Charles by all accounts is truthful and doesn't know how to lie.
Diana by all accounts is a liar.
Hewitt said he started his affair with Diana in 1981 or 1982.
Diana said she was unfaith 4 or 5 years into the marriage.
Charles said he wasn't unfaithful until his marriage irretrievable broke down.
Camilla has not had her say. Words cannot be placed in her mouth by others.
There is no proof that Charles cheated first.
It is just hearsay.
Some believe Diana, a known liar.
Some believe Charles, a man who doesn't know how to lie.
:goodpost:
With her lies diana not only ruined charles but her sons lives as well what a dramatic attention seeker
Here we go ... grabs popcorn ...
Quote from: Queen Camilla on January 29, 2014, 05:47:55 AM
Hewitt said he started his affair with Diana in 1981 or 1982.
In 1981, before she married Charles, or after? In 1982, while she was pregnant with William? Okay..... :P
Cindy
I think it doesn't matter who cheated first they both cheated and that's the end of it no one is "better" than the other !!! :orchid: Di was just more attractive and a A class manipulator who knew how to play the press to destroy her husband and as a result the future of her own two children she was a mess !!! She played dirty , she manipulated the press in her favor and yes she LIED that to me takes away everything Chuck might have done to her because she "lowered" to his level if not lower ...
Quote from: Queen Camilla on January 29, 2014, 05:47:55 AMCharles by all accounts is truthful and doesn't know how to lie.
Are you sure? "By all accounts." Who's accounts?
QuoteHewitt said he started his affair with Diana in 1981 or 1982.
Oh, yeah. This was after he was paid to undergo hypnosis, wasn't it? How much was he paid? You can be sure he didn't do it for free.
[mod] I personally don't like the topic of this thread, so I won't be posting in here, but I will be coming in to check on all of you periodically. Keep it civil, and don't make it personal [/mod]
Quote from: Princessinwaiting on January 29, 2014, 07:02:28 AM
:goodpost:
With her lies diana not only ruined charles but her sons lives as well what a dramatic attention seeker
So Charles didn't lie? The housekeeper in the book said he covered his tracks and pretended to be home when he was off with Camilla. I saw a documentary and he had affairs with Kanga and Camilla and in the documentary Kanga's husband had to come home late so Charles could be entertained by his wife. If he were so above board and honest he should have told Diana the truth before they got engaged and told her that he wanted Camilla to be part of the arrangement. He wanted to marry Diana for expediency's sake (for the heirs). Charles got jealous of Diana when they first married and she was barely out of his teens. His jealousy was dysfunctional. What about Charles dramatic attention seeking doing that embarrassing interview in 1994.
So when did Charles become a saint?
Prince Charles is first! He been see Camilla lots and Diana don't like that whether wanted kept marriages or still chosen..
Prince Charles had interview in 1994 during Diana was in gallery about Camilla and he ADMIT he slept with Camilla before wedding to Diana in 1981 and numerous times on occasions..
Years later Diana got interview in 1995 about her affairs,bulimia and numerous mores and million viewers watch globes on Diana's interview include Londoners,USA and world watch that and it's so shock..
Reporters comments about wales's interview reviews and HM queen says heard ENOUGH! Comment on review and order divorce in tabloids but Diana was no longer member royal family as HRH she will known as Diana,princess of Wales or princess Diana in public..
Di did a book behind the people's who provided her luxurious life style back to destroy them back in 1992 ... that is what started it all !!! The Prince never said he had cheated first or when he started cheating ...
What is the point of this thread? it appears the person who started it has all the answers already. Though I would like to know how it was possible for Diana to sleep with Hewitt in the period before her wedding and then being pregnant and doing all the engagements and appearances she did with Charles including tours? While not even meeting the man until after Harry was born?.
Quote from: Eri on February 21, 2014, 07:59:03 AM
Di did a book behind the people's who provided her luxurious life style back to destroy them back in 1992 ... that is what started it all !!! The Prince never said he had cheated first or when he started cheating ...
Diana HAD a luxurious lifestyle, she was from a titled family who were not exactly poverty stricken. She had a trust find that enabled her to buy a flat in London when she was 18. Sometimes luxurious lifestyles don't matter when a person is living in an impossible situation with an emotionally abusive husband and there are witnesses to how Charles would put down Diana. Charles was a taker not a giver and refused to give up his mistress. Who needs living with a dolt like that no matter how many "luxuries" are involved. And you don't think Charles showed destructive behavior being emotionally abusive to his wife and hanging on to a greedy self serving mistress. I think Camilla loved the luxuries that Charles bought her and without the perks and $$ he offered her she would not have given him the right time.
Good God, QueenCamilla and Eri, can you guys give it a rest with your biased opinions.
it is the same thing everything.
We got it!
You are pro Charles/Camilla. Anti Diana.
Any negative about her, you take as truth. We got it the first hundred times you both have posted.
I will not point errors such as 1981? Really? Hewitt, a cad...did he say that? How low and how foolish and how uncreditable is he?
Many of us, Diana fans, do NOT take anything positive written about her as truth and any crap written about Charles and Camilla as truth.
PD is dead and has been over 1`5 years now.
Old story. Old stuf. Everything has revealed. There is really no new news about PC,PD and Camilla.
Fact will always be that camilla was always there per PC need, want, encouragement.
You guys , and I won't cannot pin point exactly where, but you ahve been off on many things.
You should read. Learn. try to understnad how their world worked. They system.
I am not syaing it is right or wrong but just how it was and PC was the last of the heirs with the mistress.of course, his father had affairs so he sort of grew up in that atmosphere.
Look up Alice Kreppel. Start there. From there you can google English mistresses.
Fascinating of their rank. Place. Reason. Perks from laying on their backs and be descret.
From Camilla on back, fascinating.
