Thought it might be time for Charles to have his own thread regarding his comments, actions etc... during his separation/divorce from Diana. (I've checked to see if there were older threads but most have been locked.)
Charles had a temper. I noticed that Diana is criticized for not keeping her "emotions in check." Charles pulled a sink out in a fit of temper (reported by Wendy Berrie, the Housekeeper), he threw things at Diana and was seen aiming a blow at her when they were getting in a car. His grandfather George VI had temper tantrums in front of his family and was said to have hit his wife. So the Windsor men are not exactly stoical. Diana never said what led up to her crying in the bathroom. Given Charles temper I would be surprised if she did not get upset.
Great let's keep the discussion to Charles in this thread! :banana:
Charles inherited the temper from his granddad according to various biographies.
Charles did not exist in a vacuum he interacted with people including his first wife.
Grabs popcorn ... this will be fun ...
I'll just bet
IMO Charles appeared to be a bit sulky when his wife began to receive so much attention from the public and press. At first I believe he found it charming and then it began to wear on him.
^Sounds about right. He seemed a petty person at the time.
Charles put downs started early especially during a tour when he said he needed two wives to walk on each side of the street and he could be in the middle directing the operation. Because people wanted to see his wife and he was handed flowers for her.
By 1990 both Chuck and Di had ran out of steam he wanted to be left alone with Cam , she wanted her freedom back but that doesn't justify how nasty it got poor Will and Harry THE ONLY victims in that mess ... I would have called chid's services on Chuck and Di ...
It ran out of steam years earlier when Charles (he told this to his authorized biographer) went back to Camila in 1986. They had been meeting at the hunts and had kept in touch. I do think Charles married Diana only to get heirs and when she did her duty that was that.
Will and Harry were spoiled rotten. Where do you think William gets his sense of entitlements and feels he can do what he wants when he wants. He is playing normal now. The sun rose and set on William and Harry as far as Charles and Diana were concerned.
As I recall Charles was the only one who complained about his "rotten childhood."
^ Do we really need to go through Di's long list of lovers? Don't throw stones while living in Di's glass house ...
If I recall correctly when Charles broke his arm he made it quite clear to the public he didn't want Diana there by the look on his face.
Quote from: Eri on October 07, 2014, 08:12:24 PM
^ Do we really need to go through Di's long list of lovers? Don't throw stones while living in Di's glass house ...
I thought this thread was about Charles. Isn't this usual Diana smearing off topic?
Charles had to sow wild oats and certainly got a lot of mileage. And there was Janet Jenkins that he cheated on Camilla with.
The trouble with Charles is that he just saw marriage as a concept and he thought himself so above everybody else that people would kowtow to him. APB rolled over and played dead.
He was coddled and spoiled by his grandmother and he had friends that yessed him all the time. And most of the time Charles got what he wanted.
Have to say that I agree with sandy and that the topic should remain about Charles during those years.
one thing that still seems utterly bizarre to me is that the husbands of the married women Charles had affairs with were expected to - and actually did - just accept it - appreciate the perks (??) and keep quiet while their wives cavorted with Charles. Absolutely so archaic - and certainly doesn't say much for the status of those marriages. Camilla and Kanga's husbands both maintained relationships with Charles while he slept with their wives and remained friends with him to this day.
Seems so - against the norm - and truthfully - as if they were pimps - benefitting from their wives sexual favors to Charles. Yes I know that it was that way in the past too - but really? Seems so perverse - no wonder Charles had such a sense of entitlement - men just rolled over to allow him to screw their wives s if he was doing them a favor.
^ Where is the proof of that? The two couples you mentioned were his friends that hosted him and their Circle for weekends of shooting animals and partying ... there is no proof of anything else ... yes he obviously had an affair with Cam but it was again in 1986 when both their marriages were over !!!
I don't know about Kanga's husband, Lord Tryon, but Andrew Parker Bowles was a well known ladies man from his youth. Charles's dalliance with Camilla probably suited APB's own playing away from home very well. It seems to have been accepted by their set as just par for the course. However, once it was out in the open for all to see it was a different matter. Wasn't Andrew greeted by "Hello, Mr Simpson!" at Ascot shortly before the Parker Bowles divorce.
Ernest Simpson fell in love (conveniently for the King) with Mary Raffray after probably being fed up by sniggers at his club etc when Edward was taking Wallis with him everywhere. George and Alice Keppel stayed together, but George was reputedly financially struggling and King Edward VII paid for his wife's expenses.
Charles outed Camilla as his mistress via Dimbleby. Before that APB played along with it since he got perks out of it too (and still does to this day being in the royal circle). Once it was all outed, it was time for the divorce of the PBs.
Double post auto-merged: October 08, 2014, 01:52:46 PM
Quote from: Eri on October 08, 2014, 07:14:37 AM
^ Where is the proof of that? The two couples you mentioned were his friends that hosted him and their Circle for weekends of shooting animals and partying ... there is no proof of anything else ... yes he obviously had an affair with Cam but it was again in 1986 when both their marriages were over !!!
Kanga said so. She and Charles were an item and she was his mistress. There is a documentary about her (the other mistress) and Kanga's husband would actually leave the house so Charles could be alone with his wife. Kanga's daughter spoke out about her mother and the Prince.
Kanga did a lot more than play hostess with the Prince
The lonely death of Charles's other mistress | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1076026/The-lonely-death-Charless-mistress.html)
Quote from: cate1949 on October 08, 2014, 06:53:28 AM
one thing that still seems utterly bizarre to me is that the husbands of the married women Charles had affairs with were expected to - and actually did - just accept it - appreciate the perks (??) and keep quiet while their wives cavorted with Charles. Absolutely so archaic - and certainly doesn't say much for the status of those marriages. Camilla and Kanga's husbands both maintained relationships with Charles while he slept with their wives and remained friends with him to this day.
Seems so - against the norm - and truthfully - as if they were pimps - benefitting from their wives sexual favors to Charles. Yes I know that it was that way in the past too - but really? Seems so perverse - no wonder Charles had such a sense of entitlement - men just rolled over to allow him to screw their wives s if he was doing them a favor.
It does seem very odd to me as well, but this type of behavior among the aristocracy who wanted to gain favor with the ruling families goes back centuries. I believe that the arranged marriages that most entered into for financial/other gain made people seek love elsewhere.
Quote from: sandy on October 08, 2014, 01:51:16 PM
Charles outed Camilla as his mistress via Dimbleby. Before that APB played along with it since he got perks out of it too (and still does to this day being in the royal circle). Once it was all outed, it was time for the divorce of the PBs.
Double post auto-merged: October 08, 2014, 01:52:46 PM
Quote from: Eri on October 08, 2014, 07:14:37 AM
^ Where is the proof of that? The two couples you mentioned were his friends that hosted him and their Circle for weekends of shooting animals and partying ... there is no proof of anything else ... yes he obviously had an affair with Cam but it was again in 1986 when both their marriages were over !!!
Kanga said so. She and Charles were an item and she was his mistress. There is a documentary about her (the other mistress) and Kanga's husband would actually leave the house so Charles could be alone with his wife. Kanga's daughter spoke out about her mother and the Prince.
Kanga did a lot more than play hostess with the Prince
The lonely death of Charles's other mistress | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1076026/The-lonely-death-Charless-mistress.html)
I her dreams ... whatever she has said her own daughter said is a lie !!!
Charles never denied anything. And the documentary about her got much publicity. he could have refuted it. Kanga and Charles were not "just friends". So why does the DM call her "mistress" it was not from playing chess with him. Charles was advised to sow wild oats and he went about it. The article does not say they were "just friends." And other books about Charles called her mistress. What's the difference Eri if they were? He was not faithful to Camilla (he married someone else and had various relationships) and She was not faithful to him marrying another man.
Double post auto-merged: October 08, 2014, 05:23:01 PM
Quote from: TLLK on October 08, 2014, 02:54:04 PM
Quote from: cate1949 on October 08, 2014, 06:53:28 AM
one thing that still seems utterly bizarre to me is that the husbands of the married women Charles had affairs with were expected to - and actually did - just accept it - appreciate the perks (??) and keep quiet while their wives cavorted with Charles. Absolutely so archaic - and certainly doesn't say much for the status of those marriages. Camilla and Kanga's husbands both maintained relationships with Charles while he slept with their wives and remained friends with him to this day.
Seems so - against the norm - and truthfully - as if they were pimps - benefitting from their wives sexual favors to Charles. Yes I know that it was that way in the past too - but really? Seems so perverse - no wonder Charles had such a sense of entitlement - men just rolled over to allow him to screw their wives s if he was doing them a favor.
It does seem very odd to me as well, but this type of behavior among the aristocracy who wanted to gain favor with the ruling families goes back centuries. I believe that the arranged marriages that most entered into for financial/other gain made people seek love elsewhere.
But now there are no arranged marriages. Charles asked Diana out on dates and there were no contracts drawn up saying it was "arranged" like in the old days.
Quote from: sandy on October 08, 2014, 05:20:25 PM
Charles never denied anything. And the documentary about her got much publicity. he could have refuted it. Kanga and Charles were not "just friends". So why does the DM call her "mistress" it was not from playing chess with him. Charles was advised to sow wild oats and he went about it. The article does not say they were "just friends." And other books about Charles called her mistress. What's the difference Eri if they were? He was not faithful to Camilla (he married someone else and had various relationships) and She was not faithful to him marrying another man.
I don't know (and don't care) if Kanga and Charles had something going, but his not denying the rumors means nothing. He also didn't confirm them. Besides, why does it matter what he did before he married Diana? Isn't this thread about his actions during the "War of the Wales"? What happened before has no bearing on that.
Cindy
^^^ Have to agree Cindy that this should belong to another thread as it is from a time prior to his marriage to Diana and the WoTW.
During the war of the Wales many have claimed that nothing was to be said about Diana including Penny Junors books and others yet Charles mistress and friends leaked plenty of stories and nothing was said even Fatty Soames on TV said Diana was in the advanced stages of paranoia this while Charles was still married to her. Charles still to this day is close friends with Soames. In the past if anyone uttered any thing about his personal life they were dropped. Charles was hardly the lily white innocent several on this board would like others to believe.
No one at this forum has claimed to believe Charles is a lily-white innocent. Everyone agrees that he did plenty wrong. But some of believe that he was not the only person involved who could have done things differently. All three principals came out smelling rotten.
Cindy
Quote from: Trudie on October 08, 2014, 10:20:44 PM
During the war of the Wales many have claimed that nothing was to be said about Diana including Penny Junors books and others yet Charles mistress and friends leaked plenty of stories and nothing was said even Fatty Soames on TV said Diana was in the advanced stages of paranoia this while Charles was still married to her. Charles still to this day is close friends with Soames. In the past if anyone uttered any thing about his personal life they were dropped. Charles was hardly the lily white innocent several on this board would like others to believe.
I created this thread and I don't believe that Charles was a "lily white innocent." I did this so that posters could discuss his behavior during those years in depth.
Who on this board has ever posted that they thought Charles was completely innocent of wrongdoing during his first marriage? I'm just curious, (and I am a Diana fan.) Surely, after the poor woman has been dead for nearly twenty years, we can be a bit dispassionate about it all?
I could start with those who are always giving Charles a pass for his behavior but they know who they are and it is not in the spirit of this forum just read some posts in both threads and draw your own conclusions. :Lothwen:
Quote from: cinrit on October 08, 2014, 06:24:15 PM
Quote from: sandy on October 08, 2014, 05:20:25 PM
Charles never denied anything. And the documentary about her got much publicity. he could have refuted it. Kanga and Charles were not "just friends". So why does the DM call her "mistress" it was not from playing chess with him. Charles was advised to sow wild oats and he went about it. The article does not say they were "just friends." And other books about Charles called her mistress. What's the difference Eri if they were? He was not faithful to Camilla (he married someone else and had various relationships) and She was not faithful to him marrying another man.
I don't know (and don't care) if Kanga and Charles had something going, but his not denying the rumors means nothing. He also didn't confirm them. Besides, why does it matter what he did before he married Diana? Isn't this thread about his actions during the "War of the Wales"? What happened before has no bearing on that.
Cindy
Kanga confirmed them. It does matter what he did before marriage. It shows Charles character that he went into a marriage with such an attitude about other men's wives. This attitude put his first marriage on a shaky foundation.
Charles and Camilla were never out of touch during the marriage to Diana. It does matter that he was involved with Camilla and he was involved with her before his marriage to Diana as well.
Double post auto-merged: October 09, 2014, 12:13:23 AM
Quote from: Curryong on October 08, 2014, 11:04:03 PM
Who on this board has ever posted that they thought Charles was completely innocent of wrongdoing during his first marriage? I'm just curious, (and I am a Diana fan.) Surely, after the poor woman has been dead for nearly twenty years, we can be a bit dispassionate about it all?
Diana's and Charles' sons are still very much alive. Why are the number of years considered relevant after her death. A program about the Roosevelts who died ages ago attracted many viewers.
Double post auto-merged: October 09, 2014, 12:15:37 AM
Quote from: cinrit on October 08, 2014, 10:28:47 PM
No one at this forum has claimed to believe Charles is a lily-white innocent. Everyone agrees that he did plenty wrong. But some of believe that he was not the only person involved who could have done things differently. All three principals came out smelling rotten.
Cindy
Charles could have stayed away from Camilla after he got engaged. The trouble escalated from that. What should Diana have done differently? Played nice with the mistress? Become a nun and watched Charles have his affair with Camilla? Diana was in a no win situation. Charles got it all and thanks to his PR people he has Camilla and himself smelling like roses and dead Diana trashed by his chums.
Quote from: Trudie on October 09, 2014, 12:01:05 AM
I could start with those who are always giving Charles a pass for his behavior but they know who they are and it is not in the spirit of this forum just read some posts in both threads and draw your own conclusions. :Lothwen:
Would you be willing to link some of those threads so I could discover who these posters are? Or could you pm me and let me know? Truly I have not seen anyone giving him a free pass though I'll admit I've only been posting here less than a year.
Charles should not have gotten married to Diana or to anyone unless he felt he could be faithful and had been honest with himself. He was avid to produce heirs so Andrew would not be next in line. So he married Diana to get them. Charles was coddled by his grandmother, had yes men and women around him, and Lord Tryon and Parker Bowles felt "honored" that he chose their wives to have affairs with.
There is NO proof whatsoever he had an "attitude" towards other man's wives ,none whatsoever !!! Kenga and Cam were flirtations he had BEFORE they got married given that both women married HIS FRIENDS they stayed in contact but NO proof whatsoever the nasty things same allude to ever happened !!! Their husbands were there!!! This is slander pure and simple towards all involved especially Kenga who is is how is it? Dead and can't defend herself ...
Quote from: cinrit on October 08, 2014, 10:28:47 PM
No one at this forum has claimed to believe Charles is a lily-white innocent. Everyone agrees that he did plenty wrong. But some of believe that he was not the only person involved who could have done things differently. All three principals came out smelling rotten.
Cindy
I think that is a little harsh about the 3 people involved..Thogh im sure you don't mean it as harsh Cindy...
I think They were foolish and human. They made mistakes and didn't' always choose the best things to do, but IMO that's human nature.. He was in a very difficult position. he had to marry, he had to marry an upper class virgin and he was not all that attracted to young innocent girls. He liked older more sophisticated women... He was a rather shy man who didn't find it easy to get on with a girl who also was shy and "new to the dating game". So for him, choosing a wife wasn't easy. Diana was brought up by a family who didn't seem to care that much for her... She had been reared to think of marriage as the "only way" for her to fulfil herself..and had been allowed to day dream her way through her education so she didn't have many resources... Camila was probably the most confident of the 3 of them and she' had made a mistake I thinking she could cope with Andrew PB's constant womanising. If Di had had a better upbringing perhaps she would not have been so fixated on getting married as the only life for her, and of marrying the "best match possible". If Charles could have chosen more freely, he could probably have found a woman nearer his own age who would have been more compatible...or if hteir marriage had not worked out, he and she might have managed to live together and get along without making a public drama of their problems...
Again Cam was of the generation and class that "had to get married" so again she might not have married Andrew PB because she'd have had more options... It was a combiatnon of a lot of problems that most royals might not have nowadays..
^ Amen !!! :goodpost:
Quote from: Eri on October 09, 2014, 07:28:06 AM
There is NO proof whatsoever he had an "attitude" towards other man's wives none whatsoever !!! Kenga and Cam were flirtations he had BEFORE they got married given that both women married HIS FRIENDS they stayed in contact but NO proof whatsoever the nasty things same allude to ever happened !!! Their husbands were there!!! This is slander pure and simple towards all involved especially Kenga who is is how is it? Dead and can't defend herself ...
he Had an affair with Cam after she married, once she had had her children. kanga I don't know as I don't tae much interest in her... however a discreet affair iwht a marired woman, when she had had her family had always been considered OK with the upper classes... an usually yes its true that men and women of the upper crust tended to remain friendly with each other after affairs because they were all in he same social circle.
Double post auto-merged: October 09, 2014, 09:30:49 AM
Quote from: Curryong on October 08, 2014, 11:04:03 PM
Who on this board has ever posted that they thought Charles was completely innocent of wrongdoing during his first marriage? I'm just curious, (and I am a Diana fan.) Surely, after the poor woman has been dead for nearly twenty years, we can be a bit dispassionate about it all?
Well I don't think that any of them behaved perfectly but people aren't perfect. I used to think that he Had entered into the marriage with Di with the intention of returning to Camilla, but I don't believe that any more.
I think that it was MUCH more to do with finding that he and DI were just not happy together, that she was ill and difficult and found it very hard to adjust to marriage and to royal life. I think everything I've read shows that from the honeymoon at Balmoral things were going wildly wrong. She was miserable, she was ill, he hoped it was just her pregnancy, but it clearly was much more than that. She hated the formality of Royal life in private.. she was good at the public appearances but still found them a a big strain.. The Queen was soon fed up with her inability to adjust to their ways, and again hoped that she was just temporarily "off beam" because of her pregnancy but feared that it was much more..and psychiatrists were called in. She was bulimic, losing weight and clearly under major strain. She hated the sporty lifestyle and the country and the rain.. She wanted C to stay home with her all the time. She tried to adjust but it was difficult for her, and really psychiatrists could not do much about her bulimia because she would not talk about it nor about her incompatibility with the RF and its lifestyle...I think that it didn't help that Charles clearly still cared too much about Camilla, but according to his story, he did not see her much for a few years.. I think it would have helped if he could have complete moved away from Gloucester and living near her but I suspect that even that would not have allayed Di's fears... I think he should have at least for a few years cut off ALL contact with Cam and if possible moved, but for a royal moving's not that easy... If he'd done that and the marriage still failed, he had at least given it a really major effort. As it was, he stayed home with her, took her on sunny holidays, he tired to fit in with her ways and she tried to fit in with his, but she wasn't really interested in his interests and vice versa. and she was emotionally and physically fragile...She wanted a 24/7 husband who would stay all the time with her and the kids.. he wasn't probably Into the children that much, so while he tired to be a good dad it wasn't easy for him. He could not be the man of D's dreams because he wasn't.. He probably thought about Cam too much, but we can't always control our thoughts. I don't blame Diana for being unhappy, but she wasn't a complete innocent either. She was veer young and perhaps can be forgiven for not realising that she was not really in love with Charles the real man.. and that royal life was too rigid for her.. but as she grew in confidence, instead of making the best of her marriage it seems like she didn't, she could have just lived a separate life to Charles and found a lover, and found her happiness in a private relationship. Instead she continued to worry at the idea of getting out of the RF, or at times of staying in it but being separated from C and tyring ot use her role as W's mother to push Charles out of his role as POW. She could have made the best of her role, instead of trying ot get out, and then worrying and trying to get in again and taking pot shots i the media about Charles and the RF.
If she knew Charles was with Cam, and she didn't like him any More, why not ignore the affair and get on with her own life? Charles clearly didn't mind her having another man.. she was a beautiful woman and there were plenty of men who were interested...
But she's only human so I cut her some slack.. but if I cut her slack I also sympathise with Charles who was also stuck in a marriage that did not make hm fulfilled or happy and who tried ot find a discreet happiness with the woman he loved...
Dianas psychological problems are hereditary , and that imcreases the likelihood of suffering from one .
She did not fit into the RF ,she wasnt made for that life , a wild crazy out of control dreamer ,while charles is more practical and logical ,they both cheated ,who cheated first is never going to come out but i think it was pretty much the same time when they both gave up on the marriage .
poor william and harry growing up with such parents can leave you emotionally damaged :censored2: :wellduh:
they dotn seem emotionally damaged to me. I think that Will has been b it traumatised by the way that he saw his mother chased by the paparazzi and has a distaste for them and for public appearances. And possibly Di's early death made him look for a very "secure rather dull "girl to marry, to be a close friend to him.
Diana did have some psychological problems...but I think they might not have surfaced if she hadn't made a marriage that was unhappy In the personal sense but hard to get out of. and been subject to massive popular and press attention. I think anyone would find it hard to cope with the way the public adored her adn the press followed her.. even a very centred stable person and she wasn't that. However, if she'd married an ordinary upper class chap, had a couple of kids and lived quietly, between London and the country, done a bit of charity work she would probably have been happy enough and she might have lived a quiet useful life, without dramas and problems.
Quote from: TLLK on October 09, 2014, 01:01:22 AM
Quote from: Trudie on October 09, 2014, 12:01:05 AM
I could start with those who are always giving Charles a pass for his behavior but they know who they are and it is not in the spirit of this forum just read some posts in both threads and draw your own conclusions. :Lothwen:
Would you be willing to link some of those threads so I could discover who these posters are? Or could you pm me and let me know? Truly I have not seen anyone giving him a free pass though I'll admit I've only been posting here less than a year.
Take a good look after you posted this ding ding we have a winner LOL
Quote from: TLLK on October 08, 2014, 02:54:04 PM
Quote from: cate1949 on October 08, 2014, 06:53:28 AM
one thing that still seems utterly bizarre to me is that the husbands of the married women Charles had affairs with were expected to - and actually did - just accept it - appreciate the perks (??) and keep quiet while their wives cavorted with Charles. Absolutely so archaic - and certainly doesn't say much for the status of those marriages. Camilla and Kanga's husbands both maintained relationships with Charles while he slept with their wives and remained friends with him to this day.
Seems so - against the norm - and truthfully - as if they were pimps - benefitting from their wives sexual favors to Charles. Yes I know that it was that way in the past too - but really? Seems so perverse - no wonder Charles had such a sense of entitlement - men just rolled over to allow him to screw their wives s if he was doing them a favor.
