed into it by public opinion.
Charles wants what Charles gets. He would not have married Camilla if he would lose his place in succession, IMO. He made sure he would not lose his place in the succession and it took years for him to marry her.
How happy the marriage is , is subject to speculation. She has her separate dwelling in any case. The "happiness" of Charles caused a lot of damage along the way.
You don't know if she would not have been in an accident without the divorce. That is kismet. I know that the same argument that if Charles had not dumped her for Camilla she'd still be alive. DO you believe that too?
Mohammad Al Fayed was a friend of her father and stepmother. She was "involved" with him before 1997. Raine worked for Harrod's. She dated Dodi that Summer.
If Charles had not dumped her, she would have seen her grandchildren.
It was not as if she had a real marriage to Charles, as royal keeps pointing out, Charles had contempt for Diana. She might have gotten sick from the years with a man who rejected her. She could have died if she stayed with him and put up with the overt dislike.
How do you know how the Queen treated Diana? She had no use for Camilla for years and did not invite her to royal events, and if she did, she was not allowed to sit with Prince Charles. The Queen if she really had to be forced to make that speech seems very inhuman to me. You are not making her look good.
[gmod]I believe it is time to close this thread. We've gone from "curtseyed" to the saga that was Diana & Charles (and Camilla). There are many a thread to talk about that. Cheers! SCxx[/gmod]