As I have posted before , Diana was young, foolish, wanted her husband to be hers, wanted a real family which she never had. She was from the rank and file, but did not know how to play the game. She was of another generation. She had no older woman of the rank and file to advise her as to how to handle the situation. She wanted it all and all hers as in having her legal husband be hers and have a real marriage and family life. THing is, she did not know who she married. What made him tick. How to work it and handle the situation.
Simply put, she should have bedded PC after wedding him to have 2-3 kids, heir and two extra spares as women in her position had done for centuries. Though of the rank and file, she, like you guys, did not seem to know histroy of the BRF and rank adn file even though she was part of it. too bad she never,I guess, never studied the story and life of Alice Kreppel. Talk about history repeating itself with Camila and PC. Alice Kreppel adn Cmailla's ancestors must be thrilled on the other side of how she got them back in the rank and file at the highest place of the nobility. Diana should have studied, been advised...
find a lover amoung her rank and file to call her own. Make her own life as PC and C had done. Own friends of the rank and file as protetors as Pc and C had. Safe houses too. Romance is nice. Let PC and C be. Maybe it would have played itself out and over by late 1980's and she would be alive today..maybe. Married to PC...perhaps. In her place. Maybe they would have found each other.
It is all, waht it was and is now.
Sad. Sad that she died as her final ending. The final chapter.
After that, the rest is history.
It is very interesting. As people have said, you could not have written a good novel like this. Shakespeare could not have written a story with so many plots,twists, etc.
^ And what did she do to have her husband all for herself and have a stable family life trying to kill herself in front of him because he was on the phone , painting books behind his back to destroy him , lie , cheat didn't help would you agree? Di herself said she had 50% to be blamed for the marriage failing!!!
Yes, PD did say she was 50% blame and for anyone, that seems fair in ruined marriage.
She also said there were three of them in marriage and it was a boit crowded. Seems ttrue too. Many marriages break up when the girl does not leave her mother or the guy does not leave hsi mother. Many mothers have ruined their kids marriage by being all in . Of course, this is by request, with encouragement, a need and want by thier sons or daughters.
Likewise, PC NEVER gave up his closer than close and at least menatlly, eomitonaly, convenient friendship with Camilla. NEER. The marriage never had a chance. PC never gace it a chance.
PD , an immature chid-woman then, throwing herself ,crying, fighting, trying, spying on PC, going after him to be hers, was NOT the answer. Like I said, and I am not, NOT upholding affairs, being with a married amn, but PD, even though from the rank adn file, went about it all WRONG!! She had neither the tools, age, knowledge, sense of self, no elder femal figure to guide her, tell her what to do in their world.
Instead of reading Barbara Cartland romance novels, she should have read history on her world , rank and file of the nobility, her ancestors, her world.
PD held all the cards as the legal wife and face of the monrachy adn mother of the princeses.
She should paraded her love for PC in the press adn looked always adoring at him, and behind the scene given him permission to be with Camilla. Find a man of her own from the rank and file and call it a life in private. Fight fire with fire as the saying goes.
The end, it is , was sad, unbelievable still,that she died as she did. Death ends the story.
If she were alive, still,PC and C would have married. But PD would be there. Alive. Showing up in her sons' lives. Being there to enjoy them.
She would ahve won the war and Camilla would have won the battle.
As it is, Camilla, won it all. Won it by default. Great luck befall Camilla. Some people are just lucky, yet we make our choices good and bad and we all have results of those choices. Yes, Diana made huge mistakes by not taking a security team .Not thinking. Not having good advisors. Real advisors.
It is all sad and always will about her dying dying as she did.
It set everything else and everyone in motion for their lives. Life is like that. Some things , others choices, ours, can set some things .
^ The biggest mistake Di made is marry a man who she knew loved another woman to the point at her wedding she dramatically looked at Camilla (she knew what was up) and think it would all be alright and have fits when she found out the hard truth ... but I wouldn't credit Cam with all the fault of the marriage falling apart the ones who were married to each other were Chuck and Di ...
Eri, do you honestly think Prince Charles told Lady Diana when he proposed that he loved another woman? Neither Charles nor Diana claimed this so it simply is not true.
It's the old story, the woman "asked for it"when a man lies to her.
Diana told Morton she thought C and C were "over" at the time of the marriage and she thought Charles was honorable and would be faithful to her and truly give up Camilla.
And you think Camilla had nothing to do with their marriage issues? Then I have a bridge to sell you. The woman sent Charles little gifts on his honeymoon, that should give you some clue.
Quote from: Eri on March 11, 2014, 08:20:28 PM
^ The biggest mistake Di made is marry a man who she knew loved another woman to the point at her wedding she dramatically looked at Camilla (she knew what was up) and think it would all be alright and have fits when she found out the hard truth ... but I wouldn't credit Cam with all the fault of the marriage falling apart the ones who were married to each other were Chuck and Di ...
Diana was 19 and Charles and Camilla were old lovers in their 30s. I credit Camilla and Charles with duping a very young 19 year old.
Age? really, that can't be the whole of it
the way I see it is that Charles wanted his marriage to work and had Camilla's blessing, but Diana was to naive (not because of her age) to actually think she was going to have a fairy tale life with an adoring husband by her side, but Charles' love is himself so he was focusing on himself the same way he has always done ( and Camilla knows this, accept it, and even likes) so, Diana turned out to be too demanding and pushy, so that drove Charles away from her, because let's face it, you are not going to convince a prince, a spoiled prince that he stops acting like so, even if he is in his 30's and you wish him to settle down: not going to happen.
So it was only natural that he went looking for Camilla again, since she pleases him 100%
fair to Diana and the kids? NO, but that's the way it IS
I expect my husband to behave like a man, but if my husband has been a spoiled Crown prince all his life, I wouldn't count on it.