It does seem very odd to me as well, but this type of behavior among the aristocracy who wanted to gain favor with the ruling families goes back centuries. I believe that the arranged marriages that most entered into for financial/other gain made people seek love elsewhere.
It was more to dod with the fact that up to about 50 years ago divorce was rare among the upper classes It as almost unthinkable in the Victorian era. People were married for life, it was a partnership rather than a love affair because a love affair wont last for life. So they were considered ot have liberty to find other amusements. And at times, a woman taking a rich or influential lover could help her husband in his career. Some society ladies told Clementine Churchill that she was very selfish refusing to find a rich lover who could help Winston's career.... The upper classes divorce nowadays but in bygone days it was considered foolish to break up a marriage over a fling, and better to keep affairs discreet and kepe the marriage together....
Quote from: amabel on October 09, 2014, 10:10:23 AM
they dotn seem emotionally damaged to me. I think that Will has been b it traumatised by the way that he saw his mother chased by the paparazzi and has a distaste for them and for public appearances. And possibly Di's early death made him look for a very "secure rather dull "girl to marry, to be a close friend to him.
Diana did have some psychological problems...but I think they might not have surfaced if she hadn't made a marriage that was unhappy In the personal sense but hard to get out of. and been subject to massive popular and press attention. I think anyone would find it hard to cope with the way the public adored her adn the press followed her.. even a very centred stable person and she wasn't that. However, if she'd married an ordinary upper class chap, had a couple of kids and lived quietly, between London and the country, done a bit of charity work she would probably have been happy enough and she might have lived a quiet useful life, without dramas and problems.
Related but out of topic, I think Wiiliam got help by joining as the patron of the Child bereavement charity. 'Not a day goes by when I don't think of Mummy': Prince William describes his grief | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161628/Not-day-goes-I-dont-think-Mummy-Prince-William-describes-grief.html)
Quote from: Eri on October 09, 2014, 07:28:06 AM
There is NO proof whatsoever he had an "attitude" towards other man's wives ,none whatsoever !!! Kenga and Cam were flirtations he had BEFORE they got married given that both women married HIS FRIENDS they stayed in contact but NO proof whatsoever the nasty things same allude to ever happened !!! Their husbands were there!!! This is slander pure and simple towards all involved especially Kenga who is is how is it? Dead and can't defend herself ...
Some friends. They put up with this because of who he is: Prince of Wales.
So if these are 'nasty things' I suggest you contact every single author who states this. Charles even admitted he slept with APB's wife and cheated on his own wife, via his confessions, so if you don't believe Charles what else is there to say? If Charles never refuted these many books why should you?
Lady Kanga was a victim, Charles would not even talk to her when she was dying.
Double post auto-merged: October 09, 2014, 02:15:13 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 09, 2014, 10:10:23 AM
they dotn seem emotionally damaged to me. I think that Will has been b it traumatised by the way that he saw his mother chased by the paparazzi and has a distaste for them and for public appearances. And possibly Di's early death made him look for a very "secure rather dull "girl to marry, to be a close friend to him.
Diana did have some psychological problems...but I think they might not have surfaced if she hadn't made a marriage that was unhappy In the personal sense but hard to get out of. and been subject to massive popular and press attention. I think anyone would find it hard to cope with the way the public adored her adn the press followed her.. even a very centred stable person and she wasn't that. However, if she'd married an ordinary upper class chap, had a couple of kids and lived quietly, between London and the country, done a bit of charity work she would probably have been happy enough and she might have lived a quiet useful life, without dramas and problems.
Psychological problems? How would you now this unless you treated her? She had an eating disorder and got it under control by seeking help for it.
Charles is no picnic and I think his self centeredness and sense of entitlement would make a stressful situation for anyone.
Double post auto-merged: October 09, 2014, 02:18:14 PM
Quote from: tiaras on October 09, 2014, 09:40:27 AM
Dianas psychological problems are hereditary , and that imcreases the likelihood of suffering from one .
She did not fit into the RF ,she wasnt made for that life , a wild crazy out of control dreamer ,while charles is more practical and logical ,they both cheated ,who cheated first is never going to come out but i think it was pretty much the same time when they both gave up on the marriage .
poor william and harry growing up with such parents can leave you emotionally damaged :censored2: :wellduh:
I think Charles has problems.
Diana's problem was the eating disorder but yes, that could be genetic since her sister had it. But your post sounds like she was a "madwoman" which is just what Charles spinners want people to believe.
Diana did splendidly as a royal. Charles was too stupid to appreciate her. I don't get why you insist she did not "fit in."
Charles logical? No way! Charles was and is a dreamer. It was his way or the highway. And his concept of marriage was rather bizarre thinking it "OK" with the wife if he was emotionally and later physically tied to another woman.
Free Passville for Charlie yet again.
Double post auto-merged: October 09, 2014, 02:20:05 PM
Quote from: Eri on October 09, 2014, 07:28:06 AM
There is NO proof whatsoever he had an "attitude" towards other man's wives ,none whatsoever !!! Kenga and Cam were flirtations he had BEFORE they got married given that both women married HIS FRIENDS they stayed in contact but NO proof whatsoever the nasty things same allude to ever happened !!! Their husbands were there!!! This is slander pure and simple towards all involved especially Kenga who is is how is it? Dead and can't defend herself ...
Flirtations. HAH! Kanga told of her physical life with Charles and how they "did it" on an airplane. The old boy had to have sexual experience before he married the virgin. Did you read his counsel by Mountbatten. If you are so outraged, why don't you ask Charlie to sue everybody. He can't because it would make him look ridiculous.
Double post auto-merged: October 09, 2014, 02:21:00 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 09, 2014, 07:29:48 AM
Quote from: cinrit on October 08, 2014, 10:28:47 PM
No one at this forum has claimed to believe Charles is a lily-white innocent. Everyone agrees that he did plenty wrong. But some of believe that he was not the only person involved who could have done things differently. All three principals came out smelling rotten.
Cindy
I think that is a little harsh about the 3 people involved..Thogh im sure you don't mean it as harsh Cindy...
I think They were foolish and human. They made mistakes and didn't' always choose the best things to do, but IMO that's human nature.. He was in a very difficult position. he had to marry, he had to marry an upper class virgin and he was not all that attracted to young innocent girls. He liked older more sophisticated women... He was a rather shy man who didn't find it easy to get on with a girl who also was shy and "new to the dating game". So for him, choosing a wife wasn't easy. Diana was brought up by a family who didn't seem to care that much for her... She had been reared to think of marriage as the "only way" for her to fulfil herself..and had been allowed to day dream her way through her education so she didn't have many resources... Camila was probably the most confident of the 3 of them and she' had made a mistake I thinking she could cope with Andrew PB's constant womanising. If Di had had a better upbringing perhaps she would not have been so fixated on getting married as the only life for her, and of marrying the "best match possible". If Charles could have chosen more freely, he could probably have found a woman nearer his own age who would have been more compatible...or if hteir marriage had not worked out, he and she might have managed to live together and get along without making a public drama of their problems...
Again Cam was of the generation and class that "had to get married" so again she might not have married Andrew PB because she'd have had more options... It was a combiatnon of a lot of problems that most royals might not have nowadays..
Charles did not have to marry. He IMO wanted heirs to succeed him Not Andrew's heirs.
Double post auto-merged: October 09, 2014, 02:24:04 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 09, 2014, 07:33:02 AM
Quote from: Eri on October 09, 2014, 07:28:06 AM
There is NO proof whatsoever he had an "attitude" towards other man's wives none whatsoever !!! Kenga and Cam were flirtations he had BEFORE they got married given that both women married HIS FRIENDS they stayed in contact but NO proof whatsoever the nasty things same allude to ever happened !!! Their husbands were there!!! This is slander pure and simple towards all involved especially Kenga who is is how is it? Dead and can't defend herself ...
he Had an affair with Cam after she married, once she had had her children. kanga I don't know as I don't tae much interest in her... however a discreet affair iwht a marired woman, when she had had her family had always been considered OK with the upper classes... an usually yes its true that men and women of the upper crust tended to remain friendly with each other after affairs because they were all in he same social circle.
Double post auto-merged: October 09, 2014, 09:30:49 AM
Quote from: Curryong on October 08, 2014, 11:04:03 PM
Who on this board has ever posted that they thought Charles was completely innocent of wrongdoing during his first marriage? I'm just curious, (and I am a Diana fan.) Surely, after the poor woman has been dead for nearly twenty years, we can be a bit dispassionate about it all?
Well I don't think that any of them behaved perfectly but people aren't perfect. I used to think that he Had entered into the marriage with Di with the intention of returning to Camilla, but I don't believe that any more.
I think that it was MUCH more to do with finding that he and DI were just not happy together, that she was ill and difficult and found it very hard to adjust to marriage and to royal life. I think everything I've read shows that from the honeymoon at Balmoral things were going wildly wrong. She was miserable, she was ill, he hoped it was just her pregnancy, but it clearly was much more than that. She hated the formality of Royal life in private.. she was good at the public appearances but still found them a a big strain.. The Queen was soon fed up with her inability to adjust to their ways, and again hoped that she was just temporarily "off beam" because of her pregnancy but feared that it was much more..and psychiatrists were called in. She was bulimic, losing weight and clearly under major strain. She hated the sporty lifestyle and the country and the rain.. She wanted C to stay home with her all the time. She tried to adjust but it was difficult for her, and really psychiatrists could not do much about her bulimia because she would not talk about it nor about her incompatibility with the RF and its lifestyle...I think that it didn't help that Charles clearly still cared too much about Camilla, but according to his story, he did not see her much for a few years.. I think it would have helped if he could have complete moved away from Gloucester and living near her but I suspect that even that would not have allayed Di's fears... I think he should have at least for a few years cut off ALL contact with Cam and if possible moved, but for a royal moving's not that easy... If he'd done that and the marriage still failed, he had at least given it a really major effort. As it was, he stayed home with her, took her on sunny holidays, he tired to fit in with her ways and she tried to fit in with his, but she wasn't really interested in his interests and vice versa. and she was emotionally and physically fragile...She wanted a 24/7 husband who would stay all the time with her and the kids.. he wasn't probably Into the children that much, so while he tired to be a good dad it wasn't easy for him. He could not be the man of D's dreams because he wasn't.. He probably thought about Cam too much, but we can't always control our thoughts. I don't blame Diana for being unhappy, but she wasn't a complete innocent either. She was veer young and perhaps can be forgiven for not realising that she was not really in love with Charles the real man.. and that royal life was too rigid for her.. but as she grew in confidence, instead of making the best of her marriage it seems like she didn't, she could have just lived a separate life to Charles and found a lover, and found her happiness in a private relationship. Instead she continued to worry at the idea of getting out of the RF, or at times of staying in it but being separated from C and tyring ot use her role as W's mother to push Charles out of his role as POW. She could have made the best of her role, instead of trying ot get out, and then worrying and trying to get in again and taking pot shots i the media about Charles and the RF.
If she knew Charles was with Cam, and she didn't like him any More, why not ignore the affair and get on with her own life? Charles clearly didn't mind her having another man.. she was a beautiful woman and there were plenty of men who were interested...
But she's only human so I cut her some slack.. but if I cut her slack I also sympathise with Charles who was also stuck in a marriage that did not make hm fulfilled or happy and who tried ot find a discreet happiness with the woman he loved...
If Charles had no intention of returning to Camilla, he would have stopped seeing her and stopped contact with her. He knew darn well that they could never be "just friends" as their history has proven.
Charles and his cronies took pot shots at Diana before the Morton book came out.
A royal can move wherever he pleases--there are many properties. No way would Charles have moved from the convenient proximity to the other woman.
Diana wanted a Faithful Husband, not 24/7.
^Charles is the Prince of Wales and heir to the throne, though it is not quite as imperative as it once was, it is crucial that he married and had heirs. Diana seemed like a good choice at the time and he stupidly chose to do it thinking like would be enough to sustain a marriage. Although he had good precedent to assume that.
It was considered very important that he marry and have heirs. I don't think he really wanted to. I think left to himself, he would have stayed a bachelor with a steady lady Friend. perhaps he might have wanted children of his own but I don't think they were a big thing with him, if he hadn't been royal. He was at 30 plus getting to an age where sicne he Had to marry a girl with little or no sexual experience, it meant that there was going to be a big gap between him and his bride..and Philip is said to have told him if he messed around much longer there wouldn't' be anyone left. And that was true. He got panicky, rushed into a relationship with Diana who seemed pretty sweet young enough to be moulded into royal life and likely to be very popular with the public as she had already won the hearts of many pressmen. She was eager to marry him because she was reared to think that marriage to a "public figure of social signficacne" was the best match she could make and the only way she coud fulfil herself. she was also attracted by the fact that eh could not be divorced . So she was charming adn sweet and he grew fond of her, but I think he had his misgivings. He feared she was too young that she didn't really understand what she was getting into, and perhaps he secretly feared that they didn't have that much in common..and that he would always have special feelings for Camilla. Their marriage was a gamble but unlike some, it didnt' work out...
Charles at 32 was no baby or kid. He and he alone decided to marry and get heirs. Nobody could force him if he did not want to. Charles who reads all those deep books could not put 2 and 2 together and figure out that marrying a girl barely out of her teens to get heirs was not exactly a smart thing to do. Since he had a huge sense of self entitlement I think he thought he could have his cake and eat it too: The compliant wife, the heirs and the bit on the side.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on October 09, 2014, 04:43:17 PM
^Charles is the Prince of Wales and heir to the throne, though it is not quite as imperative as it once was, it is crucial that he married and had heirs. Diana seemed like a good choice at the time and he stupidly chose to do it thinking like would be enough to sustain a marriage. Although he had good precedent to assume that.
Edward Prince of Wales was under much pressure to marry a suitable girl. He did not because he knew he would prefer the married mistress. His brother ended up succeeding him as George VI. The line of succession is in place even if the current heir does not have children.
Charles had a messy private life and until he got it straightened out should not have even thought of marriage unless he dispensed with his "friend" Camilla.
^Right. Like I said, the Prince of Wales is under pressure to marry...and Charles isn't Edward. Maybe he wasnt madly in love with anyone at the time including Camilla. Maybe he just wanted to have a good time, but felt the pressure and just married a seemingly fitting girl.
He was close to Camilla at the time according to various accounts according Charles own account. Charles was always out for No. 1 and felt he could have it all: the wife, the heirs, the mistress. He felt he was entitled being who he was and all that.
Edward was a lot more like Charles than thought since Lord Mountbatten in a letter that became public said that Charles was in danger of becoming like his great uncle Edward. He was also in the thrall of married women (Kanga and especially Camilla).
^In danger of becoming someone does not mean you actually are like them in every aspect and will react like them in every situation. Like having sex with women and enjoying their company does not equate being in love and wanting to marry.
Charles had a different sort of scandal than his Uncle had. But both seemed to take to married women while the husbands looked the other way. Only Charles got to have his cake and eat it too. Edward abdicated. I think if it had come down to a choice between Camilla and the throne the throne would have won hands down.
^Probably, but it didn't. He thought he could live the way he wanted and it promptly blew up in his face.
He still got to marry the mistress and has the heirs.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on October 09, 2014, 07:28:59 PM
^Probably, but it didn't. He thought he could live the way he wanted and it promptly blew up in his face.
Yes it did.
Quote from: sandy on October 09, 2014, 07:38:53 PM
He still got to marry the mistress and has the heirs.
Just a question, not at all trying to be confrontational or argumentative, but do you begrudge him his happiness?
Well lets see Historygirl No one has begrudged Charles his happiness especially his family who allowed him to marry Camilla which was not the case with Edward VIII not only was the RF begrudging him his happiness he was exiled for the rest of his life.
^I was asking sandy in particular. Obviously his family clearly love and want him to be happy. Especially since they didn't particularly care for his ex wife either.
^^^IMO the two situations are different in that Edward VIII's decision came when the country was still recovering from the Great Depression and instability in Europe was already a concern. The nation was struggling during that time period. His visit to Nazi Germany didn't help his position back home and it is likely that the government was going to reject any request from the BRF that would allow him to settle in the UK post-WWII.
IMO Charles and Diana's divorce while sad was not going to affect the nation in the same way. Charles' popularity did plummet fter the divorce and her death, but the nation was not in danger of being destabilized.
TLK, Charles got permission to marry Camilla and keep his place on the throne. Edward DID get to visit his mother but Wallis had to stay home.
There was and is a line of succession so the nation back then was not in danger. Edward had a brother ready to take over.
Charles did not lose anything and had nothing really to lose. He had his cake and ate it too.
History GirlI have seen comments saying that Charles is happy as if the main goal in the world is to make this man happy? Why? Diana had a miserable time with the man and his seeking happiness hurt some people. Actually Charles has been helping himself to happiness for years. And how do you know ALL members of the family did not care for his ex wife? Princess Michael and others did like Diana, believe it or not. Oh and BTW William and Harry are members of the family and they love their mother. So how can you make such statements about Charles family not liking his ex. Aren't Will and Harry in the family too? And she was the mother of two of the Queen's grandchildren. I don't think actually the Queen is particularly fond of Camilla but puts up with her for Charles' sake and for family peace. The Queen Mother did not receive Camilla after her divorce from APB and even told Charles to wait until after she died before he married Camilla. Some love!
There are rumors that Charles is not that kindly disposed to his own siblings and vice versa. Andrew is said to be at odds with him.
It is sad that Selfish Charles must be made happy at all costs --he got the heirs and got his cake and ate it too. And it is hard for his family to express dislike to someone who is dead and buried.
Well yeah I meant they disliked her when alive. So you do? It's not necessary for him to be happy for me since i dont know him personally; but then again that's also the reason why I don't begrudge him his happiness either.
I see plenty of comments about how wonderful it is for Charles to be happy, etc etc. I don't know why people are so concerned that this selfish man must be made happy.
Charles has helped himself to happiness for many years. At other's expense. Charles does not care if people " begrudge him happiness."
He still chose Diana over Camilla to marry and have his royal children. If Diana had not complained and turned a blind eye and she could ignore his put downs, Camilla would still be the mistress.
Yeah probably. But a lot of royals have had mistresses, even some of the most influential. Is it something with Charles in particular you find annoying? Just curious.
I am expressing an opinion. If you read my posts you will see the reasons. I know Charles practically walks on water with some and the man must be made happy.
I could ask the same of those who snipe at Diana. And be just curious too.
Alright then sorry for asking.
Quote from: sandy on October 09, 2014, 11:33:35 PMThere are rumors that Charles is not that kindly disposed to his own siblings and vice versa. Andrew is said to be at odds with him.
To be fair, Andy is strong-arming his daughters into a role that is adverse to Charles's wish for a more streamlined monarchy. Two sides of the coin.
Neither Charles nor Andy are shining beacons of morality. I still don't know why people expect any of them to be the incarnate of the values of the United Kingdom. It think it's a little naive to think them anything but human.
Quote from: sandy on October 09, 2014, 11:33:35 PM
TLK, Charles got permission to marry Camilla and keep his place on the throne. Edward DID get to visit his mother but Wallis had to stay home.
There was and is a line of succession so the nation back then was not in danger. Edward had a brother ready to take over.
Charles did not lose anything and had nothing really to lose. He had his cake and ate it too.
History GirlI have seen comments saying that Charles is happy as if the main goal in the world is to make this man happy? Why? Diana had a miserable time with the man and his seeking happiness hurt some people. Actually Charles has been helping himself to happiness for years. And how do you know ALL members of the family did not care for his ex wife? Princess Michael and others did like Diana, believe it or not. Oh and BTW William and Harry are members of the family and they love their mother. So how can you make such statements about Charles family not liking his ex. Aren't Will and Harry in the family too? And she was the mother of two of the Queen's grandchildren. I don't think actually the Queen is particularly fond of Camilla but puts up with her for Charles' sake and for family peace. The Queen Mother did not receive Camilla after her divorce from APB and even told Charles to wait until after she died before he married Camilla. Some love!
There are rumors that Charles is not that kindly disposed to his own siblings and vice versa. Andrew is said to be at odds with him.
It is sad that Selfish Charles must be made happy at all costs --he got the heirs and got his cake and ate it too. And it is hard for his family to express dislike to someone who is dead and buried.
Sorry I can't find the two situation to be similar as Edward was consorting with the nation's enemy, the economy was still trying to recover from WWI and the Great Depression. Yes there was an heir, but an unprepared one where discussion of skipping Bertie in favor of his younger brothers was discussed. Edward's actions were seen to be much worse than a married couple divorcing.
Charles behaved badly. It's been stated over and over, but I find this comparison to his great-uncle to be very far-fetched IMHO.
Had he given up Wallis, he would have stayed King. He probably could have kept Wallis as a mistress keeping her role low key and still become King.The photos with Hitler came after his marriage to Wallis.
Everybody close up in the line of succession must be prepared. Before George VI took over, there were several second sons who had to take on the job of King.
I don't see anything far fetched. Charles got away with marrying a divorced woman unlike his great uncle. And Charles himself was divorced from his first wife. Charles like his great uncle liked the company of married women. Charles was selfish enough to court a teenaged girl so he could get heirs even knowing he preferred someone else.
Double post auto-merged: October 10, 2014, 12:19:02 AM
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on October 10, 2014, 12:06:40 AM
Quote from: sandy on October 09, 2014, 11:33:35 PMThere are rumors that Charles is not that kindly disposed to his own siblings and vice versa. Andrew is said to be at odds with him.
To be fair, Andy is strong-arming his daughters into a role that is adverse to Charles's wish for a more streamlined monarchy. Two sides of the coin.
Neither Charles nor Andy are shining beacons of morality. I still don't know why people expect any of them to be the incarnate of the values of the United Kingdom. It think it's a little naive to think them anything but human.
Andrew knows he can't Strong Arm anybody. Charles does as he please. Charles is foolish to think he can depend on his work shy elder son and Daughter in law to do much of the work. One can't have a streamlined monarchy with essentially lazy people.
At least Andrew never had his friends bad mouth his ex wife. And he certainly could have considering...
Charles affairs with married women and their husbands acquiescence to those affairs is well documented.
I do think this is relevant to the discussion because it goes to his sense of expectations - he learned from those affairs and the husbands complicity in those affairs that he was "special" and normal rules did not apply to him. That sense would have been brought into his marriage to Diana and would have informed his behavior.
I'd just like to also object to the idea that Diana had psychological problems which were hereditary - she may have - but we do not know nor is the state of understanding about the role of heredity in mental disorders that advanced.
that we can say with any surety that her problems were inherited. I know there are royal commentators from the family who do make those assertions - but I do not think it is a reasonable thing to say. IMHO.
