Princess Diana curtseyed

[Curryong]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[LouisFerdinand]

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?

[Curryong]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[Curryong]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

@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.

[Curryong]

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?

[royalanthropologist]

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".

[sandy]

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.

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

@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.

[Curryong]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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. 

[Curryong]

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?

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[amabel]

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...

[tiaras]

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.

[sandy]

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

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

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.

[dianab]

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 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

[royalanthropologist]

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).

[sandy]

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

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

[royalanthropologist]

@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.

[Trudie]

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.

[sandy]

@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.

[amabel]

And Diana "dated" Oliver Hoare when he was married as he still is, to his wife Diane.