If Diana hadn't been so demanding, MAYBE they would still be married today
:goodpost: :goodpost:
But I would say there is more to it than that , Diana was 19 ..so? Still an adult .what if Camilla had been 19 and diana in her 30 ' s the situation would still be Saint diana lol I feel she was too attention seeking and pushy a lot of friends have said the same thing heck even some biographers have I think she had certain mental problems that also led charles away from her .
Nothing new here, but . . .
Diana read a lot of romance novels and probably developed an unreasonable expectation of marriage with her fantasy boyfriend, Prince Charles. She had a crush on him since her early teens and thought he was "Mister Perfect." He was Prince of Wales, how could he be anything different?
Some might say because of her teenage emotions and expectations she walked into her own minefield. The subsequent actions of Charles and Camilla ensured she got hurt. As Sarah Bradford put it, "Basically, the cause of Diana's affliction was not only post-natal depression after the birth of William, but her early realization that Charles did not truly love her and that this marriage in which she had invested so much hope could never approximate to her romantic dreams."
Princessinwaiting let's prepare for all the bashing from the Diana fans :hide:
I agree with you Mike
Apart from the fact she married when she was 20 if she was old enough to marry him she was old enough to handle him ... her greedy family didn't think she was too young when they threw her at him ...
true, very true
Quote from: Eri on March 13, 2014, 04:22:58 PM
Apart from the fact she married when she was 20 if she was old enough to marry him she was old enough to handle him ... her greedy family didn't think she was too young when they threw her at him ...
Oh yes, a 20 year old can outmaneuver two thirty somethings, both who have been around the block quite a few times. In your dreams. Diana did not have the experience C and C had so no, it was no level playing field.
Nobody "threw" Diana to him. Charles willingly, of his own free will courted her, proposed to her, and marry her. Honestly to defend Charles he is made to look like a helpless child when he was a grown man. More free passes for Charles.
Double post auto-merged: March 13, 2014, 04:55:47 PM
Quote from: Princessinwaiting on March 13, 2014, 03:37:24 PM
:goodpost: :goodpost:
But I would say there is more to it than that , Diana was 19 ..so? Still an adult .what if Camilla had been 19 and diana in her 30 ' s the situation would still be Saint diana lol I feel she was too attention seeking and pushy a lot of friends have said the same thing heck even some biographers have I think she had certain mental problems that also led charles away from her .
Diana was a nervous young woman barely out of her teens when she went on her first walkabout as a married woman in Wales. I didn't see anything pushy about her. And the public took to her which Charles was too stupid and jealous and childish to appreciate.
I wonder if your relative or close friend was in Diana's situation you would feel the same contempt for her for "asking for it" or "she should have known better." This is an excuse used for men who are abusive to their wives BTW. The wife "asked for it." Diana went into the marriage in good faith. Charles did not. He should have kicked the greedy mistress to the curb if he wanted a marriage with Diana. He obviously wanted to have it all.
And the mental problems accusations come from Penny Junor who loves Charles and is in no position to diagnose a cat. Diana had bulimia and got it under control but the Diana bashers go to great length to portray her as "mad" so Chuck can get another free pass. Junor is the biographer who said she had "mental problems." I guess you are a great reader of her Diana bashing books.
Charles IMO needed help but felt himself too perfect to seek it. In his authorized biography, he passed on the blame for his own bad choices to everybody but himself. The Diana was mad spin comes directly from his sympathizers Nicholas Soames, Penny Junor and most likely Camilla herself.
[mod]Some posts have been merged into this thread : Princess Diana leaked phone hacking courts heard! (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=68704.0)[/mod]
No Mar, I do not think there will be some surge of Diana fans going after PrincessIW or Eri or poster QC either.
It is all like beating a dead horse really.
Nothing new to add to the story.Everything is really hindsight. PD is dead. Camilla won it all and even be default. What a lucky, big break it was for PC and C that PD got ,sort of killed herself.
Mike said what I basically said only he said it shorter, LOL!!
The facts are the facts. PC NEVER gave the marriage a chance and CAMILL made sure , saw to it the she nor she never gave the marriage a chance.
Fred and Galdys went on a honeymoon and PD tagged along.
Like I said, this is really beating a dead horse.
The whole story was really sad.
oh ok then :flower:
if this thread is like beaten a dead horse....... :hmm: why do we have it? :shrug:
^ Really the answer is quite obvious it is to inflame the threads for amusement bashing the dead Princess IMO
Quote from: Eri on March 13, 2014, 04:22:58 PMApart from the fact she married when she was 20 if she was old enough to marry him she was old enough to handle him
"Handle" the Prince of Wales? Just how does a wife do that?
^ Well again SHE married him !!!
Quote from: Mike on March 15, 2014, 01:55:56 AM
Quote from: Eri on March 13, 2014, 04:22:58 PMApart from the fact she married when she was 20 if she was old enough to marry him she was old enough to handle him
"Handle" the Prince of Wales? Just how does a wife do that?
same way anyone does. It is more difficult ot be married to a senior royal but in the end, there are always problems in a marriage, and it is hard to cope.
^ :goodpost: .
Quote from: amabel on March 15, 2014, 01:36:14 PMIt is more difficult ot be married to a senior royal but in the end, there are always problems in a marriage, and it is hard to cope.
"Coping" I can understand, but "handling" conjures up manipulation. Maybe I'm misreading your message.
"Oh, don't worry. I can handle him."
Any marriage has problems and idfifculties. Diana was young when she married Charles and it was a difficult marriage but she didn't handle them the wisest way and did alienate not only his family but many others in her own class of people. other royal marriages have gone wrong, and the people involved have generally tried to keep things quiet rather than making a public fuss - she went the other way.
I'm glad she was not prepared to put up with his nonsense >(
Would anyone here tolerate their spouse sleeping with another person? I think not. I could be wrong. I certainly wouldn't.