Back to Charles - it is often said that his family are a bit emotionally repressed - someone who would express their feelings like Diana would make a person who is emotionally repressed very uncomfortable - if you cannot deal with your own feelings you certainly cannot handle someone elses.
Quote from: sandy on October 10, 2014, 12:16:19 AM
Had he given up Wallis, he would have stayed King. He probably could have kept Wallis as a mistress keeping her role low key and still become King.The photos with Hitler came after his marriage to Wallis.
Everybody close up in the line of succession must be prepared. Before George VI took over, there were several second sons who had to take on the job of King.
I don't see anything far fetched. Charles got away with marrying a divorced woman unlike his great uncle. And Charles himself was divorced from his first wife. Charles like his great uncle liked the company of married women. Charles was selfish enough to court a teenaged girl so he could get heirs even knowing he preferred someone else.
Double post auto-merged: October 10, 2014, 12:19:02 AM
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on October 10, 2014, 12:06:40 AM
Quote from: sandy on October 09, 2014, 11:33:35 PMThere are rumors that Charles is not that kindly disposed to his own siblings and vice versa. Andrew is said to be at odds with him.
To be fair, Andy is strong-arming his daughters into a role that is adverse to Charles's wish for a more streamlined monarchy. Two sides of the coin.
Neither Charles nor Andy are shining beacons of morality. I still don't know why people expect any of them to be the incarnate of the values of the United Kingdom. It think it's a little naive to think them anything but human.
Andrew knows he can't Strong Arm anybody. Charles does as he please. Charles is foolish to think he can depend on his work shy elder son and Daughter in law to do much of the work. One can't have a streamlined monarchy with essentially lazy people.
At least Andrew never had his friends bad mouth his ex wife. And he certainly could have considering...
Yes the photos came afterward which would have not made his family or the government look kindly upon his return to the UK. This is part of the reason he and Wallis were sent to the Caribbean.
Prepared to some extent but not the the length that Edward was and there were concerns about Bertie's ability to speak in public which was an expectation of the role. Obviously history has shown that George VI was a capable monarch.
As for the future of the BRF once Charles ascends to the throne, his mother's cousins will likely "retire." His siblings are still available and he'll have two sons and possibly more than one daughter-in-law to take on the duties. It will be his reign and he can choose who he wishes to make up his core team just as his mother does now. :thumbsup:
Quote from: HistoryGirl on October 09, 2014, 07:28:59 PM
^Probably, but it didn't. He thought he could live the way he wanted and it promptly blew up in his face.
I don't believe that was really the case. I don't beelive that he intented to continue his affair with Camilla. I think that he hoped that he and Di would work out, albeit I think that during their engagement he was beginning to have some doubts that he had made the right choice, but once they were engaged it was almost imposislbe ot get out of it. And he hoped the marriage would work... but knew that he still cared a lot for Camilla and probably she would be the one he loved most. however I think that he just kept in touch wit her a bit during the first few years, because he knew Diana would not accept his being good friends with hr... and as time went by and he realised that he and Di were a hopeless case, he did then return to her bed.. but I can't see what else he was supposed to do. he and Diana were unhappy and prorlbaby the physical side of their marriage was not good esp since she was ill. Why would she want him to be physically intimate wit her when she got on badly with him and she was ill? He left her alone, and went back to Cam and when Di got some control over her bulimia she too went out and found herself a lover. it wasn't' a perfect solution and I think that Charles was aware of the risks, but he hoped they would get by, and that Diana would be aware that if she "outed" his affair, there was a chance that her own affair would be made public as well.... However if she had remained discreet, while there was gossip and speculation, and the phone calls, being made public, it was still possible to "stare the media down" and ignore the gossip and I think that would have been far better for all concerned. I had my doubts about his marrying Camilla, but I think that when he and Di divorced it was probably inevitable and she's proved OK as Duchess of Cornwall and I think the family get on reasonably well with her, including the boys. He's hardly the first POW to have an extra marital affair and I think he did try and keep it discreet, it was largely owing ot modern technology and Di's outing the affair that ti really became public...
Double post auto-merged: October 10, 2014, 07:36:33 AM
Quote from: cate1949 on October 10, 2014, 01:09:07 AM
I'd just like to also object to the idea that Diana had psychological problems which were hereditary - she may have - but we do not know nor is the state of understanding about the role of heredity in mental disorders that advanced.
that we can say with any surety that her problems were inherited. .
Back to
Regardless of whether the problems are hereditary or not, I think she certainly had problems. I think that she was ver needy, she was immature at the time of her marriage and sicne she did her growing up in a very "bubble like" environment, she didn't mature very steadily. I think she was hard to live with and any man would have found it difficult esp someone who by his position In life is bound to be somewhat spoiled. I think that he DID try to look after her, and to understand her but he found ti difficult. She was very different ot him, and very much younger. Other men who loved her, even when she was older, also found her "drama queen" ways a bit hard to cope with. Ther are issues like her pushing her stepmother, allegedly throwing herself down the stairs to frighten Charles while Pregnant.. these things are either the result of her being very selfish or having same problems. I don't believe she was "mad" or "bad" but she wasn't an angel and she did have problems that made her hard to cope with at close quarters. and she and C were just too different to fit well together. As for his "attitude to men's' wives" I don't think he was all that differnet to many men of the upper classes who felt that (while divorce is now easily available) that it was necessary to break up one's marriage over an affair..
^Yeah he thought that he could remain married and still have emotional attachments with another woman and probably thought he could see her every once in a while and be fine but it didn't turn out like that. As for the cheating, it's entirely your prerogative to either feel like it's okay or not.
but you cant' just turn off your emotions like that. People do still sometimes carry a torch for an old lover, and I think that Charles did feel that he would always be friends with Camilla, and he lived quite close to her and he needed to see her at times.. and she was part of the Royal social circle so it was likely that they would meet at times.
Di knew that. as for the cheating, I think, given that they couldn't divorce, and had made a mistake in marrying, what were they supposed to do? Di's fans seem to think it was OK for her to take lovers because her marriage had failed. Why wasn't it all right for Charles to do so?
I'm not sure, you'll have to ask them cause the double standard confuses me too. I think cheating is disgusting no matter what's going on, but that's because honor and respect are things that I demand from a partner, but everyone's different so it's really not my place to villainize anyone. I'm also big on personal responsibility so if you choose to marry you should know and accept what it entails. Of course, if both parties are ok with seeing other people while married like APB and Camilla that does change things from their perspective. Still not cool to sleep with another woman's husband if she's not ok with it though.
I think that Andrew and Camilla had a fairly good relationship in some ways but he was a real "woman chaser" and was not faithful and she got tired of it after a while and took up with Charles and began to find him a more congenial companion. As time went by I think that Andrew wanted to marry his second wife and would have asked for a divorce, but by then he didn't want to expose Cam to the gossip if he left her, and there were so many rumors that she and Charles were lovers. So he waited till Charles spoke about the affair and then he went for a divorce. once they divorced however I think they've remained good friends, because they were in love, at the first and while their marriage hasn't' lasted, their friendly relationsnip has...
and of course Charles knew what "marriage entailed"... He's not an idiot. I think that he was a bit unsure that he and Di were going to work out but once he and she had gotten engaged, that was it.. it was impossible to get out of it. and when they married, it as supposed to be absolutely impossible for them to divorce. Di knew that just as well.. but she chose to act in such a way that she was in essence ending the marriage.
But I think that left to himself Charles would have gone on in the marriage all his life, and looked the other way if Diana had lovers. he would have remained with Camilla in private... It was not a perfect solution but I think that it would have kept the RF from scandal, kept the marriage intact and caused less stress to Will and harry and its more than likely that Diana would not have died young.
And Di was the one who seems to have "Not cared" if the wives of her admirers didn't like her relationships with them. I think that Mrs hoare didn't mind Olivier H having lovers if he kept the marriage intact and kept the women away from home. When he got too involved with Diana she told him to finis it.. He did but Di kept pursuing him with phone calls.
With Will Carling, Diana flirted iwht him. some say had an affair with him, and clearly didn't care that HIS wife was not too happy with their relationship. IIRC from Andrew Morton's' book, he said that Di still had a phone relationship with Will C, even when she was starting to see Hasnat Khan.
Knowing what a marriage entails isn't about intelligence it's about knowing your emotions and yourself and if you're still "preferring" someone else you probably shouldn't be getting married so that's no excuse for hurting someone else. It happened and people have moved on and he seems happy so I guess it is what it is. As far as Diana's affairs, I can't comment since this thread isn't about her and that's been discussed elsewhere
Quote from: cate1949 on October 10, 2014, 01:09:07 AM
Charles affairs with married women and their husbands acquiescence to those affairs is well documented.
I do think this is relevant to the discussion because it goes to his sense of expectations - he learned from those affairs and the husbands complicity in those affairs that he was "special" and normal rules did not apply to him. That sense would have been brought into his marriage to Diana and would have informed his behavior.
I'd just like to also object to the idea that Diana had psychological problems which were hereditary - she may have - but we do not know nor is the state of understanding about the role of heredity in mental disorders that advanced.
that we can say with any surety that her problems were inherited. I know there are royal commentators from the family who do make those assertions - but I do not think it is a reasonable thing to say. IMHO.
Back to Charles - it is often said that his family are a bit emotionally repressed - someone who would express their feelings like Diana would make a person who is emotionally repressed very uncomfortable - if you cannot deal with your own feelings you certainly cannot handle someone elses.
I'd like to point out that the "mental illness" of Diana spin comes from Charles sympathizers. She had an eating disorder that she got under control.
Double post auto-merged: October 10, 2014, 01:55:28 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 10, 2014, 01:22:58 PM
I think that Andrew and Camilla had a fairly good relationship in some ways but he was a real "woman chaser" and was not faithful and she got tired of it after a while and took up with Charles and began to find him a more congenial companion. As time went by I think that Andrew wanted to marry his second wife and would have asked for a divorce, but by then he didn't want to expose Cam to the gossip if he left her, and there were so many rumors that she and Charles were lovers. So he waited till Charles spoke about the affair and then he went for a divorce. once they divorced however I think they've remained good friends, because they were in love, at the first and while their marriage hasn't' lasted, their friendly relationsnip has...
and of course Charles knew what "marriage entailed"... He's not an idiot. I think that he was a bit unsure that he and Di were going to work out but once he and she had gotten engaged, that was it.. it was impossible to get out of it. and when they married, it as supposed to be absolutely impossible for them to divorce. Di knew that just as well.. but she chose to act in such a way that she was in essence ending the marriage.
But I think that left to himself Charles would have gone on in the marriage all his life, and looked the other way if Diana had lovers. he would have remained with Camilla in private... It was not a perfect solution but I think that it would have kept the RF from scandal, kept the marriage intact and caused less stress to Will and harry and its more than likely that Diana would not have died young.
And Di was the one who seems to have "Not cared" if the wives of her admirers didn't like her relationships with them. I think that Mrs hoare didn't mind Olivier H having lovers if he kept the marriage intact and kept the women away from home. When he got too involved with Diana she told him to finis it.. He did but Di kept pursuing him with phone calls.
With Will Carling, Diana flirted iwht him. some say had an affair with him, and clearly didn't care that HIS wife was not too happy with their relationship. IIRC from Andrew Morton's' book, he said that Di still had a phone relationship with Will C, even when she was starting to see Hasnat Khan.
Camilla should not have been "surprised." She and APB cheated on each other while they were dating.
I do think that the Diana-Carling references are off topic since this is about Charles. It is off topic.
Well Charles was not totally repelled by his bride, they conceived two children within the first three years. Charles wanted heirs IMO and got them. Why else would he have courted a teenager? Young, fertile, and blue blooded.
Double post auto-merged: October 10, 2014, 01:57:01 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 10, 2014, 12:35:44 PM
but you cant' just turn off your emotions like that. People do still sometimes carry a torch for an old lover, and I think that Charles did feel that he would always be friends with Camilla, and he lived quite close to her and he needed to see her at times.. and she was part of the Royal social circle so it was likely that they would meet at times.
Di knew that. as for the cheating, I think, given that they couldn't divorce, and had made a mistake in marrying, what were they supposed to do? Di's fans seem to think it was OK for her to take lovers because her marriage had failed. Why wasn't it all right for Charles to do so?
Charles came into the marriage preferring his mistress. Diana had no past. It was not all right for Charles to do what he did-even before he courted Diana.
Double post auto-merged: October 10, 2014, 01:58:06 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 10, 2014, 07:27:24 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on October 09, 2014, 07:28:59 PM
^Probably, but it didn't. He thought he could live the way he wanted and it promptly blew up in his face.
I don't believe that was really the case. I don't beelive that he intented to continue his affair with Camilla. I think that he hoped that he and Di would work out, albeit I think that during their engagement he was beginning to have some doubts that he had made the right choice, but once they were engaged it was almost imposislbe ot get out of it. And he hoped the marriage would work... but knew that he still cared a lot for Camilla and probably she would be the one he loved most. however I think that he just kept in touch wit her a bit during the first few years, because he knew Diana would not accept his being good friends with hr... and as time went by and he realised that he and Di were a hopeless case, he did then return to her bed.. but I can't see what else he was supposed to do. he and Diana were unhappy and prorlbaby the physical side of their marriage was not good esp since she was ill. Why would she want him to be physically intimate wit her when she got on badly with him and she was ill? He left her alone, and went back to Cam and when Di got some control over her bulimia she too went out and found herself a lover. it wasn't' a perfect solution and I think that Charles was aware of the risks, but he hoped they would get by, and that Diana would be aware that if she "outed" his affair, there was a chance that her own affair would be made public as well.... However if she had remained discreet, while there was gossip and speculation, and the phone calls, being made public, it was still possible to "stare the media down" and ignore the gossip and I think that would have been far better for all concerned. I had my doubts about his marrying Camilla, but I think that when he and Di divorced it was probably inevitable and she's proved OK as Duchess of Cornwall and I think the family get on reasonably well with her, including the boys. He's hardly the first POW to have an extra marital affair and I think he did try and keep it discreet, it was largely owing ot modern technology and Di's outing the affair that ti really became public...
Double post auto-merged: October 10, 2014, 07:36:33 AM
Quote from: cate1949 on October 10, 2014, 01:09:07 AM
I'd just like to also object to the idea that Diana had psychological problems which were hereditary - she may have - but we do not know nor is the state of understanding about the role of heredity in mental disorders that advanced.
that we can say with any surety that her problems were inherited. .
Back to
Regardless of whether the problems are hereditary or not, I think she certainly had problems. I think that she was ver needy, she was immature at the time of her marriage and sicne she did her growing up in a very "bubble like" environment, she didn't mature very steadily. I think she was hard to live with and any man would have found it difficult esp someone who by his position In life is bound to be somewhat spoiled. I think that he DID try to look after her, and to understand her but he found ti difficult. She was very different ot him, and very much younger. Other men who loved her, even when she was older, also found her "drama queen" ways a bit hard to cope with. Ther are issues like her pushing her stepmother, allegedly throwing herself down the stairs to frighten Charles while Pregnant.. these things are either the result of her being very selfish or having same problems. I don't believe she was "mad" or "bad" but she wasn't an angel and she did have problems that made her hard to cope with at close quarters. and she and C were just too different to fit well together. As for his "attitude to men's' wives" I don't think he was all that differnet to many men of the upper classes who felt that (while divorce is now easily available) that it was necessary to break up one's marriage over an affair..
Diana discussion is off topic isn't it? Why is she talked about in the thread. That's why the Charles thread was created. Because there was objection to talk of Charles in the Diana thread. Now there is a Charles thread, the same rules should apply.
Double post auto-merged: October 10, 2014, 02:15:00 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on October 10, 2014, 01:32:40 PM
Knowing what a marriage entails isn't about intelligence it's about knowing your emotions and yourself and if you're still "preferring" someone else you probably shouldn't be getting married so that's no excuse for hurting someone else. It happened and people have moved on and he seems happy so I guess it is what it is. As far as Diana's affairs, I can't comment since this thread isn't about her and that's been discussed elsewhere
Yeah it happened. And to the relief of his fans Charles is happy at last. Diana did not get chance to be happy
Absolutely Charles shouldn't have married someone he didn't know that well and wasn't sure about. And he shouldn't have cheated on her.
Does that mean he should be miserable forever, though? He did some bad things. Most people do at some point. I don't have any trouble recognizing that Charles behaved badly. I do have trouble with the idea that even DECADES later he shouldn't be allowed to move on with his life.
I hold Charles more responsible than Diana for the early problems in the marriage (that they got married at all, that he seems to have cheated first, etc.). But by the time we got the "war of the Wales" I think they were both very much at fault, as it really brought out the worst in BOTH parties. I can see how it escalated -- they were stuck in a marriage they didn't think they could get out of, they clearly had irreconcilable differences by that point, and they both wanted to get their side of the story out and the press lapped up every word. At the same time, they both behaved pretty appallingly.
But since his first marriage ended, Charles has shown himself to be a good father and has worked hard for many worthy causes. He's made a happy and stable marriage with his second wife, and around her has really loosened up and shown a warmer and more engaging side of his personality. His behavior in the 80s and early 90s is certainly a piece of the picture, but I don't think it's the whole thing.
I wholeheartedly agree Canuck. You've summed up the situation very well and acknowledged (again) Charles bad behavior. You certainly do not give the man a "free pass."
If I recall correctly Diana wanted to call off the wedding the night of the wedding ball. The first of many humiliations occurred there when Camilla dancing with Charles was wearing the bracelet engraved with FG that they argued over a few days before. The Queen had Diana's sisters talk to her and that famous line " Tough luck Duch your face is on the tea towels " came out. Charles even sent her a note that calmed her down. Over the years Charles and his friends humiliated Diana at every turn protecting Camilla and her reputation leaking stories all that favored Charles.
[mod]Just a gentle reminder that this thread is about Charles :flower:[/mod]
Quote from: Canuck on October 10, 2014, 02:23:51 PM
Absolutely Charles shouldn't have married someone he didn't know that well and wasn't sure about. And he shouldn't have cheated on her.
Does that mean he should be miserable forever, though? He did some bad things. Most people do at some point. I don't have any trouble recognizing that Charles behaved badly. I do have trouble with the idea that even DECADES later he shouldn't be allowed to move on with his life.
I hold Charles more responsible than Diana for the early problems in the marriage (that they got married at all, that he seems to have cheated first, etc.). But by the time we got the "war of the Wales" I think they were both very much at fault, as it really brought out the worst in BOTH parties. I can see how it escalated -- they were stuck in a marriage they didn't think they could get out of, they clearly had irreconcilable differences by that point, and they both wanted to get their side of the story out and the press lapped up every word. At the same time, they both behaved pretty appallingly.
But since his first marriage ended, Charles has shown himself to be a good father and has worked hard for many worthy causes. He's made a happy and stable marriage with his second wife, and around her has really loosened up and shown a warmer and more engaging side of his personality. His behavior in the 80s and early 90s is certainly a piece of the picture, but I don't think it's the whole thing.
Charles wants what he wants when he wants it. What if he grew up and dumped the mistress totally and no contact. And move from the proximity to her. And worked on his marriage. I think he and Diana could have made a go of it without Charles knowing he could always run to Camilla. Maybe just maybe he could have been "happy" without the mistress around if he grew up and felt he did not need more than "one wife" to make him a happy man. He even made some snide comment about needing two wives which Diana flinched at.
An impartial marriage counselor instead of seeking "help" from Camilla and his sycophantic friends may have worked wonders.
Charles can do what he pleases and does he care about people criticizing him? I doubt it, he just grabs for his happiness as he had been doing for years and at other's expense. Nobody is stopping the old boy from moving ahead. And anybody can criticize him if they want to. But he has his spin doctors out there working away. How happy is he with Camilla? Only he knows. Whatever happens there can be no divorce and Camilla always has Raymill to retreat to.
Charles did look happy with Diana early on. Maybe if Camilla had given up her Sugar Daddy things would have been different and also if Charles had manned up and dropped the mistress it would have made a world of difference.
Ironically I don't think Charles ever thought of Camilla as royal wife material. And no I don't buy that he was not allowed to marry her. He did not even try. She won by default since Charles outed her via his authorized biography in 1994. Her father asked what he would do about her now. And her husband promptly divorced her. Charles had no choice at that time. It is subject to speculation if Diana put up with the affair and Charles emotional distance from her, if he would have married Camilla at all and she just remained the Mistress.
I also don't get why some people think it is so paramount that the man be made "happy."
Charles always worked hard even during his marriage to Diana; So Camilla did not bring about the hard work. Let's not overstate the woman's influence please. And he was a good father with his first wife around.
Sure, it probably would have been better to cut off contact with Camilla entirely when he married Diana. But even if Charles is 100% to blame for his first marriage going wrong and he and Diana would have been entirely compatible and happy if he had just behaved better, that isn't what happened. And what we're left with by the time of the "war of the Wales" is two people who are totally unable to make things work anymore and clearly cannot stay married.
It is speculation only that it would not have worked out without Camilla around. Charles did not have an incentive to try very hard knowing Camilla was available for him. That was the issue.
Some objective help could have worked wonders for Charles and Diana and they could have worked on the marriage without the third party always available and also working to undermine Diana.
Charles I think had lofty visions of himself and being "above" being accountable to the rules that mere mortals try to follow.
Right, but that's what I said -- let's assume the Charles and Diana marriage would have been absolutely fabulous and problem-free if he had just stayed away from Camilla. Obviously, Charles didn't do that. And by the time the "War of the Wales" happened, I think we can all agree the marriage was not going to be saved -- Charles and Diana were both cheating on each other, they were both spreading stories in the press, they were both making public confessions about how terrible their marriage was.
No marriage is problem free. But working on it totally without a third party around could have given the marriage more of a chance. Marriage takes work. Charles did emotionally and physically leave Diana after Harry was born and was meeting up with Camilla at the hunts and they were in touch. It did not have to be a physical affair to help estrange him from Diana but the emotional dependence he had gotten used to with Camilla. That eroded the marriage. Big Time. Some writers claim they still had a chance back in 1983 to work things out. But his friends already began putting down Diana.
Charles was overheard by the Housekeeper during a row with Diana telling her "Do You Know Who I am?: That says it all.
I think we're talking past each other to some extent. I'm accepting, for present purposes, that Charles was 100% to blame for the marriage initially going wrong and that it would have (or likely would have) been a totally good and happy marriage if he had just stayed away from Camilla and behaved himself.
But since this is a post about the War of the Wales, my point is that by the time they got to the 90s and that "war" entered the public consciousness, there was no way they were going to be able to remain married. Both were behaving badly, both were putting out stories, it was a total mess on all sides.
No not in the nineties. Charles began public put downs of Diana and no way would she have lived a lie. And he was more and more flaunting his relationship with Camilla even having Camilla playing hostess for him at Highgrove.
But the early eighties they had a chance. Especially if Charles went into the marriage with a clean slate. Not just not sleeping with Camilla but no more contact with her. Charles pals started putting out stories to the press about Diana in the mid to late eighties apparently with Charles blessing. Camilla was there ringing up the Sun Editor. This was more than incompatibility it was people trying to sabotage a marriage and undermine the wife. Morton did not come from a vacuum, Diana wanted to put her side out she saw all the leaks to the press.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on October 10, 2014, 01:32:40 PM
Knowing what a marriage entails isn't about intelligence it's about knowing your emotions and yourself and if you're still "preferring" someone else you probably shouldn't be getting married so that's no excuse for hurting someone else. It happened and people have moved on and elsewhere
I can't quite see that./ I'm sure that Charles realised by 1980 or so that he cared a lot for Camilla and that she would probably have bee his ideal woman.. but for one thing it was his duty to get married and for another, many people probably marry, having had a deep Love for someone else. They do it for all sorts of reasons.. the one they love is already married, or unavailable.. they are lonely or want children.
It does not mean that they may not love another person, perhaps Not as deeply but "well enough" to make a marriage work. If Charles felt that he cared for Di, that she seemed to be a girl who shared his interests, who was Sweet and affectionate and who had caught his attention, I think that he and she had a reasonable chance of happiness. However the problem was that Diana didn't share his interests.. sshe SEEMED like a perfect princess and in many ways she was.. but she was not fully aware of what was expected of her as a Royal and a princess of wales. she was clearly fragile as she became bulimic during the engagement or the early months of the marriage. If he had kept away from Camilla completely for a few yers, and Diana had not been so fragile and finding it so hard to adjust to marriage and the RF, they might have worked out. even if it didn't, they could have just quietly gone their separate ways, made the best of what they had which was mostly the children, and quietly lived separate lives... I think that it was larlgey Di who couldn't or wouldn't do that....
Double post auto-merged: October 10, 2014, 06:09:29 PM
Quote from: Canuck on October 10, 2014, 03:24:17 PM
Right, but that's what I said -- let's assume the Charles and Diana marriage would have been absolutely fabulous and problem-free if he had just stayed away from Camilla. Obviously, Charles didn't do that.
But it wasn't Canuck. They Had noting in common hardly.. they clearly didn't hit it off that well sexually. Diana hated Balmoral and the Royal "country lifestyle". She had different ideas of how to bring up the boys, she did the "Royal engagements" work well but in a very different way to her husband and most of the family, and increasingly "went her own way" in how she did it... She had a different circle of friends to Charles and didn't like his friends much. Di complained about Camilla, in Morton but she also complained about a LOT of other things as well, all the things I've mentioned..about how formal the Royal family were, how she found them daunting, esp the queen (who wasn't too Keen on how she conducted herself in private)...I don't believe that a marriage would be that bad JUST over another woman.. if she and Charles had had interests in common, enjoyed each others company most of the time, they would have had a bond that while another woman might harm it, it couldn't really knock the marriage to bits the way it clearly was...
^If that's your opinion, that's fine.
amabel, I wasn't saying that was true. I think it's fairly obvious from my posts here that I don't believe Charles was the sole person responsible for every single thing that went wrong in that marriage.
In the post you quoted, I was making the point that EVEN IF the marriage would have been perfect if Charles had given up Camilla, that doesn't really have anything to do with what was going on in the 90s when things had irretrievably broken down.
I see. But yeah In the 90s obviously they Had gotten to a stage where Di was NOT prepared to tolerate the marriage any longer and I think Char was almost as fed up. maybe not as bad because he Had the tradition of keeping things "discreet" more than she had.. but I think he was just sick of it all, that he felt his marriage was a complete wreck and could not even be tolerated as an arrangement any more, and that he was never sure what Di was going to do next...they had NO common ground, not even keeping things up in public.. and he did things that he probably normally would not do, like letting his friends brief the press and doing his Dimbley interview...
Yeah, that's what I think as well. They obviously both behaved appallingly in the 90s, but I can't say I'm sure I would have done better in their situation, given how they were in sort of a cycle of escalation -- one told the press something, so the other tried to put their side of it out, which prompted the first to one-up things again, etc. I can imagine, with the world's media lapping up every second of it, that it would have been far too tempting to keep trying to explain my side of things and get a few jabs in at the other party every time they had just done the same to me.
I suppose but I dotn think Charles would have done it without Di's first doing Morton. I think that he should have resisted the temptation and so should she....
Quote from: Canuck on October 10, 2014, 06:38:04 PM
amabel, I wasn't saying that was true. I think it's fairly obvious from my posts here that I don't believe Charles was the sole person responsible for every single thing that went wrong in that marriage.
In the post you quoted, I was making the point that EVEN IF the marriage would have been perfect if Charles had given up Camilla, that doesn't really have anything to do with what was going on in the 90s when things had irretrievably broken down.
Yes but without Camilla maybe the bad stuff in the 1990s would not have happened. It's all speculation. And Charles, Camilla and Diana did not just land into the 1990s there was a whole history that led up to it.
Camilla gets another free pass.
Double post auto-merged: October 10, 2014, 11:58:35 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 10, 2014, 06:04:12 PM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on October 10, 2014, 01:32:40 PM
Knowing what a marriage entails isn't about intelligence it's about knowing your emotions and yourself and if you're still "preferring" someone else you probably shouldn't be getting married so that's no excuse for hurting someone else. It happened and people have moved on and elsewhere
I can't quite see that./ I'm sure that Charles realised by 1980 or so that he cared a lot for Camilla and that she would probably have bee his ideal woman.. but for one thing it was his duty to get married and for another, many people probably marry, having had a deep Love for someone else. They do it for all sorts of reasons.. the one they love is already married, or unavailable.. they are lonely or want children.
It does not mean that they may not love another person, perhaps Not as deeply but "well enough" to make a marriage work. If Charles felt that he cared for Di, that she seemed to be a girl who shared his interests, who was Sweet and affectionate and who had caught his attention, I think that he and she had a reasonable chance of happiness. However the problem was that Diana didn't share his interests.. sshe SEEMED like a perfect princess and in many ways she was.. but she was not fully aware of what was expected of her as a Royal and a princess of wales. she was clearly fragile as she became bulimic during the engagement or the early months of the marriage. If he had kept away from Camilla completely for a few yers, and Diana had not been so fragile and finding it so hard to adjust to marriage and the RF, they might have worked out. even if it didn't, they could have just quietly gone their separate ways, made the best of what they had which was mostly the children, and quietly lived separate lives... I think that it was larlgey Di who couldn't or wouldn't do that....
Double post auto-merged: October 10, 2014, 06:09:29 PM
Quote from: Canuck on October 10, 2014, 03:24:17 PM
Right, but that's what I said -- let's assume the Charles and Diana marriage would have been absolutely fabulous and problem-free if he had just stayed away from Camilla. Obviously, Charles didn't do that.
But it wasn't Canuck. They Had noting in common hardly.. they clearly didn't hit it off that well sexually. Diana hated Balmoral and the Royal "country lifestyle". She had different ideas of how to bring up the boys, she did the "Royal engagements" work well but in a very different way to her husband and most of the family, and increasingly "went her own way" in how she did it... She had a different circle of friends to Charles and didn't like his friends much. Di complained about Camilla, in Morton but she also complained about a LOT of other things as well, all the things I've mentioned..about how formal the Royal family were, how she found them daunting, esp the queen (who wasn't too Keen on how she conducted herself in private)...I don't believe that a marriage would be that bad JUST over another woman.. if she and Charles had had interests in common, enjoyed each others company most of the time, they would have had a bond that while another woman might harm it, it couldn't really knock the marriage to bits the way it clearly was...
Many couples don't have the same interests and have happy marriages. Charles knew when he courted teenage Diana she was not that involved in country pursuits so unless he was totally vacuous he knew that she did not like hunting.
Charles was supposed to gently instruct Diana about sex. That's why Mountbatten wanted him to sow wild oats, get experience, marry a virgin and teach the virgin. Charles could not have been bothered to "teach" Diana.
Double post auto-merged: October 11, 2014, 12:00:47 AM
Quote from: Canuck on October 10, 2014, 06:38:04 PM
amabel, I wasn't saying that was true. I think it's fairly obvious from my posts here that I don't believe Charles was the sole person responsible for every single thing that went wrong in that marriage.
In the post you quoted, I was making the point that EVEN IF the marriage would have been perfect if Charles had given up Camilla, that doesn't really have anything to do with what was going on in the 90s when things had irretrievably broken down.
the point is that had he given up Camilla maybe it would not have irretrievably broken down. It has a lot to do with it. Nobody knows what would have happened if Charles had given up Camilla so how do you know so definitively it would have irretrievably broken down even without Camilla?
Double post auto-merged: October 11, 2014, 12:02:08 AM
Quote from: amabel on October 10, 2014, 10:55:09 PM
I suppose but I dotn think Charles would have done it without Di's first doing Morton. I think that he should have resisted the temptation and so should she....
Charles already did. His friends leaked stories to the press about Diana.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on October 10, 2014, 06:18:00 PM
^If that's your opinion, that's fine.
People don't alaways marry for "perfect love" and marriages made for love often break down.
Double post auto-merged: October 12, 2014, 07:02:02 AM
Quote from: Canuck on October 10, 2014, 06:38:04 PM
amabel, I wasn't saying that was true. I think it's fairly obvious from my posts here that I don't believe
In the post you quoted, I was making the point that EVEN IF the marriage would have been perfect if Charles had given up Camilla, that doesn't really have anything to do with what was going on in the 90s when things had irretrievably broken down.
Of course there are cases where a marriage is fairly good and a husband (or wife) turns to another lover sometimes just for sex, sometime just for variety, and either the marriage goes on, and the affair wears out, or the marriage ends in divorce, but might not have done so but for the affair. However, I think that where people turn to another partner for more than "just sex", there are probably issues in the marriage. But it just seems blindingly obvious with Charles and Di that they just didn't work out well from early on. and that the issues didn't all have to do with C's lingering feelings for Camilla. I take your point about this thread being about the 90s when the marriage had broken down. I think that neither of them shone there. It might have been possible to keep things quiet, keep the marriage intact, not a perfect solution, but once they started sniping at each other in the papers etc, it was really likely to be over. even if they DID want to break up, I think that they cold have refrained from the public cat calling, making the whole mess so public, upsetting their children. If they Had both reached a point that they were determined on divorce then, what they should have done was to keep on bashing away telling the queen that the marriage was over, and that they both wanted out, and that if she agreed, they'd keep the divorce as polite and "non confrontational" as possible. Of course they were jockeying for position. Charles feared if he divorced, he might be pushed into giving up his place in the succession, and Diana feared losing her public position if she wasn't going to be queen... so they were competing for the favour of the public...
amabel while Charles feared being pushed into giving up his place in the succession Diana feared losing her children not her position because if that was the case she wouldn't have wanted out in the first place she would have just sat back and let Charles have his mistress.
Quote from: amabel on October 12, 2014, 06:52:47 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on October 10, 2014, 06:18:00 PM
^If that's your opinion, that's fine.
People don't alaways marry for "perfect love" and marriages made for love often break down.
Double post auto-merged: October 12, 2014, 07:02:02 AM
Quote from: Canuck on October 10, 2014, 06:38:04 PM
amabel, I wasn't saying that was true. I think it's fairly obvious from my posts here that I don't believe
In the post you quoted, I was making the point that EVEN IF the marriage would have been perfect if Charles had given up Camilla, that doesn't really have anything to do with what was going on in the 90s when things had irretrievably broken down.
Of course there are cases where a marriage is fairly good and a husband (or wife) turns to another lover sometimes just for sex, sometime just for variety, and either the marriage goes on, and the affair wears out, or the marriage ends in divorce, but might not have done so but for the affair. However, I think that where people turn to another partner for more than "just sex", there are probably issues in the marriage. But it just seems blindingly obvious with Charles and Di that they just didn't work out well from early on. and that the issues didn't all have to do with C's lingering feelings for Camilla. I take your point about this thread being about the 90s when the marriage had broken down. I think that neither of them shone there. It might have been possible to keep things quiet, keep the marriage intact, not a perfect solution, but once they started sniping at each other in the papers etc, it was really likely to be over. even if they DID want to break up, I think that they cold have refrained from the public cat calling, making the whole mess so public, upsetting their children. If they Had both reached a point that they were determined on divorce then, what they should have done was to keep on bashing away telling the queen that the marriage was over, and that they both wanted out, and that if she agreed, they'd keep the divorce as polite and "non confrontational" as possible. Of course they were jockeying for position. Charles feared if he divorced, he might be pushed into giving up his place in the succession, and Diana feared losing her public position if she wasn't going to be queen... so they were competing for the favour of the public...
It had everything to do with Camilla. Charles did not think of random women when he thought of sex and relationships he thought of Camilla.
Diana said to her friends she'd never be Queen. As trudie indicated she was afraid of losing custody of the boys. Technically they belonged to the Crown and the Queen could take over decisions about their upbringing.
Quote from: Eri on October 07, 2014, 08:12:24 PM
^ Do we really need to go through Di's long list of lovers? Don't throw stones while living in Di's glass house ...
where did she have a "Long list" of lovers? yeah she Had some... but that's normal. Charles had lovers before he married. Diana had none before her marriage but she certainly had at least one affair while she and Ch were living "in a marriage" and she had a few after she and C separated, including Hasnat Khan and Ol Hoare. Again normal after a divorce or separation to have some boyfriends before you settle down again, or just remain single...
This thread is about Charles.
How about this thread to discuss the late PoW during those years instead of the others. :)
Double post auto-merged: October 28, 2014, 10:10:49 PM
I've made one for Charles and one for Camilla as well.
Since I've created them for Charles and Diana it would be unfair if she didn't have her own.
Diana said she knew about C and C but "was not in a position to do anything about it" according to the Bashir interview.
You're welcome.
Diana was the patron of over 100 charities and foundations during her tenure as Princess of Wales. She did choose to end her patronage with 100 of them the day after her marriage ended though she retained the patronage of: Centrepoint, English National Ballet, Leprosy Mission, National Aids Trust, President of both Great Ormond St. Hospital and the Royal Marsden Hospital.
She famously auctioned off dresses for charity and lent her support to ban the use of landmines.
While I admire her for retaining some of her charities and working with new ones, I do believe that her former ones would have appreciated more notice in order to find a new patron. A high profile one like Diana would have been very attractive to potential donors.
She was no longer an HRH, divorced, and she was regrouping. Diana's charities did not hold this against her--they were front and center at her Funeral Service paying Tribute to her. I don't get why she is slammed, she was making a new life for herself and since she died at 36 nobody knows what she would have done--I do think Diana did give the charities a heads up ahead of time. She was in the planning stage and discussing her future role with Tony Blair.
Mandela did not consider her a "quitter" nor anyone else since she was not slammed by them for "quitting."
It's not as if she lived 50 more years and did very little for the rest of her life. Give her a break.
i think Camilla's behaviour was pretty reprehensible from the start of Charles's marriage, actually. I think it's pretty
clear that she always intended to be there, lurking in the background. Her questioning of Diana before the marriage about whether she would hunt made that clear.
I agree that Charles and Diana had little in common, the age gap was too large, and their characters were not complementary. The marriage would not have been very successful anyway, I feel, and I have said lots of times Charles should have not married such a young and inexperienced girl, but that does not excuse a very large snake in the grass hanging about in the background of Charles's life, just waiting for an opportunity.
Diana did turn to other men when her marriage failed. However those other men weren't chatting to journalists for ten years, questioning Charles before he married as to his hobbies, so they could be there in his absence.
Hewitt didn't take over as a host at dinner parties at KP, Hoare didn't arrange assignations for years at friends' houses or chat to journalists, Manakee didn't disappear with Diana for a tete a tete at a party which both Diana and Charles attended. Camilla did all these things and more.
It's clear the PBs' had an open marriage. "you don't spoil my fun and I won't interfere with yours." However it takes a special kind of chutzpah or sheer arrogance to host dinner parties as a married woman at your lover's home, especially when it was nominally his marital home.
While I admire her work, I stand by my statement that I believe they would have appreciated more notice that she was resigning her position instead of doing so the day after the divorce was announced. :)
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2014, 12:08:55 AM
Quote from: Curryong on October 29, 2014, 12:06:56 AM
i think Camilla's behaviour was pretty reprehensible from the start of Charles's marriage, actually. I think it's pretty
clear that she always intended to be there, lurking in the background. Her questioning of Diana before the marriage about whether she would hunt made that clear.
I agree that Charles and Diana had little in common, the age gap was too large, and their characters were not complementary. The marriage would not have been very successful anyway, I feel, and I have said lots of times Charles should have not married such a young and inexperienced girl, but that does not excuse a very large snake in the grass hanging about in the background of Charles's life, just waiting for an opportunity.
Diana did turn to other men when her marriage failed. However those other men weren't chatting to journalists for ten years, questioning Charles before he married as to his hobbies, so they could be there in his absence.
Hewitt didn't take over as a host at dinner parties at KP, Hoare didn't arrange assignations for years at friends' houses or chat to journalists, Manakee didn't disappear with Diana for a tete a tete at a party which both Diana and Charles attended. Camilla did all these things and more.
It's clear the PBs' had an open marriage. "you don't spoil my fun and I won't interfere with yours." However it takes a special kind of chutzpah or sheer arrogance to host dinner parties as a married woman at your lover's home, especially when it was nominally his marital home.
:goodpost: Just an FYI there is a separate thread for Camilla over in the PoW/DoC board.
Camilla was in the marriage from the get go, even making it clear to the bride she was going nowhere by giving Charles little presents to wear on his honeymoon. She did not want to give up the Prince to his young wife. If she had been a decent woman she'd have cut off all contact with Charles. Charles should have had the backbone to stop all contact with her.
But how do you know how much notice she gave them. She made the public announcement which does not necessarily mean she did not let them know ahead of time. She died young and for all you know she might have gone back to some of them. All I know is they did not get in a snit since the reps of the charities came to her Funeral and honored her work with charities. i
I admire the way Diana handled herself during the war of the Wales. Diana took on her powerful errant husband and family making sure she had some control and say so in the upbringing of her children. Diana also maintained a strong work schedule and did not shy away from her responsibility as POW.
Quote from: sandy on October 29, 2014, 12:12:34 AM
But how do you know how much notice she gave them. She made the public announcement which does not necessarily mean she did not let them know ahead of time. She died young and for all you know she might have gone back to some of them. All I know is they did not get in a snit since the reps of the charities came to her Funeral and honored her work with charities. i
From what I have read they were informed the day following the divorce. While I appreciate that they did show their gratitude at the funeral, I still believe that they would have appreciated a longer notice.
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2014, 12:55:42 AM
I believe that Diana regretted the Bashir interview and the hurt it caused her sons.
IMO Charles should not have done the televised interview where he acknowledged his affair as it hurt his relationship with his sons.
They still could have been notified in advance . Plus Diana was no longer an HRH.
the woman did not live past 36 and was regrouping. I think some slack should be cut.
You may believe that they thought differently -- they were not obligated to attend the Funeral, but they did.
It's not as if Diana lived for another 50 years, she had a major change in her life and had only a year to live after the divorce (though of course she could not predict when she died). Some perspective on this please.
I agree TLLK. I admire the Queen and PP in that regard. Their marriage has gone though rough patches but we never heard a squeak from them publicly. I wish, for the sake of their sons, that neither Charles or Diana would have gone anywhere near writers, journalists or TV cameras.
There wouldn't have been a war of the Wales's at all, (at least not between Charles and Diana), if Charles had just listened to what his heart was telling him, and not treated his father's letter to him about Di as some kind of ultimatum. Stomping about showing it to his friends and complaining is hardly a sign of a mature personality.
Ken Wharfe's book reveals that time after time Charles would arrange to dine with Diana at their home, only to jettison plans at the last minute because he'd invited members of his circle around. She would fly into a rage, he would join his friends pleading a headache for Diana, and she would dine alone.
Diana found polo dull, but when she did make the effort and turn up to watch Charles at a match with the boys, Charles would become frustrated because the attention of journalists present was inevitably on Diana and his sons, not on him, (unless he fell off his polo pony or something). Wharfe records that Charles would make sarcastic remarks like "Quite the glamour girl!" afterwards.
I agree that the DoE and HM have been very discreet regarding the state of their marriage. Apparently during their first Australian tour some photographers witnessed a row between the couple where Phillip came running out of their cottage with tennis rackets and shoes flying after him!!!
Charles should have listened to his father and made more of an effort to be a better husband.
From "Diana Story of a Princess" Tim Clayton, Phil Craig Diana's resignation from over 100 charities announced the day after the divorce.
"Jane Atkinson was against it saying it would look petulant and sulky, but she refused to listen. None of the charities, bar the six she kept working with was informed of her decision until the last minute."
She chose to inform them the day after the divorce announcement against the advice of her staff members. I believe they would have appreciated more notice.
Quote from: Curryong on October 29, 2014, 01:34:41 AM
I agree TLLK. I admire the Queen and PP in that regard. Their marriage has gone though rough patches but we never heard a squeak from them publicly. I wish, for the sake of their sons, that neither Charles or Diana would have gone anywhere near writers, journalists or TV cameras.
There wouldn't have been a war of the Wales's at all, (at least not between Charles and Diana), if Charles had just listened to what his heart was telling him, and not treated his father's letter to him about Di as some kind of ultimatum. Stomping about showing it to his friends and complaining is hardly a sign of a mature personality.
Ken Wharfe's book reveals that time after time Charles would arrange to dine with Diana at their home, only to jettison plans at the last minute because he'd invited members of his circle around. She would fly into a rage, he would join his friends pleading a headache for Diana, and she would dine alone.
that's very well but Charles was at an age where he was supposed to get married and at the time, he Had to choose a virgin. He probably realised he wasn't "deeply in love" with Di, but he had to marry and she was charming, suitiable and seemed to love him. She acted probably not consciously, as if she shared many of his interests, how was he to know she was deceiving herself? If he did let Di go, he would have to sart again with another girl, and ther was pressure from the press, the public and the RF..