I ask for proof that Charles was cheating on Diana from day 1 or year one or even year 5.
No where is there proof that Charles was unfaithful until his marriage broke down.
Only Charles can answers when his marriage broke down.
Proof is what I ask. Not repeats of tabloid lies.
What proof would you accept, only a confession by Charles himself?
^ This is not a Court of Law - please stop demanding proof unless of couse you are prepared to offer the proof with the statements you make and demand of others..... :shrug:
This is obviously not a Court of Law but people keep stating things as facts (when they have no idea) and keep bashing the Prince for it so ... I don't buy the "he cheated since day 1" thing between Camilla having children and he being with Di all the time Touring and working all the time it doesn't make sense to me ...
Do not demand proof from others, when not able to provide proof to back-up their posts. Fair is fair :shrug: :hug:
Exactly fair is fair.
Everyone should state their opinions as their opinions and not as facts.
Everyone should use the same sources that you expect others to use.
If only words spoke directly from Diana's mouth is only acceptable as what happened then the same thing applied to Charles and Camilla.
Fair is Fair.
And the same applies to you, QC. You make many claims, but do not back them up with "proof".
I do not state my opinions as facts.
When I state facts, I list the my sources.
My opinions do not require proof.
But claiming that Camilla wasn't a virgin without naming sources does require proof.
Really? : Duchess of Cornwall attends Ladies Day, day 2 of The Cheltenham Festival (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=68681.msg1263572#msg1263572)
Reads like "facts" to me :shrug:
Where does this state that Camilla wasn't a virgin?
If she were as pure as the driven snow then how come was Charles told by his great uncle she was "mistress material." Royal wives back then were supposed to be virgins on the wedding night. What would have been the objection if Camilla were a virgin (she also had some royal blood) . And she and APB did not just hold hands. They were in the swinging sixties and lived life in the fast lane.
If Camilla had no "past" would Mountatten had lent Charles Mountbatten to get his sexual experience from Camilla?
Even people who admire Camilla never claim she was a virgin at the time Charles courted her.
Charles told his biographer they had an affair before she married APB. So is Charles lying?
But all that being said, Charles told his biographer he moved on to months of sea duty in the navy without telling Camilla to wait for him. Once he let her go, he should have dropped her for good if he wanted to be a good husband and father.
Double post auto-merged: March 16, 2014, 12:18:38 AM
Quote from: amabel on March 15, 2014, 06:18:26 PM
Any marriage has problems and idfifculties. Diana was young when she married Charles and it was a difficult marriage but she didn't handle them the wisest way and did alienate not only his family but many others in her own class of people. other royal marriages have gone wrong, and the people involved have generally tried to keep things quiet rather than making a public fuss - she went the other way.
I think Diana got a lot of sympathy. Women have moved on from being "long suffering" to not putting up with a husband's attitude about keeping mistresses. There were letters that became public of Prince Philip writing to her and not understanding how Charles could prefer Camilla to her. Diana was young and putting up and shutting up for the rest of her life (with Charles getting increasingly emotionally abusive) and she put up with it for 10 years.
Quote from: amabel on March 15, 2014, 06:18:26 PM
Any marriage has problems and idfifculties. Diana was young when she married Charles and it was a difficult marriage but she didn't handle them the wisest way and did alienate not only his family but many others in her own class of people. other royal marriages have gone wrong, and the people involved have generally tried to keep things quiet rather than making a public fuss - she went the other way.
Well face it the people she alienated in her own class of people were the suck ups to the throne Charles will be regnant King with the power Diana would only have been consort.
In my post, (too late to edit) I meant to say Charles was lent Broadlands by Mountbatten for weekend trysts with Camilla --Camilla was to be used to "sow wild oats."
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on March 13, 2014, 10:45:23 PM
No Mar, I do not think there will be some surge of Diana fans going after PrincessIW or Eri or poster QC either.
It is all like beating a dead horse really.
Nothing new to add to the story.Everything is really hindsight. PD is dead. Camilla won it all and even be default. What a lucky, big break it was for PC and C that PD got ,sort of killed herself.
Mike said what I basically said only he said it shorter, LOL!!
The facts are the facts. PC NEVER gave the marriage a chance and CAMILL made sure , saw to it the she nor she never gave the marriage a chance.
Fred and Galdys went on a honeymoon and PD tagged along.
Like I said, this is really beating a dead horse.
The whole story was really sad.
Diana was not the innocent that she claimed, she grew up being friends with Andrew she saw what happened when her sister was dumped but she wanted to be Princess of Wales. Prince Charles was wrong in marrying her but she also had faults. One being that she expected others to make her happy and only you can make you happy. She was offered help to settle to her role but called that boring. She made it clear that she hated Balmoral for example. she didn't want to meet her husband half way a fault with both. It was doomed because he loved another and she was too childish. Her death was more damaging than her life, there is no way the royal family wanted it. With life her faults would have become known and the saint di rubbish would not have happened.
I don't think she was all that close with Andrew, they were the same age and she was socialising with the RF, to an extent, but all the same I think she wasn't as a teenager, all that close. Andrew was not her type though she did joke about marrying him. and she wasn't his type. As for Sarah she wasn't "dumped" by Charles. She spoke stupidly about him and that engineered the end of her relationship with him. But according ot herself she wasn't in love with hm, so that's hardly a tragedy.
As for Diana, yes people did know of her faults and I think that by the end of her life, people while still fond of her, were getting ab it impatient with the whole drama of the marriage and were beginning to be less sympathetic than they had been. But she was still a lovable person and would I think have remained popular, if she had pulled herself together, gto on with her charity wrok and dated a few nice men.