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2014, 04:30:43 AM
Quote from: TLLK on October 29, 2014, 01:49:51 AM
I agree that the DoE and HM have been very discreet regarding the state of their marriage. Apparently during their first Australian tour some photographers witnessed a row between the couple where Phillip came running out of their cottage with tennis rackets and shoes flying after him!!!
Charles should have listened to his father and made more of an effort to be a better husband.
Um I'd say that IF Phil's been unfaithful to the Queen, he's probably had many affairs... I think that the queen's tolerated them because she's of a different generation to Di, and she know that Phil cares most for her. I'd hardly say he's a better husband than Charles who would probably hae remain faithful to Diana, if their marriage had worked out. The queen and Phil do share interests and a common outlook, and if he has had other women, she knows that they are not as important to him as she is. Charles and Di just didn't get on, she was ill and difficult, he was not as much in love with her as with Camilla..
Quote from: Curryong on October 29, 2014, 12:06:56 AM
i think Camilla's behaviour was pretty reprehensible from the start of Charles's marriage, actually. I think it's pretty
clear that she always intended to be there, lurking in the background. Her questioning of Diana before the marriage about whether she would hunt made that clear.
I
. However those other men weren't chatting to journalists for ten years, questioning Charles before he married as to his hobbies, so they could be there in his absence.
Hewitt didn't take over as a host at dinner parties at KP, Hoare didn't arrange assignations for years at friends' houses or chat to journalists, Manakee didn't disappear with Diana for a tete a tete at a party which both Diana and Charles attended. Camilla did all these things and more.
Hewitt DID talk far too freely to journalists. He borrowed a journalist's Mobile phone while on active duty, in the war, to talk to Diana, AND he cooperated with a book talking bout his affair with Diana. He did plenty to make his affair with Diana known to the public when chivalry would have dictated that he keep it secret. Manakee was breaking the rules if he had an intimate relationship with Diana.. he was clearly "too familial" which led to his transfer. I'm sorry I can't see why Cam's affair with Charles was breaking some rules that Dis affairs with other men weren't braking. Di's lovers all had secret meeting with her... She and they told lies to cover up, she got Hewitts mother to read his love letters to her over the phone.. and Hewitt and his mother have both talked to the press about the relationship. I can't see why Cam being hostess at a dinner party is something terrible whereas Diana's having dinner with JH and his mother in Devon isn't....Diana also brought her sons along to meetings with her lovers, whereas Charles kept them away from his relationship with Cam.
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2014, 04:50:24 AM
Quote from: TLLK on October 29, 2014, 02:14:05 AM
From "Diana Story of a Princess" Tim Clayton, Phil Craig Diana's resignation from over 100 charities announced the day after the divorce.
"Jane Atkinson was against it saying it would look petulant and sulky, but she refused to listen. None of the charities, bar the six she kept working with was informed of her decision until the last minute."
She chose to inform them the day after the divorce announcement against the advice of her staff members. I believe they would have appreciated more notice.
that's true. Most people were disappoitned that she'd chosen to give up her charities like that. I think that she didn't mean to be difficult but she should not have dropped them all so quickly with no notice..and In SOAP some members of the charities she DID keep complained that she had said she would dedicate herself to mor in depth work for them, but then did very little
Diana took lovers several years into the marriage. Camilla was waiting her chance from the beginning, wanting to know whether Diana was going to hunt etc. It was clear Camilla intended to keep in touch with Charles and await developments.
I'm not saying Diana was a saint, James Hewitt certainly wasn't (though at least he wasn't married) but all those things I wrote about in my post--talking to a journalist, keeping in touch with her ex lover, being hostess at her married lover's house, a house that was a marital home--were all encapsulated in the behaviour of one individual, Camilla, not just spread over the behaviour of several individuals, ie Hewitt, Hoare and co. reprehensible though each of them were.
Quote from: Curryong on October 29, 2014, 06:36:59 AM
Diana took lovers several years into the marriage. Camilla was waiting her chance from the beginning, wanting to know whether Diana
I'm not saying Diana was a saint, James Hewitt certainly wasn't (though at least he wasn't married) but all those things I wrote about in my post--talking to a journalist, keeping in touch with her ex lover, being hostess at her married lover's house, a house that was a marital home--
Well that's a matter of opinion. Diana was the one who put out all this stuff about Cam asking her if she was going to hunt, etc. I think that Possibly Cam felt that if the marriage didn't work out, she was there for Charles... but I don't see that she was necessarily scheming all the time, or pushing it to fail. She probably expected to remain close friends with Charles because in those circles, that's pretty common.. As for her talking to journalist, while I don't like such behaviour, all of them did it. Charles' girlfriends were usually chased by the press and some may have "talked to a reporter"... Stuart H said that he called her on a regular basis and that she would give him a hint as to whether his speculations were right or not. I don't like this behaviour but as a friend of Charles', I think she was likely to have been targeted by the press as someone who knew Charles well and could give them a "yes that's right", when they wanted ot write a story about him.
Also some of his circle did talk, and as the marriage got worse, I think that his Friends DID try to "put his side out there" to the press, because they could see that Di was winning the publicity war, and they wanted "their guy" to have his side of the story told as well.
Besides how is Cam's talking to SH any worse than Di's talking to HER friends in the press, being even caught in Richard Kay's' car briefing him?? (OR indeed James Hewitt's frequent talking to the press hinting at his affair with Di and finally confirming it in a book?).
As for Hosting at a marital home, Hewitt visited Highgrove as well on weekends when C was away.. what's right about that? If he and DI had invite friends to dinner and he played host, is that any worse than his sleeping with Di in her "marital home"? I don't quite understand why Cam's so much worse than Di's lovers. Manakee, if he was a lover, was breaking the rules of his job by sleeping with the woman he was hired to guard.. he was also married - Will C was married, and certainly pursued a flirtation if not an affair with Di.. OL hoare was married, and had kids..
IMO Diana condoned all the behaviour with herself and her men friends that she had attacked C and Cam for. She intruded on marriages, whether as a flirt or a mistress. She lied, she sneaked around. She also involved families and friends in her relationships. She also involved her boys.
I can't really see what Cam did that was worse than what Diana did. Cam may have kept in touch with her lover, but Diana tried when O HOare broke off their affair, to get him back though ti was obvious that he had finished it, and she pursued him with numerous phone calls.
^ :goodpost: :clap: :thumbsup: :happy15: :nod:
Quote from: amabel on October 29, 2014, 08:27:58 AM
Quote from: Curryong on October 29, 2014, 06:36:59 AM
Diana took lovers several years into the marriage. Camilla was waiting her chance from the beginning, wanting to know whether Diana
I'm not saying Diana was a saint, James Hewitt certainly wasn't (though at least he wasn't married) but all those things I wrote about in my post--talking to a journalist, keeping in touch with her ex lover, being hostess at her married lover's house, a house that was a marital home--
Well that's a matter of opinion. Diana was the one who put out all this stuff about Cam asking her if she was going to hunt, etc. I think that Possibly Cam felt that if the marriage didn't work out, she was there for Charles... but I don't see that she was necessarily scheming all the time, or pushing it to fail. She probably expected to remain close friends with Charles because in those circles, that's pretty common.. As for her talking to journalist, while I don't like such behaviour, all of them did it. Charles' girlfriends were usually chased by the press and some may have "talked to a reporter"... Stuart H said that he called her on a regular basis and that she would give him a hint as to whether his speculations were right or not. I don't like this behaviour but as a friend of Charles', I think she was likely to have been targeted by the press as someone who knew Charles well and could give them a "yes that's right", when they wanted ot write a story about him.
Also some of his circle did talk, and as the marriage got worse, I think that his Friends DID try to "put his side out there" to the press, because they could see that Di was winning the publicity war, and they wanted "their guy" to have his side of the story told as well.
Besides how is Cam's talking to SH any worse than Di's talking to HER friends in the press, being even caught in Richard Kay's' car briefing him?? (OR indeed James Hewitt's frequent talking to the press hinting at his affair with Di and finally confirming it in a book?).
As for Hosting at a marital home, Hewitt visited Highgrove as well on weekends when C was away.. what's right about that? If he and DI had invite friends to dinner and he played host, is that any worse than his sleeping with Di in her "marital home"? I don't quite understand why Cam's so much worse than Di's lovers. Manakee, if he was a lover, was breaking the rules of his job by sleeping with the woman he was hired to guard.. he was also married - Will C was married, and certainly pursued a flirtation if not an affair with Di.. OL hoare was married, and had kids..
IMO Diana condoned all the behaviour with herself and her men friends that she had attacked C and Cam for. She intruded on marriages, whether as a flirt or a mistress. She lied, she sneaked around. She also involved families and friends in her relationships. She also involved her boys.
I can't really see what Cam did that was worse than what Diana did. Cam may have kept in touch with her lover, but Diana tried when O HOare broke off their affair, to get him back though ti was obvious that he had finished it, and she pursued him with numerous phone calls.
It was wrong for Camilla to even Think she could "be there" for Charles. She should have butted out. Camilla was in the marriage from the Get Go and got all the marbles. Camilla did much worse. Diana did not seek the press until Charles and Camilla's pals started leaking stories. I see Camila as a sneak and a manipulator.
Hewitt did not take Charles place as Highgrove host. Ever. He did not order servants around like Camilla did. Camilla took over from Diana in her absence.
Charles involved his boys in the campaign to get Camilla accepted.
The Hoares are still married. Camilla was a huge factor in the C and D's marriage breaking up.
Still insisting Mannakee the lover? But exonerate Camilla? Diana denied any affair with Mannakee. And Carling denied any affair but of course there was the Flirting and Diana is tarred and feathered.
Of course Darling Camilla had pure motives in trying to befriend Diana. And of course Charles buddies had all innocent reasons for providing safe houses for C and C. And of course lying to the servants about his whereabouts (by Charles) was for a Noble Cause.
Had Saint Camilla butted out and stopped any involvement with Charles, even marking her territory by sending Charles cufflinks (C and C) on his honeymoon witih Diana with the bride to see. This woman did not get where she is today by being "nice." She even told Charles she hoped an ambulance strike would not end soon (which involved people dying since there was no ambulance) so Hubby would not come home and ruin her fun.
Such double standards!
Charles had his mistress "there for him" so he had little incentive to remain faithful. He did not waste much time in going back to the Mistress waiting in the wings.
She was "ill and difficult." Oh please. So Charles could ditch the ball and chain and rush to Camilla because his wife was "sick." the wife under stress caused the eating disorder plus she had morning sickness bearing the Great Man's children. If he was not as much in love with Diana as Camilla he should not have used Diana as a broodmare and the "morning sickness" must have disgusted the great man to no end.
So let Charles start over if he did not "love" Diana. She was a young girl besotted with him. He was the big deceiver preferring another woman and it is rubbish to blame Diana for "faking" her interests. Everybody knew Diana did not hunt and Charles no doubt did too. If he wanted a woman who hunted then he could have moved on--maybe he could find someone who appreciated his mistress as much as he did.
Quote from: amabel on October 29, 2014, 08:27:58 AM
Quote from: Curryong on October 29, 2014, 06:36:59 AM
Diana took lovers several years into the marriage. Camilla was waiting her chance from the beginning, wanting to know whether Diana
I'm not saying Diana was a saint, James Hewitt certainly wasn't (though at least he wasn't married) but all those things I wrote about in my post--talking to a journalist, keeping in touch with her ex lover, being hostess at her married lover's house, a house that was a marital home--
Well that's a matter of opinion. Diana was the one who put out all this stuff about Cam asking her if she was going to hunt, etc. I think that Possibly Cam felt that if the marriage didn't work out, she was there for Charles... but I don't see that she was necessarily scheming all the time, or pushing it to fail. She probably expected to remain close friends with Charles because in those circles, that's pretty common.. As for her talking to journalist, while I don't like such behaviour, all of them did it. Charles' girlfriends were usually chased by the press and some may have "talked to a reporter"... Stuart H said that he called her on a regular basis and that she would give him a hint as to whether his speculations were right or not. I don't like this behaviour but as a friend of Charles', I think she was likely to have been targeted by the press as someone who knew Charles well and could give them a "yes that's right", when they wanted ot write a story about him.
Also some of his circle did talk, and as the marriage got worse, I think that his Friends DID try to "put his side out there" to the press, because they could see that Di was winning the publicity war, and they wanted "their guy" to have his side of the story told as well.
Besides how is Cam's talking to SH any worse than Di's talking to HER friends in the press, being even caught in Richard Kay's' car briefing him?? (OR indeed James Hewitt's frequent talking to the press hinting at his affair with Di and finally confirming it in a book?).
As for Hosting at a marital home, Hewitt visited Highgrove as well on weekends when C was away.. what's right about that? If he and DI had invite friends to dinner and he played host, is that any worse than his sleeping with Di in her "marital home"? I don't quite understand why Cam's so much worse than Di's lovers. Manakee, if he was a lover, was breaking the rules of his job by sleeping with the woman he was hired to guard.. he was also married - Will C was married, and certainly pursued a flirtation if not an affair with Di.. OL hoare was married, and had kids..
IMO Diana condoned all the behaviour with herself and her men friends that she had attacked C and Cam for. She intruded on marriages, whether as a flirt or a mistress. She lied, she sneaked around. She also involved families and friends in her relationships. She also involved her boys.
I can't really see what Cam did that was worse than what Diana did. Cam may have kept in touch with her lover, but Diana tried when O HOare broke off their affair, to get him back though ti was obvious that he had finished it, and she pursued him with numerous phone calls.
Both camps tried their best in the publicity war/leaks to press and IMO while it worked for short term skirmishes it had a damaging effect on both Charles and Diana's images in the end. However I do believe that the pair were amicable in the years/months after the divorce and before her death in 1997.
I'll say that his love for her was not secondarily a romantic or passionate one. However I do believe he did have some love and affection for the mother of his children.
Quote from: TLLK on October 29, 2014, 02:44:47 PM
I'll say that his love for her was not secondarily a romantic or passionate one. However I do believe he did have some love and affection for the mother of his children.
I think he started off with some romantic feelings. She was very pretty and charming.. she seemed infatuated iwht him. They seemed to have tastes in common and everyone liked her... I think that there was a sexual feeling, which was quite Strong at first. but I think that he DID start to feel uneasy that she was much younger, during their engagement, and perhaps he got an inkling that she wasn't quite the uncomplicated Sweet girl he had thought originally, but once they were engaged it was too late. I think he started to feel that maybe she didn't really understand the implications of being a royal, but he was in the engagement. I think that it was on the honeymoon he really realised that she wasn't gogn to find it easy to fit In and that he himself just wasn't "that into her". And she realised that she wasn't going to be happy with Charles or RF life...I think that she retained some feelings for him, over the years, but he wile having some affection for her, soon fell out of love and returned to Camilla...
TLLK I agree that their war was very bad for the monarchy and for the 2 of them..both as people and as public figures. I think that both of them should have had the common sense to keep their marital problems private and just gone on towards getting a divorce..,. It hurt their sons, I think it made them unhappy, and it eventually disgusted much of the public so damaging the monarchy.
I'm not honestly sure how much they were really getting on better in the last few months. I think that as Sarah Bradford said on a TV programme, later, Di pretended that she'd gotten over the Cam issue and that she was OK with Cam being a part of C's life but she hadn't really...I think that Charles had moved on and was willing ot be amicable with Di, but they were far from close and I don't think he had really gotten over all his anger at her behaviour...
Quote from: TLLK on October 28, 2014, 10:10:15 PM
Since I've created them for Charles and Diana it would be unfair if she didn't have her own.
I think that during the War, bit she remained fairly discreet, and kept out of any talk with the papers. Of coruse she was pretty unpopular then because Di was so popular...
From what I recall reading Diana was willing to say that Charles was a good father and that she'd come to realize it once the divorce was final. So at least from her side she was being more amicable toward him.
Did she? I don't recall that. I think that she did put it out via Morton and her journalist friends that he was a bad father, that the children were of less importance to him than his work his private life etc with the impliciaiton that she was a much better mother than he was as a father. Possibly she backtracked a bit, because I think she was smart enough to realise that too much continued Charles bashing by her side, might have the effect of making the public fed up with the issue and making them begin to feel that she was always harping on her wrongs and spiteful. I cant' help feeling that she was more polite to Charles in the last few months because she was beginning to become aware that her public weren't quite as adoring as before and neither were the press.. so it looked better if she was more pleasant to C and did not bash him all the time. and perhaps she realised that it was hurting the children as well
Quote from: amabel on October 29, 2014, 05:00:08 PM
TLLK I agree that their war was very bad for the monarchy and for the 2 of them..both as people and as public figures. I think that both of them should have had the common sense to keep their marital problems private and just gone on towards getting a divorce..,. It hurt their sons, I think it made them unhappy, and it eventually disgusted much of the public so damaging the monarchy.
I'm not honestly sure how much they were really getting on better in the last few months. I think that as Sarah Bradford said on a TV programme, later, Di pretended that she'd gotten over the Cam issue and that she was OK with Cam being a part of C's life but she hadn't really...I think that Charles had moved on and was willing ot be amicable with Di, but they were far from close and I don't think he had really gotten over all his anger at her behaviour...
Angry at her behavior. Charles was not exactly Prince Charming to her particularly when he put her down in public. sarah Bradford never said Diana "pretended" to get over the Camilla issue.
In 1995 Diana said there were three of us in the marriage. I don't think she "got past" Camilla or forgot what Charles did.
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2014, 11:24:41 PM
Quote from: TLLK on October 29, 2014, 05:46:11 PM
From what I recall reading Diana was willing to say that Charles was a good father and that she'd come to realize it once the divorce was final. So at least from her side she was being more amicable toward him.
There was mistrust on both sides. I doubt Diana appreciated Charles choosing Highgrove to have the highly publicized Camilla birthday party in 1997. They would always have had dealings with each other had Diana lived--they had the boys.
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2014, 11:26:28 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 29, 2014, 05:57:03 PM
Did she? I don't recall that. I think that she did put it out via Morton and her journalist friends that he was a bad father, that the children were of less importance to him than his work his private life etc with the impliciaiton that she was a much better mother than he was as a father. Possibly she backtracked a bit, because I think she was smart enough to realise that too much continued Charles bashing by her side, might have the effect of making the public fed up with the issue and making them begin to feel that she was always harping on her wrongs and spiteful. I cant' help feeling that she was more polite to Charles in the last few months because she was beginning to become aware that her public weren't quite as adoring as before and neither were the press.. so it looked better if she was more pleasant to C and did not bash him all the time. and perhaps she realised that it was hurting the children as well
Diana was still popular as I recall. I don't recall Charles being more popular. He got bad press.
Charles did more than his share bashing Diana--how did the boys like it when he said he felt forced to marry their mother and he wanted heirs. Calling out their mother as little more than an incubator.
Camilla went to the Sun Editor for 10 years. I would not call her Discreet.
I see her as a conniving sneak who deliberately undermined Diana.
Well it did not help Diana on the honeymoon to see the mistress's little trinkets on Charles cuffs. If Charles did not understand why she was upset then I would call him a clueless dolt.
Charles never had to return to Camilla, she was always in Charles life one way or another. Charles Admitted he preferred Camilla to Diana when he married Diana. Call that honest?
Some would like to think Camilla was discreet to the general public to an extent she was. Behind the scenes there was nothing shy or discreet about Camilla. Camilla offering up tidbits to Stuart Higgins, Playing Mistress of the house in Diana's absence and using the Highgrove set for safe houses her ambition was known. How many mistresses have the audacity at a party to disappear with her lover leaving his wife with other guests. That alone spoke volumes about her lack of respect for moral decency at least Diana confronted her and her reply equally showed just how evil she is.
It has not worked for everybody to put it mildly. Some don't buy the "great love" spin or blaming it all on Charles parents and his late ex wife.
"Evil", Trudie? I agree Camilla behaved badly during that time, as did Charles, but I think a little perspective is helpful. Camilla didn't murder anyone, or commit any crimes. She engaged in an affair with a married man, and she did things that were hurtful to that man's wife. I don't condone any of that, but I also don't think it's anywhere close to the worst things that some people do to others.
If she did not do anything really "bad" then how come Charles had to spend megabucks on a spin doctor to try to get her accepted. Saying there are "worse things" does still IMO whitewash what she did. She was in the marriage from the get go.
Quote from: sandy on October 30, 2014, 02:44:58 PM
If she did not do anything really "bad" then how come Charles had to spend megabucks on a spin doctor to try to get her accepted. Saying there are "worse things" does still IMO whitewash what she did. She was in the marriage from the get go.
Where did I say Camilla didn't do anything bad? Really, please show me. I have said over and over and over that she did bad things, that she hurt Diana, that she should not have done what she did.
Do you really not think there are worse things than what Camilla did? People who drive drunk or hit their children or commit murder? It is now "whitewashing" to acknowledge that in the list of terrible things people can do, having an affair with a married man ranks somewhere below those crimes?
I'm not saying Camilla did nothing wrong. I'm saying some PERSPECTIVE about the things Camilla did wrong would be helpful.
As snokitty said there are many forms of evil.
We're not talking ab out people who drive drunk or hit their children.
The thread is about Camilla.
what about the same perspective for Diana offered in her threads instead of the nitpicking over whether or not she had an affair with Mannakee when the woman said she did not.
and Diana was bulimic, unprepared for life and immature
Quote from: Canuck on October 30, 2014, 02:57:59 PM
Quote from: sandy on October 30, 2014, 02:44:58 PM
Where did I say Camilla didn't do anything bad? Really, please show me. I have said over and over and over that she did bad things, that she hurt Diana, that she should not have done what she did.
Do you really not think there are worse things than what Camilla did? People who drive drunk or hit their children or commit murder? It is now "whitewashing" to acknowledge that in the list of terrible things people can do, having an affair with a married man ranks somewhere below those crimes?
well let me just say it again, I can't quite see anything that Cam did, that wasn't pretty much the same as what Di did. Neither of them are "evil". But they were both stupid and selfish at times. Diana also intruded on some other woman's marriage, tried to break it up, chased a married man who wanted to end their affair. She flirted with more than one married man, not caring if their wives didn't like it. She publicised her broken marriage, in such a way that she hurt her children. She tired to damage her husband's prospects of being King...
Quote from: amabel on October 30, 2014, 05:04:28 PM
Quote from: Canuck on October 30, 2014, 02:57:59 PM
Quote from: sandy on October 30, 2014, 02:44:58 PM
Where did I say Camilla didn't do anything bad? Really, please show me. I have said over and over and over that she did bad things, that she hurt Diana, that she should not have done what she did.