I agree that she didn't meet Charles and the RF half way, but I think she did her best to work hard at the charity and public side of her role and she did enjoy it. But in the private social life of the RF, she wanted to be with C all the time, but did not relaly like the hearty country lifestyle that he and the res of the RF liked. I think that she was not able to adjust ot all that, that she'd underestimated how much time she'd have to spend "country living" and she grew to hate it...
^ I think with time Di would be nothing more , nothing less than what Sarah is now (someone Phil would refuse to be in the same Estate with) ... Di was a mess so no way she would have generated good press for herself (look at what she was up to before dying) let's face it ... her death has a lot to do with how she is looked but had she lived she would have been just another person for Liz to be embarrassed about ...
And what was she "up to before dying"? She was dating a rather foolish light weight man yes, but it was probably going to be a short lived affair as there aere signs that she was getting fed up wit Dodi...
She was also doing a lto of good with her landmines work. We don't know what way she would have goene had she not died when she did, but the RF would never have refused to be with her, sicne like it or not she was the mother of the heir to the throne.
Given that Di had done worse than Sarah it would have been terrible if Di was treated better because she was Will's mother ...
Quote from: Eri on April 13, 2014, 12:16:19 PMI think with time Di would be nothing more , nothing less than what Sarah is now . . .
It would all depend on how she lived and with whom. We can speculate on that forever.
Quote from: Eri on April 13, 2014, 12:55:06 PM
Given that Di had done worse than Sarah it would have been terrible if Di was treated better because she was Will's mother ...
She would be treated better because of her status as the future Kings mother, because that's how it works. anyway but I can't see what she did that was "worse than Sarah". Sarah was lazy, she had very public affairs where she was caught with other men.. Diana usually conducted her relationships with "deniability". Di was popular with the press and public, Sarah was not. sarah was seen as unreliable, indiscreet, in a way that Di was not.
Sarah was not lazy.
While a member of the royal family she performed more royal duties than Diana, especially when you compare her rank to Diana's.
In 1989 Diana did 300; Sarah did 327
In 1989 Sarah was also pregnant. If you look at Diana's pregnant years she only did 60-70. In 1983 when she wasn't pregnant she only had 110 engagement. Sarah 1988: 153; 1990: 108.
Diana 1982: 66; Diana 1984: 77.
Diana was on the way out. If she lived, the RF would have had nothing to do with her. William & Harry were already spending most of their time in school. Then when on holiday, they didn't stay at KP.
IMO, by the time William turned 18 or even before, Diana would have been told to vacate Apts 8 & 9. These units were only being used by Diana from the time Harry had been sent to boarding school. In 1992 Harry & William were in boarding school and Charles & Diana were separated with Charles having moved to St. James' Palace.
C&D divorced in 1996 and Diana died in 1997. IMO, the only reason Diana hadn't been told to vacate was because it had only been a year since the divorce. If she had lived, even if she remained unmarried, the public would not have tolerated 60* rooms for one person. They went after the Michaels and there is no reason to think they would not have gone after Diana.
*Approximate based on 30 rooms per apartment plus the 2 bed apartment she used as office space.
I think they would have allowed her to stay in KP & probably allowed her to keep the 2 bed apt as her living space.
Actually Diana was caught in 1987 & 1995 and received negative press.
^ :goodpost: :clap:.
Quote from: Queen Camilla on April 14, 2014, 03:55:11 AM
Sarah was not lazy.
While a member of the royal family she performed more royal duties than Diana, especially when you compare her rank to Diana's.
In 1989 Diana did 300; Sarah did 327
In 1989 Sarah was also pregnant. If you look at Diana's pregnant years she only did 60-70. In 1983 when she wasn't pregnant she only had 110 engagement. Sarah 1988: 153; 1990: 108.
Diana 1982: 66; Diana 1984: 77.
Diana was on the way out. If she lived, the RF would have had nothing to do with her. William & Harry were already spending most of their time in school. Then when on holiday, they didn't stay at KP.
IMO, by the time William turned 18 or even before, Diana would have been told to vacate Apts 8 & 9. *Approximate based on 30 rooms per apartment plus the 2 bed apartment she used as office space.
I don't believe this at all. Di's living arrangemetns were part of her divorce settlement and as she wouid need protetctoin and a secure base, it was considered easier to let her stay in KP rather than provide funds or protection for her elsewhere. She was still very popular, I don't know HOW you can compare her to Princess Michael who was deeply disliked. As for Sarah she did start off with a lot of engagemetns and had enthusiasm for her role but within a few years, she went downhill and was seen as lazy, freeloading and careless and vulgar. It was easy for the RF to drop her and to give her a cheap divorce settlement because the public disliked her.
Quote from: Queen Camilla on April 14, 2014, 03:55:11 AM
Sarah was not lazy.
While a member of the royal family she performed more royal duties than Diana, especially when you compare her rank to Diana's.
In 1989 Diana did 300; Sarah did 327
In 1989 Sarah was also pregnant. If you look at Diana's pregnant years she only did 60-70. In 1983 when she wasn't pregnant she only had 110 engagement. Sarah 1988: 153; 1990: 108.
Diana 1982: 66; Diana 1984: 77.
Diana was on the way out. If she lived, the RF would have had nothing to do with her. William & Harry were already spending most of their time in school. Then when on holiday, they didn't stay at KP.
IMO, by the time William turned 18 or even before, Diana would have been told to vacate Apts 8 & 9. These units were only being used by Diana from the time Harry had been sent to boarding school. In 1992 Harry & William were in boarding school and Charles & Diana were separated with Charles having moved to St. James' Palace.
C&D divorced in 1996 and Diana died in 1997. IMO, the only reason Diana hadn't been told to vacate was because it had only been a year since the divorce. If she had lived, even if she remained unmarried, the public would not have tolerated 60* rooms for one person. They went after the Michaels and there is no reason to think they would not have gone after Diana.