Do you really not think there are worse things than what Camilla did? People who drive drunk or hit their children or commit murder? It is now "whitewashing" to acknowledge that in the list of terrible things people can do, having an affair with a married man ranks somewhere below those crimes?
well let me just say it again, I can't quite see anything that Cam did, that wasn't pretty much the same as what Di did. Neither of them are "evil". But they were both stupid and selfish at times. Diana also intruded on some other woman's marriage, tried to break it up, chased a married man who wanted to end their affair. She flirted with more than one married man, not caring if their wives didn't like it. She publicised her broken marriage, in such a way that she hurt her children. She tired to damage her husband's prospects of being King...
:goodpost: There were many people who were only thinking of themselves during that time. :(
They were 3 people trapped in a messy situation. I don't really blame anyone greatly for what They did, per se, but if Cam is going to get attacked all the time, when she did much the same as Diana, I can't see why....And Diana was the one who made the big fuss about her husband being "stolen by Cam" so why did she go and do the same to other women?
If Di had had an affair or 2, kept it quiet and let Charles and Cam get on with their love affair, and managed to keep up a civilised relationship with her husband, she'd probably still be alive today...
Wrong amabel there was one trapped Diana. Camilla vetted and encouraged the match with Charles realizing just how naive Diana was and at the time divorce was not a viable option. Diana went into the marriage blindly believing Charles loved her and Camilla was a safe married friend who at one time he dated. What Camilla did was pure evil to do to anyone and undermining the marriage. No one knows for sure if Diana did have an affair with Oliver Hoare and she surely didn't do to Hoares wife what Camilla did pretending to befriend her before the marriage vetting her to keep her status as a mistress. Camilla played it smart publicly to an extent but the truth came out anyway and her behavior after Diana's death left no one in doubt as to her ambition just look to Emilie Van Cutsem and you can see why.
I do think Camilla's behavior was despicable and without concern for a whole host of people including her and C and D's kids. But then again the whole crew of them were incredibly careless people - as if behavior was not going to have consequences as if hurting other people did not matter. Just amazing how blind they were to their folly and where it might end up.
The victims IMHO were the children - Camilla's kids and the two Princes. The "bad guys" were the adults including APB all of them clearly never thought about anything other than their own desires.
Agree with SophieChloe that is a wonderful post cate!
Quote from: amabel on October 30, 2014, 05:00:37 PM
and Diana was bulimic, unprepared for life and immature
Charles was conniving, childish, arrogant, sef-absorbed, two timing bs artist who used a young woman as a breeding horse because his mistress was married.
One of hem was lured and trapped by Charles and Camilla.
Quote from: amabel on October 30, 2014, 05:36:13 PM
If Di had had an affair or 2, kept it quiet and let Charles and Cam get on with their love affair, and managed to keep up a civilised relationship with her husband, she'd probably still be alive today...
Are you serious!? Wow! :huh2: :nocomment:
He had to get married, he had to marry a virgin and he thoguth Di was suitable.. I could say if I wanted to be hyper critical of Diana, that she pretended to like the things he liked and then abruptly gave up the pretense.. that she married into the RF, without any intention of learning how to behave and that she then had affairs herself but chose to make a fuss about Charles having an affair and by talking so publicly about her failed marriage almost destroyed the monarchy. But I dotn think that was the entire truth. I think that both of them were foolish and fooled thtemslves into the marriage and when it failed, they both found other lovers.
Why do you say that? She had an affair with Hewitt while married to Charles. Did anyting bad happen to her?? If she had stayed within her marriage, she and Charles would now be a middle aged couple watching their son getting married. I hardly think if she had stayed married to Charles, that she would have died in a car accident in Paris... an accident which happened largely because she had trusted herself to the messy security system of a foolish man like Dodi.
Quote from: amabel on October 31, 2014, 06:32:29 AM
Why do you say that? She had an affair with Hewitt while married to Charles. Did anyting bad happen to her?? If she had stayed within her marriage, she and Charles would now be a middle aged couple watching their son getting married. I hardly think if she had stayed married to Charles, that she would have died in a car accident in Paris... an accident which happened largely because she had trusted herself to the messy security system of a foolish man like Dodi.
So if Diana, (who, let me emphasise, I do not let off the hook for her mistakes) had been satisfied with an open marriage like Camilla Parker Bowles's, everything would have been fine and dandy would it?
wow - although I guess if everyone was okay with all that - but still - wow - as if Diana just needed to accept her husband's infidelities and get on with her own clandestine affairs and they all could lie to the public and put on a show. That would require I think that the titles and being Queen was what mattered most to you not a happy companionable marriage and honesty. Obviously - some do it and for less than a crown but still....
I do agree thought hat being with Dodi was a questionable decision on her part as was the whole media circus that she was participating in for the days prior to the accident. But that was not the inevitable result of divorcing Charles and trying to seek a more loving relationship.
I agree with cate -- I think the divorce was not what threatened Diana's safety, it was the refusal to use protection officers and the reliance on Dodi to protect her instead. She could have lived a safe and happy life after the divorce, and I think all parties were better off with Charles and Diana throwing in the towel on a marriage that had never really worked.
It's difficult to have any sort of marriage with a third party around, one who had a lot to lose had the C and D marriage succeeded--she'd have lost all the perks and not been in control any more.
Quote from: amabel on October 31, 2014, 06:32:29 AM
Why do you say that? She had an affair with Hewitt while married to Charles. Did anyting bad happen to her?? If she had stayed within her marriage, she and Charles would now be a middle aged couple watching their son getting married. I hardly think if she had stayed married to Charles, that she would have died in a car accident in Paris... an accident which happened largely because she had trusted herself to the messy security system of a foolish man like Dodi.
If Charles had dropped Camilla, she and Charles would have been a middle aged couple. Charles put her down publicly and could not hide his contempt even in public.
How come Charles is not blamed for not dropping Camilla?
Double post auto-merged: October 31, 2014, 11:47:35 AM
Quote from: amabel on October 30, 2014, 05:36:13 PM
They were 3 people trapped in a messy situation. I don't really blame anyone greatly for what They did, per se, but if Cam is going to get attacked all the time, when she did much the same as Diana, I can't see why....And Diana was the one who made the big fuss about her husband being "stolen by Cam" so why did she go and do the same to other women?
If Di had had an affair or 2, kept it quiet and let Charles and Cam get on with their love affair, and managed to keep up a civilised relationship with her husband, she'd probably still be alive today...
Camilla IMO had ambitions and would not have been satisfied being the Mistress. that's how she got where she is today. So it as "OK" for the woman to have to put up with her husband's affairs with a married woman and put up and shut up. It seems with this sort of thinking we've returned to a time when women were just chattel to a man.
Charles when he went back to the mistress was more and more emotionally abusive to Diana even in public. And a woman should put up with that because of a selfish man? Give me a break.
Diana found out after the wedding that Camilla was not going away even after Charles took the wedding vows. How come Camilla is always left out as a factor by some? Diana was sick during the honeymoon. Charles and just about everybody else knew the woman did not hunt or liked it. I never saw Diana wielding a shotgun and picking up dead birds the way her daughter in law did during her courtship by William. I have not seen Kate picking up dead birds since she got the Ring. If you pick at Diana, why not slam Kate for "fakery" too. The biggest fraud was Charles who later admitted that he preferred the mistress at the time he married Diana. Call that honesty?
Quote from: amabel on October 30, 2014, 05:00:37 PM
and Diana was bulimic, unprepared for life and immature
Eating disorders can be controlled and don't make the person who has them "awful". Charles wanted a broodmare.
I agree with your above post Sandy. Camilla's ambitions became more obvious as Princess Anne became the first royal to divorce and remarry. Camilla was seen more and more with Charles I believe tipping off the press when she and Charles were pictured leaving Highgrove for a picnic and on a painting holiday in Italy.
Quote from: amabel on October 31, 2014, 06:21:46 AM
He had to get married, he had to marry a virgin and he thoguth Di was suitable.. I could say if I wanted to be hyper critical of Diana, that she pretended to like the things he liked and then abruptly gave up the pretense.. that she married into the RF, without any intention of learning how to behave and that she then had affairs herself but chose to make a fuss about Charles having an affair and by talking so publicly about her failed marriage almost destroyed the monarchy. But I dotn think that was the entire truth. I think that both of them were foolish and fooled thtemslves into the marriage and when it failed, they both found other lovers.
amabel you IMO are full of excuses for Charles he had to get married, he had to find a suitable virgin, the age gap well here is a newsflash for you. Charles grew up knowing the requirements he should have married in his twenties so an age gap would not have been so apparent. Charles in his twenties was a self absorbed self entitled fool who listened to Mountbatten and his outdated Victorian ideas about marriage and courtship and preferred his married mistresses like his great uncle. Diana it was known she didn't ride or like to hunt during her courtship Charles overlooked that because he needed her to become the bride who fit all the requirements. Diana said she was in love with Charles remember the engagement interview? Yes Diana stopped all pretenses as you put it about country life but Camilla was practically living in her back yard. Diana did have an affair and did kick up a fuss about Charles but again Charles brought a mistress into his marriage I believe Diana realized that having affairs wasn't what she wanted out of life.
Man. He sounded like such a S.O.B. imo. :orchid:
QuoteHe had to get married, he had to marry a virgin
What is he a scarecrow? Forgot his brain and let people dictate his life. Christ! At least Edward/David had balls and married Wallis. :orchid:
As the originator of this thread I have to say that I'm glad that people are taking advantage of it! :)
And happy to see that people are making use of this thread as well. :)
Glad to see people making use of this thread along with the Charles and Camilla ones.
Quote from: Canuck on October 31, 2014, 11:05:30 AM
I agree with cate -- I think the divorce was not what threatened Diana's safety, it was the refusal to use protection officers and the reliance on Dodi to protect her instead. She could have lived a safe and happy life after the divorce, and I think all parties were better off with Charles and Diana throwing in the towel on a marriage that had never really worked.
Possibly but I don't know if she was that Happy in her freedom. I think she was having trouble finding another man, or a fulfilling role.. Charles probably got more out of the divorce than she did.. He was unpopular at the time but his popularity rose again and he was free to Marry Cam. and he's still POW. Diana lost her title, she lost a lot of her role, she lost the "cloak of protection" that the RF membership trrew over her..She los the approval of the RF and the upper classes...
and I don't think she was having much luck finding a new man. Yes of course she could have retained her Protection officers, but I think that she had gotten rid if them partly to show that she was independent of the RF. So that rather threw her inot depending on Dodis' security system - and we know the results of that.
Quote from: Izabella on October 31, 2014, 12:44:51 PM
Man. He sounded like such a S.O.B. imo. :orchid:
QuoteHe had to get married, he had to marry a virgin
What is he a scarecrow? Forgot his brain and let people dictate his life. Christ! At least Edward/David had balls and married Wallis. :orchid:
He had to marry someone with no previous relationships. He needed permission from the Queen to marry and at the time, she wold not have approved of anyone with a past. And I can't see that The DOW's marriage to Wallis was a very happy one.
amabel in my above reply IMO you seem to make excuses for him. First of all there is such a thing as the line of succession he didn't have to marry and what if tests had proved that Charles was unable to father any children? Please respond to my post #111 I would love to hear excuses for that. I don't believe Charles loved her the way she loved him. Charles was good a deceiving Diana as she never had a boyfriend before and no experience. I believe a lot of the affection he showed in public was just that for public consumption as soon as Harry was born 3 years after the wedding he was done and all pretenses were gone.
Quote from: amabel on October 31, 2014, 04:51:54 PM
Quote from: Izabella on October 31, 2014, 12:44:51 PM
Man. He sounded like such a S.O.B. imo. :orchid:
QuoteHe had to get married, he had to marry a virgin
What is he a scarecrow? Forgot his brain and let people dictate his life. Christ! At least Edward/David had balls and married Wallis. :orchid:
He had to marry someone with no previous relationships. He needed permission from the Queen to marry and at the time, she wold not have approved of anyone with a past. And I can't see that The DOW's marriage to Wallis was a very happy one.
The DOW and Wallis' marriage lasted until the day he died. There was no divorce. They hit a rough patch in the 50s but recovered from it. He was absolutely devoted to her until the day he died and she was a lost soul after he was no longer around.
Charles did not "Have to " marry anybody. There is a line of succession to the next in line is ready to take over just in case. The monarchy would not have died if Charles did not reproduce. The Duke of Windsor had the decency not to be so self centered as his great nephew marrying someone that he knew he did not love just to get his heirs. He was besotted with Freda Dudley Ward and admitted he did not want to marry the suitable girl because he knew he would not be faithful. And he gave up the throne for Wallis Simpson. If Charles had a choice I think he would have chosen the throne instead of Camilla Parker Bowles.
Well this thread is about Camilla and her behavior not Diana and Dodi there is a thread on the Diana board. Camilla was despicable for her actions including ignoring the fact that she had children who would be affected by her affair as well as Charles ignoring the fact that he had children. Fact is I am not excusing Diana for her affair but, Diana was looking for love, affection and attention from her husband although Hewitt turned out to be a cad he did give her what her husband didn't and fact is Diana did offer reconciliation with Charles even wanting another child she was totally rebuffed. Camilla manipulated the situation to her advantage one can be sure if Camilla wasn't carrying on with the POW Andrew would have probably have divorced her sooner.
Quote from: amabel on October 31, 2014, 04:50:16 PM
Quote from: Canuck on October 31, 2014, 11:05:30 AM
I agree with cate -- I think the divorce was not what threatened Diana's safety, it was the refusal to use protection officers and the reliance on Dodi to protect her instead. She could have lived a safe and happy life after the divorce, and I think all parties were better off with Charles and Diana throwing in the towel on a marriage that had never really worked.
Possibly but I don't know if she was that Happy in her freedom. I think she was having trouble finding another man, or a fulfilling role.. Charles probably got more out of the divorce than she did.. He was unpopular at the time but his popularity rose again and he was free to Marry Cam. and he's still POW. Diana lost her title, she lost a lot of her role, she lost the "cloak of protection" that the RF membership trrew over her..She los the approval of the RF and the upper classes...
and I don't think she was having much luck finding a new man. Yes of course she could have retained her Protection officers, but I think that she had gotten rid if them partly to show that she was independent of the RF. So that rather threw her inot depending on Dodis' security system - and we know the results of that.
Diana died at age 36. How can such judgments about her "finding a new man" be made.
Charles popularity did not exactly rise. Even today. Not everyone likes him to put it mildly.
If Charles POW title was in jeopardy in marrying Camilla, no way IMO would he have given up his place in the line of succession for Camilla. He had his cake and ate it too.
Diana was still popular with the public and the press it had nothing to do with Charles. Diana was forging a new life for herself and in doing so held the auction of her dresses not only to forge ahead but to help those charities close to her heart. The public and press applauded her for that and her work on the landmines further cemented her popularity as a humanitarian. It was Whitehall and the Aristocratic Lords she was not popular with all whom branded her a loose cannon because of those efforts.
In 1993 Charles hired Alexandra (Tiggy) Shan Legge-Bourke to act as nanny to his sons. Her education included Heathfield school where she earned four O levels and Institut Alpin Vinemanette where the late PoW had been a student as well. She later studied at St. Nicholas Montessori in London and then founded her own nursery school, Mrs. Tiggywinkle's.
She was reportedly fond of fly fishing and long walks with her charges. William and Harry were said to be quite close to her and William opted to invite her as her guest to Eton's 4th of June celebrations in 1993 instead of his parents. Legge-Bourke was requested to come and stay with the boys upon the death of their mother in 1997 to help them to cope. She reportedly did not get along with both Diana and Camila. She came under an inquiry mounted by St. James staff when she permitted both princes to abseil down a 50 ft. dam with neither helmets or safety lines. :eyes: Reportedly only the princes' loyalty saved her job.
She married Charles Pettifer in 1999 and has two sons Fred and Tom. Harry is reportedly Godfather to Fred with William reportedly Godfather for Tom. Tom acted at a pageboy at William's wedding in 2011. She now owns a bed and breakfast.
I agree that some politicians were criticising Diana for her stance on landmines. The memory fades (old age creeping on!) however I do seem to remember a sharper tone among British journalists in the last year or two of Diana's life.
It seems to have dated from the photo that appeared of Diana in full makeup and operating cap and mask. It was reported that she visited patients in hospital sometimes at night. I don't know whether the Press knew about how serious it was with Hasnet Khan but I do recall a rather jeering tone about 'Diana, the Angel of Mercy' which hadn't been there before.
I also remember a female journalist being quite critical of what she described as Diana's 'antics' while on holiday that last summer, though I'm sorry, I can't give any sources.
Yes, Tiggy was quite a character, just what the boys needed really, down to earth and cheerful! I don't think safety was her first concern, though! Apparently someone saw her once driving the landrover on one of the royal estates. She was smoking furiously, and the thirteen year old Harry was hanging out of the window with a rifle, taking pot-shots at rabbits.
Apparently both Diana and Camilla had suspicions that Tiggy had designs on Charles and that he was fonder of her than he should be. Camilla once referred to her, in Tiggy's hearing, as 'the hired help'. Diana of course went further; the notorious 'sorry about the baby' remark, which she later had to rescind. I think Tiggy probably had a rather schoolgirlish crush on Charles.
Tiggy did have her own views on fun and adventure didn't she? :lol: Interesting how both women viewed her as a threat. The "baby" remark was not one of Diana's better moments. :no:
Quote from: Izabella on October 31, 2014, 12:44:51 PM
Man. He sounded like such a S.O.B. imo. :orchid:
QuoteHe had to get married, he had to marry a virgin
What is he a scarecrow? Forgot his brain and let people dictate his life. Christ! At least Edward/David had balls and married Wallis. :orchid:
Was it his ball that made him a traitor to his country, a man who liked and visited Hitler even after the news of concentration camps started coming out
The Duke of Windsor was the king who never came home | Royal | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/426976/The-Duke-of-Windsor-was-the-king-who-never-came-home)
When his father George V died in January 1936 Edward started meddling in government policy.
He took to calling the German ambassador directly - a clear breach of constitutional protocol.
When Hitler made it clear he meant to send his forces back into the demilitarised Rhineland, the British government expressed opposition and Edward should have stepped back.
Instead he threatened to abdicate if Hitler's advance was stopped, even phoning the German ambassador to tell him he had done so.
In that context the crisis over the King's insistence on marrying Mrs Simpson came as a godsend.
We now know that Edward attempted to go over the heads of his ministers and appeal directly to the people of Britain and the Empire to allow him to remain on the throne and marry Wallis.
Baldwin refused permission for the speech, saying it would be a breach of constitutional principle.
He also exaggerated the scale of popular opposition to Mrs Simpson in order to force the King's hand.
Once off the throne the Duke of Windsor still posed a problem. A recently released FBI file showed that at a party in Vienna in July 1937 - the month he married Mrs Simpson - the Duke told an Italian diplomat that the Americans had cracked Italy's intelligence codes.
Four months later he and the Duchess paid a high-profile visit to Germany where the Nazi regime fawned on Edward.
Propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels wrote: "It's a shame he is no longer King. With him we would have entered into an alliance."
When war broke out he was made a major-general in France but he continued to communicate with the enemy.
In January 1940 the German minister in The Hague wrote that he had established a direct line of contact to the Duke.
From him the Germans learned that their plans for the invasion of France had fallen into Allied hands.
This intelligence allowed Hitler to change his plans. France duly fell.
Six months later the German ambassador in Lisbon sent a message to Berlin saying: "The Duke believes with certainty that continued heavy bombing would make England ready for peace."
Thus the former King was urging the bombardment of his own people.
Prime Minister Winston Churchill understood the danger he posed and was desperate to get Edward back to Britain, at one stage threatening him with court martial if he refused.
In the end he kept him out of harm's way by making him governor of the Bahamas - a humiliating posting which both the Duke and Duchess detested.
From there, the Duke sent a message to President Roosevelt saying that if the US leader sued for peace with Hitler, he would immediately issue a statement of support. Luckily it never happened.
After the war the Windsors accepted an invitation from France to settle tax-free in Paris. Diana Mosley, wife of the British fascist leader Sir Oswald, was a frequent visitor.
Other guests included Maria Callas, Marlene Dietrich, Cecil Beaton and Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.
Although the Duke had dropped his hopes of returning to live in Britain the couple did pay occasional visits.
Edward attended his brother George VI's funeral in 1952, and the Duke and Duchess visited London in 1965 when they met the Queen and attended the funeral of Edward's sister the Princess Royal.
The last royal ceremony the Duke attended was the funeral of his sister-in-law Princess Marina in 1968.
He died in Paris in 1972 and his body was returned to Britain where he was given a full royal funeral.
The Duchess died 14 years later and was buried alongside him in the Royal Burial Ground at Frogmore, Windsor.
They are best remembered now as star-crossed lovers who fell victim of snobbery and prejudice and gave up the privileges of monarchy to be together. There's some truth in that.
But it's only a small part of the story of the Nazi-sympathising monarch who compromised Britain's war effort at a time of national peril and whose treachery it has suited everyone to write out of history.
Quote from: Curryong on November 01, 2014, 02:14:55 AM
Yes, Tiggy was quite a character, just what the boys needed really, down to earth and cheerful! I don't think safety was her first concern, though! Apparently someone saw her once driving the landrover on one of the royal estates. She was smoking furiously, and the thirteen year old Harry was hanging out of the window with a rifle, taking pot-shots at rabbits.
Apparently both Diana and Camilla had suspicions that Tiggy had designs on Charles and that he was fonder of her than he should be. Camilla once referred to her, in Tiggy's hearing, as 'the hired help'. Diana of course went further; the notorious 'sorry about the baby' remark, which she later had to rescind. I think Tiggy probably had a rather schoolgirlish crush on Charles.
I find ti hard to imagine that Cam would use an Americanism. however while rude, it is hardly anyting like accusing her of having an abortion as Di did
Quote from: Curryong on November 01, 2014, 01:53:28 AM
I agree that some politicians were criticising Diana for her stance on landmines. The memory fades (old age creeping on!) however I do seem to remember a sharper tone among British journalists in the last year or two of Diana's life.
It seems to have dated from the photo that appeared of Diana in full makeup and operating cap and mask. It was reported that she visited patients in hospital sometimes at night. I don't know whether the Press knew about how serious it was with Hasnet Khan but I do recall a rather jeering tone about 'Diana, the Angel of Mercy' which hadn't been there before.