*Approximate based on 30 rooms per apartment plus the 2 bed apartment she used as office space.
I think they would have allowed her to stay in KP & probably allowed her to keep the 2 bed apt as her living space.
Actually Diana was caught in 1987 & 1995 and received negative press.
Thank you for supplying us with the number of engagements from the early eighties. By chance do you have access to the list of engagements for all the BRF members going back into that decade?
It's a myth Sarah was lazy ... anyways the way Di died shows her security wasn't on top of Liz's agenda as time went by the perks would have been totally taken away form her just like her Title ...
Diana was offered security by the Royals. She chose to decline the offer. The security with her on that fatal car ride was Al-Fayad's security.
Cindy
Quote from: Eri on April 14, 2014, 03:11:09 PM
It's a myth Sarah was lazy ... anyways the way Di died shows her security wasn't on top of Liz's agenda as time went by the perks would have been totally taken away form her just like her Title ...
No its not a myth. Sarah spent a lot of her time by about 1990 freeloading and that turned the public against her, and she wanted out of the RF because she was getting so much criticism.
As for Diana no her "Perks" would not have been taken away from her. She lost her HRH because of her divorce but her settlement was a very good one, she got about £17M and the right ot live in KP. She also had an office paid for by the RF and as Cindy's said, she was allowed and indeed encouraged to have royal security and She HAD to have Royal POs with her when she had the boys with her. SHE was the one who wanted to dispense with her security.
Quote from: Eri on April 13, 2014, 12:16:19 PM
^ I think with time Di would be nothing more , nothing less than what Sarah is now (someone Phil would refuse to be in the same Estate with) ... Di was a mess so no way she would have generated good press for herself (look at what she was up to before dying) let's face it ... her death has a lot to do with how she is looked but had she lived she would have been just another person for Liz to be embarrassed about ...
Diana worked hard for the Firm and had two exceptional sons before Charles dumped her for his mistress.
She was not a "mess."
I think Charles caused his mother much embarrassment and I don't think she's exactly thrilled with Camilla. Charles had that woe is me embarrassing authorized biography.
What was she "up to?" She was divorced and dating somebody. She got in a tragic accident and is dead and buried at Althorp. If Charles could embarrass his family carrying on with Camilla what was wrong with Diana dating somebody? Why trash a dead woman?
As I recall people liked Diana at the time she died and were hoping she'd have a happy second marriage. She certainly got a lemon with Charles.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2014, 11:57:00 PM
Quote from: Eri on April 14, 2014, 03:11:09 PM
It's a myth Sarah was lazy ... anyways the way Di died shows her security wasn't on top of Liz's agenda as time went by the perks would have been totally taken away form her just like her Title ...
Diana's title was not taken away. She lost the HRh but was known as Diana, Princess of Wales. So you are wrong that her title was "taken away." It was not.
Double post auto-merged: April 16, 2014, 12:01:52 AM
Quote from: Queen Camilla on April 14, 2014, 03:55:11 AM
Sarah was not lazy.
While a member of the royal family she performed more royal duties than Diana, especially when you compare her rank to Diana's.
In 1989 Diana did 300; Sarah did 327
In 1989 Sarah was also pregnant. If you look at Diana's pregnant years she only did 60-70. In 1983 when she wasn't pregnant she only had 110 engagement. Sarah 1988: 153; 1990: 108.
Diana 1982: 66; Diana 1984: 77.
Diana was on the way out. If she lived, the RF would have had nothing to do with her. William & Harry were already spending most of their time in school. Then when on holiday, they didn't stay at KP.
IMO, by the time William turned 18 or even before, Diana would have been told to vacate Apts 8 & 9. These units were only being used by Diana from the time Harry had been sent to boarding school. In 1992 Harry & William were in boarding school and Charles & Diana were separated with Charles having moved to St. James' Palace.
C&D divorced in 1996 and Diana died in 1997. IMO, the only reason Diana hadn't been told to vacate was because it had only been a year since the divorce. If she had lived, even if she remained unmarried, the public would not have tolerated 60* rooms for one person. They went after the Michaels and there is no reason to think they would not have gone after Diana.
*Approximate based on 30 rooms per apartment plus the 2 bed apartment she used as office space.
I think they would have allowed her to stay in KP & probably allowed her to keep the 2 bed apt as her living space.
Actually Diana was caught in 1987 & 1995 and received negative press.
WIlliam and Harry are royals. For crying out loud they would not say they'd have nothing to do with their own mother. Charles was seen with her during events involving their sons. THere are photos of Diana and Charles together with the boys during Diana's last years.
The mother of a future King would not be on the way out. No way.
Sarah did not have the issues with pregnancy Diana had. She did not have bulimia nor bad morning sickness.
Sarah was not popular because of her extravagant spending.
Double post auto-merged: April 16, 2014, 12:04:31 AM
Quote from: Eri on April 13, 2014, 12:55:06 PM
Given that Di had done worse than Sarah it would have been terrible if Di was treated better because she was Will's mother ...
Worse than Fergie? I suppose you think Diana should have been pilloried--you don't like her very much.
Sarah could not control herself and got caught topless with her lover and embarrassed the Queen who read her the riot act at Balmoral. She had a husband who certainly treated her better than Charles treated Diana, but she treated Andrew like dirt. She spent much money.
Double post auto-merged: April 16, 2014, 12:06:58 AM
Quote from: PaulaB on April 13, 2014, 10:21:18 AM
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on March 13, 2014, 10:45:23 PM
No Mar, I do not think there will be some surge of Diana fans going after PrincessIW or Eri or poster QC either.
It is all like beating a dead horse really.
Nothing new to add to the story.Everything is really hindsight. PD is dead. Camilla won it all and even be default. What a lucky, big break it was for PC and C that PD got ,sort of killed herself.
Mike said what I basically said only he said it shorter, LOL!!
The facts are the facts. PC NEVER gave the marriage a chance and CAMILL made sure , saw to it the she nor she never gave the marriage a chance.
Fred and Galdys went on a honeymoon and PD tagged along.
Like I said, this is really beating a dead horse.
The whole story was really sad.
Diana was not the innocent that she claimed, she grew up being friends with Andrew she saw what happened when her sister was dumped but she wanted to be Princess of Wales. Prince Charles was wrong in marrying her but she also had faults. One being that she expected others to make her happy and only you can make you happy. She was offered help to settle to her role but called that boring. She made it clear that she hated Balmoral for example. she didn't want to meet her husband half way a fault with both. It was doomed because he loved another and she was too childish. Her death was more damaging than her life, there is no way the royal family wanted it. With life her faults would have become known and the saint di rubbish would not have happened.
Diana enjoyed her work and didn't think it "boring." How come Charles expected others to make him happy--Making Charles happy seems to be the be all and end all for some. So Charlie boy could not give up the mistress and Diana had to meet him "half way". So why is Charles exonerated for marrying Diana knowing he preferred somebody else? Charles was too childish he needed his nanny/mistress which he found in Camilla.
:goodpost:
Open season on the dead... :orchid:
Quote from: Eri on March 13, 2014, 04:22:58 PM
Apart from the fact she married when she was 20 if she was old enough to marry him she was old enough to handle him ... her greedy family didn't think she was too young when they threw her at him ...
That's absolutely correct !
These arguments by those who love to trash a dead women are the lamest I have ever heard. To compare Diana and Sarah well I think some need to go back to news archives that showed Sarah spent more time on skiing holidays then she did doing her duty to the family she married into. Sarah was always freebie or freeloading Fergie. If Diana and there is no proof she had the affairs some say she had Hewitt is the only known one Diana never embarrassed the Queen unlike Sarah who was flaunting Steve Wyatt and John Byran. It was Sarah who photos showed half naked with her boyfriend and a naked Beatrice in photos and lets not forget the famous having her toes sucked by her lover. Andrew to this day is Sarah's biggest supporter he has more class then Charles as he won't allow anyone to trash Sarah unlike Charles who allows anyone who wants to trash Diana dead or even while she was alive as Nicholas Soames did and recently his cousin the Mountbatten witch.
Quote from: pagtwashin on April 16, 2014, 07:13:23 AM
Quote from: Eri on March 13, 2014, 04:22:58 PM
Apart from the fact she married when she was 20 if she was old enough to marry him she was old enough to handle him ... her greedy family didn't think she was too young when they threw her at him ...
That's absolutely correct !
Disagree. Nobody "threw" Diana at Charles. Charles of his own will and volition asked Diana out on dates--the first to a concert and he invited her to Balmoral. What was Diana a baseball?!
Charles courted, proposed to, and married Diana. How would Diana have "handled him" if he had a greedy mistress lurking about who was not about to give him up. He had no spine IMO and was in the thrall of Camilla who IMO wanted the perks and privileges that Diana had.
Diana cheated 1st.
Charles was lent Broadlands by Mountbatten for trysts with
Diana.Here's article from 1988.
Divorcing Di? How Prince Charles and Princess Diana?s Fairytale Romance Soured | Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/1988/09/princess-diana-prince-charles-marriage)
A different one also from early 1988, both portray Diana as seeing other men.
http://www.princess-diana-remembered.com/uploads/5/3/3/5/5335384/mystery_man.jpg
In 1987, she didn't spend the entire summer with her 2 year old & 5 year old son.
One of the reasons Nicholas Soames ddn't like Diana is because in
1988, while with skiing in Klosters Diana sided with Catherine Soame, the wife of Nicholas.
She left her husband & 3 year old son for a married man staying nearby. (From the Vanity Fair article.)
The Vanity Fair article also discussed why the media went after Sarah. (Note this was in 1988.)
Double post auto-merged: April 25, 2014, 03:26:48 AM
Quote from: TLLK on April 14, 2014, 02:50:19 PM
Thank you for supplying us with the number of engagements from the early eighties. By chance do you have access to the list of engagements for all the BRF members going back into that decade?
I have copies of O'Donovan's articles from 1981 to 1996, except for 1985 & 1986.
:hmm: Pope Francis will anoint Saint Charles and Saint Camilla any minute now... :sign8:
Limabeany you are too funny :haha: :haha: :haha:
Can't be sainted while they're still alive. :D
Cindy
Oh, Cindy! :happycry: You bubble-burster you! :happycry: :happycry: Hearts will be broken, Cindy, hearts will be broken... :happy15:
^^ :happy15:
Cindy
Quote from: Queen Camilla on April 25, 2014, 03:08:11 AM
Diana cheated 1st.
Charles was lent Broadlands by Mountbatten for trysts with Diana.
Here's article from 1988.
Divorcing Di? How Prince Charles and Princess Diana?s Fairytale Romance Soured | Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/1988/09/princess-diana-prince-charles-marriage)
A different one also from early 1988, both portray Diana as seeing other men.
http://www.princess-diana-remembered.com/uploads/5/3/3/5/5335384/mystery_man.jpg
In 1987, she didn't spend the entire summer with her 2 year old & 5 year old son.
One of the reasons Nicholas Soames ddn't like Diana is because in
1988, while with skiing in Klosters Diana sided with Catherine Soame, the wife of Nicholas.
She left her husband & 3 year old son for a married man staying nearby. (From the Vanity Fair article.)
The Vanity Fair article also discussed why the media went after Sarah. (Note this was in 1988.)
Double post auto-merged: April 25, 2014, 03:26:48 AM
Quote from: TLLK on April 14, 2014, 02:50:19 PM
Thank you for supplying us with the number of engagements from the early eighties. By chance do you have access to the list of engagements for all the BRF members going back into that decade?