I
Many female journalists didn't like Diana. but yes you are quite right in that many many more papers were cool or hostile to her in the last few years. that's why, As I've pointed out many times, there were hostile stories about her in the papers that had to be hastily pulled when she died so suddenly. The press were a bit tired I think of her manipulations, they were perhaps bored iwht "adoring Diana" for so long, and I think that the mood of the public had changed, that people were fed up with the Wales story, fed up with Diana's "in and out of the limelight" stances, and cooler towards her because of the emerging stories that while she had been complaining bitterly about Cam's intruding on her marriage, she too was flirting with married men, and intruding on THER marriages. And she did seem to behave oddly at times then, I remember that there was a story that she had cellulite and when she next went out to go to the gym, she was seen creeping down some steps as if trying to avoid her legs being photographed..(She ocudl have just worsn trousers?) and there were the stories of visiting the sick in hospitals which some said was a cover for her romance with Hasnnat Khan.. but to some people, evene if genuine, it seemed a bit odd and morbid..
Quote from: amabel on November 01, 2014, 07:51:09 AM
Quote from: Curryong on November 01, 2014, 02:14:55 AM
Yes, Tiggy was quite a character, just what the boys needed really, down to earth and cheerful! I don't think safety was her first concern, though! Apparently someone saw her once driving the landrover on one of the royal estates. She was smoking furiously, and the thirteen year old Harry was hanging out of the window with a rifle, taking pot-shots at rabbits.
Apparently both Diana and Camilla had suspicions that Tiggy had designs on Charles and that he was fonder of her than he should be. Camilla once referred to her, in Tiggy's hearing, as 'the hired help'. Diana of course went further; the notorious 'sorry about the baby' remark, which she later had to rescind. I think Tiggy probably had a rather schoolgirlish crush on Charles.
I find ti hard to imagine that Cam would use an Americanism. however while rude, it is hardly anyting like accusing her of having an abortion as Di did
She has been accused of reporting that Catherine is sterile in the Globe an article that is being used to justify saying George and baby two are surrogate babies.
Quote from: amabel on November 01, 2014, 07:51:09 AM
Quote from: Curryong on November 01, 2014, 02:14:55 AM
Yes, Tiggy was quite a character, just what the boys needed really, down to earth and cheerful! I don't think safety was her first concern, though! Apparently someone saw her once driving the landrover on one of the royal estates. She was smoking furiously, and the thirteen year old Harry was hanging out of the window with a rifle, taking pot-shots at rabbits.
Apparently both Diana and Camilla had suspicions that Tiggy had designs on Charles and that he was fonder of her than he should be. Camilla once referred to her, in Tiggy's hearing, as 'the hired help'. Diana of course went further; the notorious 'sorry about the baby' remark, which she later had to rescind. I think Tiggy probably had a rather schoolgirlish crush on Charles.
I find ti hard to imagine that Cam would use an Americanism. however while rude, it is hardly anyting like accusing her of having an abortion as Di did
Why is it so hard to imagine that Cam would use an Americanism? You know amabel they do show American TV shows and movies in England or now that you live in England American phrases are alien to you.
Well, sorry, people who believe anything that is in trash like the Globe and then weave their own fantasies from it are beyond help. Surrogate babies for Kate and a cast of dozens needed to maintain the lie! Very realistic and believable I'm sure!
Quote from: amabel on October 29, 2014, 05:57:03 PM
Did she? I don't recall that. I think that she did put it out via Morton and her journalist friends that he was a bad father, that the children were of less importance to him than his work his private life etc with the impliciaiton that she was a much better mother than he was as a father. Possibly she backtracked a bit, because I think she was smart enough to realise that too much continued Charles bashing by her side, might have the effect of making the public fed up with the issue and making them begin to feel that she was always harping on her wrongs and spiteful. I cant' help feeling that she was more polite to Charles in the last few months because she was beginning to become aware that her public weren't quite as adoring as before and neither were the press.. so it looked better if she was more pleasant to C and did not bash him all the time. and perhaps she realised that it was hurting the children as well
I believe over time that she realized that her parenting style differed from Charles, but that he did love them deeply and was a good father to them. If their relationship became more cordial then I believe it would have been observed by the boys and that could have been reassuring to them.
Quote from: PaulaB on November 01, 2014, 07:20:20 AM
Quote from: Izabella on October 31, 2014, 12:44:51 PM
Man. He sounded like such a S.O.B. imo. :orchid:
QuoteHe had to get married, he had to marry a virgin
What is he a scarecrow? Forgot his brain and let people dictate his life. Christ! At least Edward/David had balls and married Wallis. :orchid:
Was it his ball that made him a traitor to his country, a man who liked and visited Hitler even after the news of concentration camps started coming out
The Duke of Windsor was the king who never came home | Royal | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/426976/The-Duke-of-Windsor-was-the-king-who-never-came-home)
When his father George V died in January 1936 Edward started meddling in government policy.
He took to calling the German ambassador directly - a clear breach of constitutional protocol.
When Hitler made it clear he meant to send his forces back into the demilitarised Rhineland, the British government expressed opposition and Edward should have stepped back.
Instead he threatened to abdicate if Hitler's advance was stopped, even phoning the German ambassador to tell him he had done so.
In that context the crisis over the King's insistence on marrying Mrs Simpson came as a godsend.
We now know that Edward attempted to go over the heads of his ministers and appeal directly to the people of Britain and the Empire to allow him to remain on the throne and marry Wallis.
Baldwin refused permission for the speech, saying it would be a breach of constitutional principle.
He also exaggerated the scale of popular opposition to Mrs Simpson in order to force the King's hand.
Once off the throne the Duke of Windsor still posed a problem. A recently released FBI file showed that at a party in Vienna in July 1937 - the month he married Mrs Simpson - the Duke told an Italian diplomat that the Americans had cracked Italy's intelligence codes.
Four months later he and the Duchess paid a high-profile visit to Germany where the Nazi regime fawned on Edward.
Propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels wrote: "It's a shame he is no longer King. With him we would have entered into an alliance."
When war broke out he was made a major-general in France but he continued to communicate with the enemy.
In January 1940 the German minister in The Hague wrote that he had established a direct line of contact to the Duke.
From him the Germans learned that their plans for the invasion of France had fallen into Allied hands.
This intelligence allowed Hitler to change his plans. France duly fell.
Six months later the German ambassador in Lisbon sent a message to Berlin saying: "The Duke believes with certainty that continued heavy bombing would make England ready for peace."
Thus the former King was urging the bombardment of his own people.
Prime Minister Winston Churchill understood the danger he posed and was desperate to get Edward back to Britain, at one stage threatening him with court martial if he refused.
In the end he kept him out of harm's way by making him governor of the Bahamas - a humiliating posting which both the Duke and Duchess detested.
From there, the Duke sent a message to President Roosevelt saying that if the US leader sued for peace with Hitler, he would immediately issue a statement of support. Luckily it never happened.
After the war the Windsors accepted an invitation from France to settle tax-free in Paris. Diana Mosley, wife of the British fascist leader Sir Oswald, was a frequent visitor.
Other guests included Maria Callas, Marlene Dietrich, Cecil Beaton and Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.
Although the Duke had dropped his hopes of returning to live in Britain the couple did pay occasional visits.
Edward attended his brother George VI's funeral in 1952, and the Duke and Duchess visited London in 1965 when they met the Queen and attended the funeral of Edward's sister the Princess Royal.
The last royal ceremony the Duke attended was the funeral of his sister-in-law Princess Marina in 1968.
He died in Paris in 1972 and his body was returned to Britain where he was given a full royal funeral.
The Duchess died 14 years later and was buried alongside him in the Royal Burial Ground at Frogmore, Windsor.
They are best remembered now as star-crossed lovers who fell victim of snobbery and prejudice and gave up the privileges of monarchy to be together. There's some truth in that.
But it's only a small part of the story of the Nazi-sympathising monarch who compromised Britain's war effort at a time of national peril and whose treachery it has suited everyone to write out of history.
He chose Wallis over the throne. He was a pretty sad figure and he and Wallis were jet setters and he had no real roles. But that said, he remained besotted with Wallis until the end of his life. And the topic here is that he had the guts to choose the woman he loved instead of entering into a marriage to produce heirs and hurt the suitable woman by refusing to give up his mistress. He admitted he could not marry the suitable girl because he knew he could not be faithful.
I think Charles would have chosen the throne over Camilla had he been given the choice.
^^^Edward's willingness to bomb his own people makes him IMO the leading candidate for the "Worst Member of the Windsor Family."
For whatever faults Charles has I don't believe that he would subject the people of the UK to a similar fate.
Quote from: amabel on November 01, 2014, 08:01:03 AM
Quote from: Curryong on November 01, 2014, 01:53:28 AM
I agree that some politicians were criticising Diana for her stance on landmines. The memory fades (old age creeping on!) however I do seem to remember a sharper tone among British journalists in the last year or two of Diana's life.
It seems to have dated from the photo that appeared of Diana in full makeup and operating cap and mask. It was reported that she visited patients in hospital sometimes at night. I don't know whether the Press knew about how serious it was with Hasnet Khan but I do recall a rather jeering tone about 'Diana, the Angel of Mercy' which hadn't been there before.
I
Many female journalists didn't like Diana. but yes you are quite right in that many many more papers were cool or hostile to her in the last few years. that's why, As I've pointed out many times, there were hostile stories about her in the papers that had to be hastily pulled when she died so suddenly. The press were a bit tired I think of her manipulations, they were perhaps bored iwht "adoring Diana" for so long, and I think that the mood of the public had changed, that people were fed up with the Wales story, fed up with Diana's "in and out of the limelight" stances, and cooler towards her because of the emerging stories that while she had been complaining bitterly about Cam's intruding on her marriage, she too was flirting with married men, and intruding on THER marriages. And she did seem to behave oddly at times then, I remember that there was a story that she had cellulite and when she next went out to go to the gym, she was seen creeping down some steps as if trying to avoid her legs being photographed..(She ocudl have just worsn trousers?) and there were the stories of visiting the sick in hospitals which some said was a cover for her romance with Hasnnat Khan.. but to some people, evene if genuine, it seemed a bit odd and morbid..
IMO like all public figures the glitter wears off over time. The information that was being shared by both camps in the War of the Wales ended up damaging the reputations of Charles, Camilla and Diana IMO. It's too bad that the poor judgement and lack of personal responsibility created problems for so many. :(
TLLK that's true, that all public figures tend ot lose popularity at times, or sometimes permanently. And the British press does tend to build someone up and then tear them down. Di Had a long run, she was very popular for al the 80s, and the public and press thought highly of her. Even so of course lots of people could not see what the appeal was or did not like her. But in the 90s I think that there was a shift from the press mostly thinking well of her and excusing any faults, and disliking Charles. I think that after her separation, her own behaviour seemed to go a bit out of control.. and the press began to jump on her and attack her over things, and there was more public jeering and sneering, like Linikers joking about her on TV etc, that probably would not have happened earlier.
Quote from: TLLK on November 01, 2014, 03:05:15 PM
^^^Edward's willingness to bomb his own people makes him IMO the leading candidate for the "Worst Member of the Windsor Family."
For whatever faults Charles has I don't believe that he would subject the people of the UK to a similar fate.
It's a moot point since Edward abdicated.
I don't see how Diana was "out of control." an "out of control" person would not receive an award for her charity work (last year of her life), sell her iconic gowns for charity, and work on Anti Landmine campaign. She was admired by heads of state and Nelson Mandela wrote a preface to a book about Diana's charities. I don't get the summarizing her late life as "out of control." I did not see press jumping on her--she sold magazines and papers. I did not see public jeering and sneering. I don't know how this is assumed.
Quote from: TLLK on November 01, 2014, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 29, 2014, 05:57:03 PM
I cant' help feeling that she was more polite to Charles in the last few months because she was beginning to become aware that her public weren't quite as adoring as before and neither were the press.. so it looked better if she was more pleasant to C and did not bash him all the time. and perhaps she realised that it was hurting the children as well
I believe over time that she realized that her parenting style differed from Charles, but that he did love them deeply and was a good father to them. If their relationship became more cordial then I believe it would have been observed by the boys and that could have been reassuring to them.
Possible but do you have any evidence? I know that Gilbey said critical things about Charles as a parent in his contribution to Morton, but I don't know if these were rescinded at any stage by Di or her friends. The problem was that in Morton she really attacked Charles, made him out ot be a carton villain, and someone with no good points and I think that that "overkill" in her attack on hm, eventual began to look ridiculous ot the public and they began to think "hang on, he has his faults but is he really THAT bad?" and once that happened I think that the public were more willing to feel that if Di had lied or exaggerated in er attack on her husband to such an extent, maybe it was all or mostly lies or spite...
Quote from: PaulaB on November 01, 2014, 10:26:45 AM
Quote from: amabel on November 01, 2014, 07:51:09 AM
Quote from: Curryong on November 01, 2014, 02:14:55 AM
Yes, Tiggy was quite a character, just what the boys needed really, down to earth and cheerful! I don't think safety was
I find ti hard to imagine that Cam would use an Americanism. however while rude, it is hardly anyting like accusing her of having an abortion as Di did
She has been accused of reporting that Catherine is sterile in the Globe an article that is being used to justify saying George and baby two are surrogate babies.
sorry? Who has been accused of saying this? Tiggy?? Camilla?
Quote from: amabel on November 01, 2014, 06:25:11 PM
Quote from: TLLK on November 01, 2014, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 29, 2014, 05:57:03 PM
I cant' help feeling that she was more polite to Charles in the last few months because she was beginning to become aware that her public weren't quite as adoring as before and neither were the press.. so it looked better if she was more pleasant to C and did not bash him all the time. and perhaps she realised that it was hurting the children as well
I believe over time that she realized that her parenting style differed from Charles, but that he did love them deeply and was a good father to them. If their relationship became more cordial then I believe it would have been observed by the boys and that could have been reassuring to them.
Possible but do you have any evidence? I know that Gilbey said critical things about Charles as a parent in his contribution to Morton, but I don't know if these were rescinded at any stage by Di or her friends. The problem was that in Morton she really attacked Charles, made him out ot be a carton villain, and someone with no good points and I think that that "overkill" in her attack on hm, eventual began to look ridiculous ot the public and they began to think "hang on, he has his faults but is he really THAT bad?" and once that happened I think that the public were more willing to feel that if Di had lied or exaggerated in er attack on her husband to such an extent, maybe it was all or mostly lies or spite...
Absolutely none, :D but I do believe that she realized that her boys were restless in London during their breaks and enjoyed the freedom and activities that Balmoral offered to them. Having the opportunity to visit and bond with both parents after the separation was IMO something that Charles and Diana realized was important to their well being.
Paula good lord this is all nonsense. I can't believe anyone would believe it...
Agree.. but then the custody agreement was that they both saw the boys half the holidays, and of course they were bound to spend a portion of time with the queen. I don't think that Di wanted to keep them away from their father, but it is not like she Had any real choice, even if she had wanted to.
I think that she DID have to take into account that they were not as happy with the London life and sunny hols as they had been when they were younger, and I think that being on hol with Diana, with the press all round, became more stressful to them. so she did try and find a country home in England where she could take them and they could do their sports...Im not sure how much though that she actually felt that Charlres's parenting style was as good in its way as hers...
Charles had had a lot of rubbish published about him, his position is hard he is waiting for his role and he treads a fine line it must be hard not to make the odd mistake
H'es made quite a few, but he's essentially someone who has tried to do the right thing, to work at his allocated role and try to do good.
Edward VII was a traitor and the idea that he and Wallis were victims of bias and prejudice is so much whitewashing and contemporary fuzzy thinking. After Edward's death his private secretary also revealed a batch of info among which was that Edward did not want to be king but once he realized he and Wallis would be flat broke his plan was to remain King til he could squirrel away a lot of money and then abdicate.
Tiggy must have done something which set off the radar of both Cam and Di - for those two women to agree she was a threat - makes me suspect Charles certainly did have an affection for her.
I don't recall this about Edward. it think he was willing to be King, but wasn't able to cope with it all without Wallis and perhaps in that sense she was a "get out" for him. but he was well off... he would not be "flat broke". he had proprieties that he Had inherited from his father.. he also after abdicating pressured Geo VI into helping him further (cant' recall the details but he wasn't flat broke and managed to guilt his broher into making him even richer.
As for Tiggy I don't see that she did anyting. I think that Di didn't like her because she was too close to the boys, and Cam pobalby was a little jealous of Charles being so friendly ith a younger woman. Possibly Tiggy did not like Cam, and Cam felt that she would use her positon of closeness to the boys and Charles in a hostile way. IIRC Tiggy organised a birthday party for Charles nad "forgot" to invite Camilla...
Tiggy made stupid comments to the media and trashed Diana's mothering skills. A real no no. And she said that Will and Harry were "her boys." Something which was sure to irritate Diana. Tiggy was enormously tactless.
Camilla could not stand Tiggy and was said to call her the "help." Tiggy invited Charles and the boys to her wedding but not Camilla. The boys attended the wedding without Charles.
Quote from: amabel on November 01, 2014, 06:25:11 PM
Quote from: TLLK on November 01, 2014, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 29, 2014, 05:57:03 PM
I cant' help feeling that she was more polite to Charles in the last few months because she was beginning to become aware that her public weren't quite as adoring as before and neither were the press.. so it looked better if she was more pleasant to C and did not bash him all the time. and perhaps she realised that it was hurting the children as well
I believe over time that she realized that her parenting style differed from Charles, but that he did love them deeply and was a good father to them. If their relationship became more cordial then I believe it would have been observed by the boys and that could have been reassuring to them.
Possible but do you have any evidence? I know that Gilbey said critical things about Charles as a parent in his contribution to Morton, but I don't know if these were rescinded at any stage by Di or her friends. The problem was that in Morton she really attacked Charles, made him out ot be a carton villain, and someone with no good points and I think that that "overkill" in her attack on hm, eventual began to look ridiculous ot the public and they began to think "hang on, he has his faults but is he really THAT bad?" and once that happened I think that the public were more willing to feel that if Di had lied or exaggerated in er attack on her husband to such an extent, maybe it was all or mostly lies or spite...
Charles made his parents and Diana cartoon villains via his authorized biography. People asked re: CHarles confessions if his parents and Diana were really "that bad."
Double post auto-merged: November 01, 2014, 11:00:35 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 01, 2014, 07:06:38 PM
Agree.. but then the custody agreement was that they both saw the boys half the holidays, and of course they were bound to spend a portion of time with the queen. I don't think that Di wanted to keep them away from their father, but it is not like she Had any real choice, even if she had wanted to.
I think that she DID have to take into account that they were not as happy with the London life and sunny hols as they had been when they were younger, and I think that being on hol with Diana, with the press all round, became more stressful to them. so she did try and find a country home in England where she could take them and they could do their sports...Im not sure how much though that she actually felt that Charlres's parenting style was as good in its way as hers...
I would not agree with that. William and Harry do enjoy London life and sunny holidays. William spent a lot of time on Sunny holidays over the years as did Harry.
I would not make sweeping statements about where they were "happier." They enjoyed both places.
Quote from: sandy on November 01, 2014, 10:54:52 PM
Tiggy made stupid comments to the media and trashed Diana's mothering skills. A real no no. And she said that Will and Harry were "her boys." Something which was sure to irritate Diana. Tiggy was enormously tactless.
Camilla could not stand Tiggy and was said to call her the "help." Tiggy invited Charles and the boys to her wedding but not Camilla. The boys attended the wedding without Charles.
Tiggy, Camilla, and Diana all made ugly remarks about each other and were all incredibly insensitive at times.
I was explaining why Diana was not happy with what Tiggy said.
Thank you for sharing. I added that all three were insensitive and made ugly remarks about each other. :)
Quote from: amabel on November 01, 2014, 07:06:38 PM
Agree.. but then the custody agreement was that they both saw the boys half the holidays, and of course they were bound to spend a portion of time with the queen. I don't think that Di wanted to keep them away from their father, but it is not like she Had any real choice, even if she had wanted to.
I think that she DID have to take into account that they were not as happy with the London life and sunny hols as they had been when they were younger, and I think that being on hol with Diana, with the press all round, became more stressful to them. so she did try and find a country home in England where she could take them and they could do their sports...Im not sure how much though that she actually felt that Charlres's parenting style was as good in its way as hers...
Do you know if she was actively looking for a country spot where the three could get away? I agree the boys were finding other interests at that age and the old vacation spots were not holding the same appeal. I wonder if her brother would have allowed them to make use of some of the properties at Althorp?
Did you read about the dude ranch in the American west that William had an opportunity to visit one year? Diana arranged for the trip and he with his RPOs were sent off for a two/three week experience. One of the counselors finally shared the story which included hanging a pre-teen William by his belt from a tree branch. :lol: Only the staff knew who he was and other guests didn't guess. Before they left the RPOs and William shopped for and prepared an English tea party for the staff complete with cucumber sandwiches. :D
Quote from: amabel on October 30, 2014, 05:00:37 PM
and Diana was bulimic, unprepared for life and immature
Sadly this was not going to prepare her for life with the BRF. IMO the BRF has restructured the manner in which new royal brides are introduced to royal life. Even Charles and Anne shared that they did not receive much in the way of training and were expected to just learn by observation. I do believe that both Diana and Sarah should have been given more time to adjust to their new roles in life as Princess of Wales and Duchess of York. Sophie, Camilla and Kate have been granted a longer adjustment period and IMO this has benefited them.
Quote from: amabel on November 01, 2014, 06:25:11 PM
Quote from: TLLK on November 01, 2014, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 29, 2014, 05:57:03 PM
I cant' help feeling that she was more polite to Charles in the last few months because she was beginning to become aware that her public weren't quite as adoring as before and neither were the press.. so it looked better if she was more pleasant to C and did not bash him all the time. and perhaps she realised that it was hurting the children as well
I believe over time that she realized that her parenting style differed from Charles, but that he did love them deeply and was a good father to them. If their relationship became more cordial then I believe it would have been observed by the boys and that could have been reassuring to them.
Possible but do you have any evidence? I know that Gilbey said critical things about Charles as a parent in his contribution to Morton, but I don't know if these were rescinded at any stage by Di or her friends. The problem was that in Morton she really attacked Charles, made him out ot be a carton villain, and someone with no good points and I think that that "overkill" in her attack on hm, eventual began to look ridiculous ot the public and they began to think "hang on, he has his faults but is he really THAT bad?" and once that happened I think that the public were more willing to feel that if Di had lied or exaggerated in er attack on her husband to such an extent, maybe it was all or mostly lies or spite...