I have copies of O'Donovan's articles from 1981 to 1996, except for 1985 & 1986.
Really? And you know this how?
Mountbatten died in 1979 when Diana had just turned 18. She was underage when generous Uncle Mountbatten (she was about 11-12 years old ca 1972) lent Charles Broadlands for trysts with Camilla. So do you think Charles went after pre teens and had trysts with them? Mountbatten wanted Charles to marry his granddaughter Amanda not Diana and he put Charles and Amanda together-(but he wanted them to wait until the wedding night).
Nicholas Soames is a total Charles sycophant and he'd say Diana was with Elvis to help Charles. Nicholas Soames liked Diana until Charles was not satisfied with her anymore. He wants to be in good with Charles. And he's such a great authority he said Charles and Camilla did not have an affair and they were "just friends and Charles himself later belied what Nicky said--that he did cheat on his wife and his courtier confirmed the woman in question was Camilla and yes there was that tape where Charles and Camilla giggled about his being her personal hygiene product.
Regardless of how you try to change history, Charles himself admitted to his biographer he slept with a married woman (Camilla) and Kanga Tryon went public and said that she was also a married mistress.So Charles cheated first and he married Diana preferring another woman. I call that cheating too.
We'll never know who cheated first, and it really doesn't matter to me. When I was a kid, if my brother and I got into a fight, we'd both claim the other "did it first". My mother didn't care, she punished both of us. That's how I feel about the cheating issue. They both cheated, and whether they did it first or second, cheating is cheating. Just because someone did it first doesn't make the second one right. They were both wrong.
Cindy
Charles cheated first because he went into the marriage knowing he preferred someone else. Cheating is not always technically just sex--it is letting the wife know after the wedding the other woman was preferred and she was not going away. I think Charles cheated first and according to sources he and Camilla were meeting all along, at the hunts and contact via phone.
Quote from: cinrit on April 25, 2014, 01:53:54 PM
We'll never know who cheated first, and it really doesn't matter to me. When I was a kid, if my brother and I got into a fight, we'd both claim the other "did it first". My mother didn't care, she punished both of us. That's how I feel about the cheating issue. They both cheated, and whether they did it first or second, cheating is cheating. Just because someone did it first doesn't make the second one right. They were both wrong.
Cindy
:goodpost: .
Royalists will believe anything good said about him and find all wrong things suspect... That is life... It's like falling in love for some people. :vday4:
^^ About Charles? I didn't see anything good said about Charles.
Cindy
I do. I see a lot good said about Charles and Camilla on these threads.
Charles told his biographer the spirit in which he went into his marriage to Diana. Diana thought Charles loved her and would be faithful. I blame Charles more because he had no right to marry Diana if he knew he preferred another woman. I think he married Diana for expediency's sake.
I sometimes ask myself if Di fans realize everything they crucify The Prince for Di did too ...
Only after all her accusers have had their fill of anointing His Holiness at her expense... :happy15:
Cheating is not always black and white. Right/wrong.
Some issues are not a matter of "two wrongs don't a make a right." Some issues have grey areas.
PC and C were together as a couple , in one form or another, from that offical date of July, something, 1981 at St.Pauls' Catherdral. They, Fred and Gladys, even went on a honeymoon together , so to speak, after that wedding and Diana sort of tagged along...got in the way...was a third wheel.
YES, Diana had affairs.
Well, I suupose she could have lived as a nun.
Really, a viral, young woman in a sexless farce of a marriage is rather unreal.
If she were more clever, smarter, she should ahve found herlsef a Lord/Duke/Earl and carried on in private her life and her court of Ladys/Earls/Dukes/Lords as PC had his .Actually,he had them all. Even Sir Robert Fellowes and Lady Spencer were faithfull to the Crown FIRST!
NO, PD fans do not hodl her in sainthood or ignore her faults WHICH she wrote all about and pubically said in an interview.
Sandy,
1. Nicholas Soames was against the marriage of C&D. Nicholas Soames never liked Diana.
2. Diana & Charles were at Broadlands several times before they were married. No evidence Camilla was ever there.
There are certainly gray areas concerning why a person cheats. But there is no gray area about cheating, itself. Cheating is wrong, no matter who, and no matter why.
Cindy
Cindy,
I blame Charles because he knew that he preferred Camilla when he married Diana. No man should marry under those conditions and I he did not apprise Diana of this and she found out that Camilla was not going away after the wedding. Charles deserted Diana after she did her duty and had the children. It was not as if C and C let Diana have any sort of real marriage after she had the children.
Quote from: Queen Camilla on April 28, 2014, 02:02:13 PM
Sandy,
1. Nicholas Soames was against the marriage of C&D. Nicholas Soames never liked Diana.
2. Diana & Charles were at Broadlands several times before they were married. No evidence Camilla was ever there.
Penny Romsey was according to various biographers the only one who voiced opposition to the marriage of C and D. Lady Diana even attended Nicholas Soames' wedding shortly before her marriage to Charles. Soames voiced opposition years later. He is a sychophant to Charles.
If you don't want to believe the biographies that ALL said Camilla and Charles spent weekends at Broadlands Suit yourself. It it were not true it would have been refuted. You say Diana went there, if so Charles would have been arrested since she was not a teen yet at the time Uncle Mountbatten lent Charles Broadlands
Double post auto-merged: April 28, 2014, 03:43:47 PM
Diana and Charles visited Broadlands after Mountbatten died. They did not have a "sleepover" until the wedding night--It is well documented they spent their first night as Man and Wife at Broadlands, not Prince and Mistress.
Mountbatten before his death in 1979 lent Broadlands to Charles so he could bring women to spend weekends with him and sow wild oats. Camilla was one of the women. This is documented and C and C never denied it even though it is in just about every book about them.