It's been a very long time since I've read the Morton book. I should check it out again at some time.
Hmm. I think that the RF thought back in the 70s or 80s that anyone marrying into the RF knew what they were getting into. they were from the same class roughly as the RF, and usually knew about their social life and the way they lived. Di was from a court family, Fergie was not so grand but still she had connections. Rob Fellowes was her cousin... You dint' have to be brilliantly clever to know that Charles liked rural life and sports and that he had ideas bout stuff like architethure and so on, and liked to make speeches on these issues. I think however that Diana didn't see beyond the glamour of being a member of the RF and her own infatuation for Charles, and didn't realise how rigid the life was back then or that Charles wasn't an independent individual who coud live is life as he pleased, he was a part of the institution of the RF and had to live in a certain way with various duties to perform and his wife was meant to join in that.
I think it is good that the RF has now allowed its members to spend a lot longer courting their wives and women like Kate have had plenty of time to get to know their partners and to see if they like the Royal life and can cope. and perhaps its good that someone like Kate was allowed to "start slow" when actually married. However I kind of think that K has started too slow and that in some ways, its not unreasonable to expect a royal wife to get stuck in fairly quickly. I don't really know if a longer "starting to get into the work" would have rally helped Di, she was more unprepared for "Private Royal life" than the public side of it. She got the hang of the public duties, but she did not fit in with the rest of the RF in her private life. Same with Fergie, she was OK with the public duties at first, and she fitted in better In the family life, but she is just naturally loud and vulgar, and was clumsy, if enthusiastic.. and soon her vulgarity began to irritate them in private.. I think she enjoyed rural sports much more than DI did, but she's really a "sunshine hols" girl and someone who saw being royal as "being rich"...
I think that the problem with letting new wives start slow, is that it can lead to them never getting into a decent workload at all.. I think that's lilkey to happen to Kate, she's not enthusiastic about the work and I don't think she'll ever do much. Wit Sophie she wasn't supposed to do royal duties, but when her business got into trouble the Queen put her foot down and said she had to join in and give up the business side.. With Cam, she was obviously an unusual case, the first time a second wife had come into the RF after a divorce, and unpopular with the public.. so I think her starting slow was good, in that it gave the public a chance to get to see her gradually and she's increased her popularity
TLlk YES she was looking for a property in England. There was a whole big drama that she wanted to rent one of the Althrop houses and she and Charles S then ended up having big row about it. I wont bother recounting it all, its in some bios, but I think that when she hit problems, in renting one of her brother's houses she seems ot have given up on finding a country house. I think that was because she didn't really care for country life herself and the boys already DID have Balmoral to go to. I think she didn't really want a country house for herself, only for the boys and maybe she felt if she took them to somewhere in the country at weekends, she'd never see them as they'd be out shooting. I think that she tried to give them activities and "fun abroad", like the Mediterranean or American places, and she did manage to avoid the press to some extent it seems in the US... but not so much on her last holiday with Al Fayed. But I don't really know of any evidence that she ever really came out and said that se knew that Charles Had a differnet parenting style but that it was in its way a good one. She knew they enjoyed their times with Charles, and liked Balmoral because it is isolated and they could escape the press and the crowds there, and do their country things... but I'm not sure she was all that happy with it. She knew that however in the end they were going to have to grow up "Windsor" rather than Spencer...
well if she thought that, then I don't seet that she would have reconsidered and felt that he was a good parent.
Quote from: amabel on November 02, 2014, 09:00:51 AM
TLlk YES she was looking for a property in England. There was a whole big drama that she wanted to rent one of the Althrop houses and she and Charles S then ended up having big row about it.
As I remember, Charles Spencer offered her one of the houses on his estate, but then rescinded the offer. He thought Diana with the two boys on the property would attract too many paparazzi.
Cindy
well I though that this thread was about Diana, not Charles. If you want to talk about his parenting, surely it would be better to go to the Charles section.
as for Charles S, yes he did rescind his offer, of the Garden House. I think that he could have been more careful about making the offer, and taken the security considerations into account before he did so...It wasn't' up to him ot provide security, but to Di's PPOs and the local police, but it was fetlt that it wasn't a great location and that it wouldn't be easy to keep it safe and secruer. Plus Charles S was not too Happy about the idea of paparazzi camping around his estate. however he DID offer Di other houses on the estate and she refused them in a temper. the row got so bad that he returned her letters unopened and asked her to return the Spencer Tiara.
Thanks, amabel. I'd forgotten that he'd offered her other properties.
Cindy
Quote from: amabel on November 02, 2014, 01:31:34 PM
well I though that this thread was about Diana, not Charles. If you want to talk about his parenting, surely it would be better to go to the Charles section.
as for Charles S, yes he did rescind his offer, of the Garden House. I think that he could have been more careful about making the offer, and taken the security considerations into account before he did so...It wasn't' up to him ot provide security, but to Di's PPOs and the local police, but it was fetlt that it wasn't a great location and that it wouldn't be easy to keep it safe and secruer. Plus Charles S was not too Happy about the idea of paparazzi camping around his estate. however he DID offer Di other houses on the estate and she refused them in a temper. the row got so bad that he returned her letters unopened and asked her to return the Spencer Tiara.
The Spencer tiara was loaned to Diana, it did not belong to her. I don't recall reading that he "demanded" she return it. It was only a temporary loan, the Tiara belonged to him.
Nobody knows what sort of property (other) he offered to Diana. None of us were there. Maybe it was inadequate. Why all the judgments over Diana?
Quote from: amabel on November 02, 2014, 09:00:51 AM
TLlk YES she was looking for a property in England. There was a whole big drama that she wanted to rent one of the Althrop houses and she and Charles S then ended up having big row about it. I wont bother recounting it all, its in some bios, but I think that when she hit problems, in renting one of her brother's houses she seems ot have given up on finding a country house. I think that was because she didn't really care for country life herself and the boys already DID have Balmoral to go to. I think she didn't really want a country house for herself, only for the boys and maybe she felt if she took them to somewhere in the country at weekends, she'd never see them as they'd be out shooting. I think that she tried to give them activities and "fun abroad", like the Mediterranean or American places, and she did manage to avoid the press to some extent it seems in the US... but not so much on her last holiday with Al Fayed. But I don't really know of any evidence that she ever really came out and said that se knew that Charles Had a differnet parenting style but that it was in its way a good one. She knew they enjoyed their times with Charles, and liked Balmoral because it is isolated and they could escape the press and the crowds there, and do their country things... but I'm not sure she was all that happy with it. She knew that however in the end they were going to have to grow up "Windsor" rather than Spencer...
Thank you amabel. I'd stopped reading about Diana at this point in her life so I appreciate the information.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2014, 03:23:57 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 02, 2014, 01:31:34 PM
well I though that this thread was about Diana, not Charles. If you want to talk about his parenting, surely it would be better to go to the Charles section.
as for Charles S, yes he did rescind his offer, of the Garden House. I think that he could have been more careful about making the offer, and taken the security considerations into account before he did so...It wasn't' up to him ot provide security, but to Di's PPOs and the local police, but it was fetlt that it wasn't a great location and that it wouldn't be easy to keep it safe and secruer. Plus Charles S was not too Happy about the idea of paparazzi camping around his estate. however he DID offer Di other houses on the estate and she refused them in a temper. the row got so bad that he returned her letters unopened and asked her to return the Spencer Tiara.
Balmoral and Sandringham do offer the privacy and security that might not have been something that Althorp could accomodate. It's too bad that the siblings were not able to settle it amicably.
Well according to what I've read, Charles S did offer other properties on the estate, that were easier to secured.. Ken Wharfe IIRC seems ot have agreed with him that the Garden house wasn't suitable from that POV and that Charles S did his best to offer other places that might have been more suitable. However I think that there were faults on both sides with the 2 Spencers - Di was not willing to compromise and I think she felt annoyed that Charles S hadn't been - she felt - supportive....and I think that Charles had not tought things through properly, and offered the House then took it back...and I suspect that perhaps he was not keen on having his sister living there at weekends, because there WOULD be paps hanging around...
The row seems to have escalated and took quite a while before they settled it. Not I think till the last year of Di's life when she met hm in S Africa.
:truce:Well at least they'd settled it prior to her death.
Well not to discuss Sarah on this thread at length - yes she was pretty stupid if she didn't realise that a serving naval officer is going to be away a lot of the time.. (and yeah Sara is pretty stupid)./
and true that Diana was "off sick" during her pregnancy because of morning sickness
I can't recall if nausea was an issue with her second pregnancy but it was in her first. Apparently bacon and tomatoes was a combination that she was able to keep down. (That first trimester can really bring on some interesting choices in food.)
Quote from: TLLK on November 02, 2014, 03:37:27 PM
I can't recall if nausea was an issue with her second pregnancy but it was in her first. Apparently bacon and tomatoes was a combination that she was able to keep down. (That first trimester can really bring on some interesting choices in food.)
Diana as I remember suffered morning sickness with William. I recall her saying at the time "Nobody ever told me I would feel like this". I believe Diana had an easier time with Harry she seemed to be out more.
Quote from: TLLK on November 02, 2014, 04:52:28 AM
Quote from: amabel on October 30, 2014, 05:00:37 PM
and Diana was bulimic, unprepared for life and immature
Sadly this was not going to prepare her for life with the BRF. IMO the BRF has restructured the manner in which new royal brides are introduced to royal life. Even Charles and Anne shared that they did not receive much in the way of training and were expected to just learn by observation. I do believe that both Diana and Sarah should have been given more time to adjust to their new roles in life as Princess of Wales and Duchess of York. Sophie, Camilla and Kate have been granted a longer adjustment period and IMO this has benefited them.
Sophie is a minor royal. Camilla was around for a long time to put it mildly.
I think Kate's "adjustment" period is way overlong. She is not stupid.
Diana's issues had to do with the marital issues with Charles not work.
Sarah had other problems.
Quote from: Trudie on November 02, 2014, 08:24:24 PM
Quote from: TLLK on November 02, 2014, 03:37:27 PM
I can't recall if nausea was an issue with her second pregnancy but it was in her first. Apparently bacon and tomatoes was a combination that she was able to keep down. (That first trimester can really bring on some interesting choices in food.)
Diana as I remember suffered morning sickness with William. I recall her saying at the time "Nobody ever told me I would feel like this". I believe Diana had an easier time with Harry she seemed to be out more.
She's right about people not sharing the information about morning sickness along with other pregnancy related symptoms. Plus no doubt she was surprised by the fatigue factor as well that comes with the first trimester.
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2014, 03:33:45 AM
Quote from: sandy on November 02, 2014, 08:57:25 PM
Quote from: TLLK on November 02, 2014, 04:52:28 AM
Quote from: amabel on October 30, 2014, 05:00:37 PM
and Diana was bulimic, unprepared for life and immature
Sadly this was not going to prepare her for life with the BRF. IMO the BRF has restructured the manner in which new royal brides are introduced to royal life. Even Charles and Anne shared that they did not receive much in the way of training and were expected to just learn by observation. I do believe that both Diana and Sarah should have been given more time to adjust to their new roles in life as Princess of Wales and Duchess of York. Sophie, Camilla and Kate have been granted a longer adjustment period and IMO this has benefited them.
Sophie is a minor royal. Camilla was around for a long time to put it mildly.
I think Kate's "adjustment" period is way overlong. She is not stupid.
Diana's issues had to do with the marital issues with Charles not work.
Sarah had other problems.
I have to disagree about Sophie being considered a minor royal in 1999. By the time Sophie married into the BRF she was one of the higher ranking ladies. In the order of precedence rules at that time she would have ranked higher than a few of the other ladies due being Edward's wife. When Camilla entered into the family then that order became more "flexible" depending upon if Edward would be present or not. The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret were rarely doing any public engagements by 1999 either.
The Wessexes were not expected to be full time royals at the time of their marriage and it wasn't until Ardent was doing poorly and the fall out from the "Fake Sheik" that the decision was made to have them join the Firm on a full time basis.
As for Camilla, she'd been around the royal family for many years but not as a member. :)
Fergie knew he'd be at sea a lot - but she thought she could go with him - that is - move to the base nearest where ever his ship was. The problem was that the UK had less bases overseas and hence no place for family to go. So they had huge periods of separation. But still - Fergie clearly was out of control at some point and I doubt that having hubby around was going to change that.
Re: Edward - I used flat broke as a metaphor - but he discovered according to this secretary who would know - not going to have the lifestyle he was used too if he was not King. There is of course the story about him squirreling away 250,000 pounds ( a fortune at that time) from his Duchy of Cornwall income and sending Wallis with the money in a suitcase to France while the whole abdication scenario played out. He lied to his brother George VI about how much money he had and was therefore able to get money out of George's personal income (the gov refused to pay him as ex King) which was one of the sources of the Queen Mother's dislike of him. The apartment in Paris was supplied to him rent free for life by the French government which has always seemed rather odd to me.
Quote from: TLLK on November 02, 2014, 03:37:27 PM
I can't recall if nausea was an issue with her second pregnancy but it was in her first. Apparently bacon and tomatoes was a combination that she was able to keep down. (That first trimester can really bring on some interesting choices in food.)
Possibly but she was off sick at times during her first pregnancy, because of illness. She gave up engagements later in the pregnancy and then was off after the birth. She wasn't working any harder than many pregnant women..
Anyway to return to the subject, I think that while Charles was foolsih to do the Dimbleby interview, he only "did it once" during the war of the walsess.. he did probably allow his Friends to brief journalists. I think that in general his attiacks were defensive ones...
^ I do not recall Diana giving up any engagements during her pregnancy. If I recall correctly No thought was given to her role and her engagements were mostly with Charles she became pregnant a couple of months into the marriage. The pregnancy was announced because Diana fell asleep during a concert wearing what the press called the Gorganza dress as she was tired.
^^^Trudie when the Cambridges announced their first child was on the way and that she was suffering from HG, old archival videos were shown where Charles was apologizing for Diana's absence due to morning sickness episodes. :)
Diana while pregnant with William went on the tour of Wales. She worked the crowds and they took to her. There are photos of her in the tan coat and hat in the rain. She also learned Welsh and spoke at an assembly. Her not appearing was the exception not the rule. In fact, I have a book about Charles and Diana that covers their early months (when she was pregnant with William) and she was quite active.
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2014, 04:31:13 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 03, 2014, 06:52:03 AM
Quote from: TLLK on November 02, 2014, 03:37:27 PM
I can't recall if nausea was an issue with her second pregnancy but it was in her first. Apparently bacon and tomatoes was a combination that she was able to keep down. (That first trimester can really bring on some interesting choices in food.)
Possibly but she was off sick at times during her first pregnancy, because of illness. She gave up engagements later in the pregnancy and then was off after the birth. She wasn't working any harder than many pregnant women..
Anyway to return to the subject, I think that while Charles was foolsih to do the Dimbleby interview, he only "did it once" during the war of the walsess.. he did probably allow his Friends to brief journalists. I think that in general his attiacks were defensive ones...
Charles allowed his friends to trash his wife a lot more than one time. And before the Morton book.
Is it a sport where since Charles did this "only once" he wins? His interview and book caused much turmoil including the divorce of the PBs and complaints by his siblings over how he depicted their parents.
Diana was out and about before and after Will's birth even when she was suffering the rampant bulimia and postpartum depression. She was skin and bones but still was out working. She did work hard.
There are photos of her heavily pregnant going to polo matches with Charles.
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2014, 04:35:19 PM
Quote from: TLLK on November 03, 2014, 03:25:38 AM
Quote from: Trudie on November 02, 2014, 08:24:24 PM
Quote from: TLLK on November 02, 2014, 03:37:27 PM
I can't recall if nausea was an issue with her second pregnancy but it was in her first. Apparently bacon and tomatoes was a combination that she was able to keep down. (That first trimester can really bring on some interesting choices in food.)
Diana as I remember suffered morning sickness with William. I recall her saying at the time "Nobody ever told me I would feel like this". I believe Diana had an easier time with Harry she seemed to be out more.
She's right about people not sharing the information about morning sickness along with other pregnancy related symptoms. Plus no doubt she was surprised by the fatigue factor as well that comes with the first trimester.
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2014, 03:33:45 AM
Quote from: sandy on November 02, 2014, 08:57:25 PM
Quote from: TLLK on November 02, 2014, 04:52:28 AM
Quote from: amabel on October 30, 2014, 05:00:37 PM
and Diana was bulimic, unprepared for life and immature
Sadly this was not going to prepare her for life with the BRF. IMO the BRF has restructured the manner in which new royal brides are introduced to royal life. Even Charles and Anne shared that they did not receive much in the way of training and were expected to just learn by observation. I do believe that both Diana and Sarah should have been given more time to adjust to their new roles in life as Princess of Wales and Duchess of York. Sophie, Camilla and Kate have been granted a longer adjustment period and IMO this has benefited them.
Sophie is a minor royal. Camilla was around for a long time to put it mildly.
I think Kate's "adjustment" period is way overlong. She is not stupid.
Diana's issues had to do with the marital issues with Charles not work.
Sarah had other problems.
I have to disagree about Sophie being considered a minor royal in 1999. By the time Sophie married into the BRF she was one of the higher ranking ladies. In the order of precedence rules at that time she would have ranked higher than a few of the other ladies due being Edward's wife. When Camilla entered into the family then that order became more "flexible" depending upon if Edward would be present or not. The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret were rarely doing any public engagements by 1999 either.
The Wessexes were not expected to be full time royals at the time of their marriage and it wasn't until Ardent was doing poorly and the fall out from the "Fake Sheik" that the decision was made to have them join the Firm on a full time basis.
As for Camilla, she'd been around the royal family for many years but not as a member. :)
Edward was and is way down in line of succession. Their wedding coverage no where near the pomp of his elder brothers' weddings. Their children are not using titles of Prince and Princess.
Sophie is never going to be Queen Consort and can live a relatively low key life with Edward.
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2014, 04:36:31 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 02, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Well not to discuss Sarah on this thread at length - yes she was pretty stupid if she didn't realise that a serving naval officer is going to be away a lot of the time.. (and yeah Sara is pretty stupid)./
and true that Diana was "off sick" during her pregnancy because of morning sickness
I have a whole book of photos of Charles and Diana's earliest tours. For someone "off sick" she appears very active to me. There are countless photos of the two of them, enough for a book.
Quote from: TLLK on November 03, 2014, 02:14:50 PM
^^^Trudie when the Cambridges announced their first child was on the way and that she was suffering from HG, old archival videos were shown where Charles was apologizing for Diana's absence due to morning sickness episodes. :)
yes she did cancel engagements. I remember well because she was such an intriguing public figure at the time and Charles was indeed apologising because she Had to stay home and cancel her engagements.
I admire Camilla for stastaying quiet and not reacting when she was under attack. I can only assume she and Charles had to lean on each other greatly. I feel it says something about her than Andrew still wanted to protect her evendors though he was seeing another woman and she was seeing another man. With the hell Tom and Laura went through, it is astonishing that they turned out as well as they have.
Camila had a powerful man doing the speaking for her via a Spin Team. Mark Bolland worked with Camilla which included Spin. Why on earth would she need to react?
She DID speak to the Sun Editor for ten years and was active undermining Diana for years. I don't see this woman in any way, shape or form "admirable."
Charles was said to give Laura and Tom large trust funds. And Tom gets to refer to Sir and Mum when he's plugging his books and his cooking enterprises.
Charles has a powerful spin machine which has the Great Love Myth, Noble Camilla, Diana the Mad and other things that work for some of the population. I am not buying into it.
It is laughable to me that Camilla is considered a Victim. She chose to have the affair with Charles while both were married to others, she was involved with him pre Diana, she chose not to back off after he married Diana and was always in Charles' life one way or another. She got all sorts of perks and bling and now has the HRH and with that some consider this woman a living saint which she decidedly is not.
She did not get where she is today by being "compassionate."
That rarely happened. This is rewriting history. Diana never hid out like Kate does today and was not constantly "ill." She went out there and that is not the way she told it. She was expected to work even through the morning sickness and she did work. With all the talk of Charles saying she could not appear how come there are so many photos of her appearing.
Quote from: amabel on November 03, 2014, 05:22:55 PM
Quote from: TLLK on November 03, 2014, 02:14:50 PM
^^^Trudie when the Cambridges announced their first child was on the way and that she was suffering from HG, old archival videos were shown where Charles was apologizing for Diana's absence due to morning sickness episodes. :)
yes she did cancel engagements. I remember well because she was such an intriguing public figure at the time and Charles was indeed apologising because she Had to stay home and cancel her engagements.
Fortunately for Diana that stage didn't last too long and she was able to resume her engagements soon after she was better.
She did not cancel many engagements. She did not disappear like Kate did. Ever. Diana even had a duty on the honeymoon: to meet the Sadats with Charles. And right after the honeymoon she went to Wales on a tour with Charles. She did her first solo appearance switching on Christmas lights in 1981. There are many photos of her out and about. So her being "out sick" was a blip on the radar.
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2014, 09:09:33 PM
Quote from: Trudie on November 03, 2014, 11:57:01 AM
^ I do not recall Diana giving up any engagements during her pregnancy. If I recall correctly No thought was given to her role and her engagements were mostly with Charles she became pregnant a couple of months into the marriage. The pregnancy was announced because Diana fell asleep during a concert wearing what the press called the Gorganza dress as she was tired.
I agree. She was out and about constantly.
Quote from: Trudie on November 03, 2014, 11:57:01 AM
^ I do not recall Diana giving up any engagements during her pregnancy. If I recall correctly No thought was given to her role and her engagements were mostly with Charles she became pregnant a couple of months into the marriage. The pregnancy was announced because Diana fell asleep during a concert wearing what the press called the Gorganza dress as she was tired.
That was an exceptionally beautiful dress as I recall. It appeared to be hand painted fabric. Fatigue is a surprising symptom in the first trimester that most new mothers are not aware of until it happens to them. Not surprised that Diana nodded off. :)
Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2014, 12:54:18 AM
Remember sandy that Order of Succession and Order of Precedence are related, but not always the same thing. In 1999 Sophie would have been one of the senior ladies in the BRF in the Order of Precedence. At the time she was the Queen and DoE's only daughter-in-law. The Order of Precedence for the ladies at that time would have been HM, QEQM, Sophie, Princess Royal, Princess Margaret, Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Alice of Gloucester, Duchess of Kent, Princess Michael of Kent, and Princess Alexandra. In 1999 the York Princesses were not participating in the events that would have them involved in the OoP.
I think no matter how Diana behaved - Camilla really was the snake in the grass and there is simply no kind of excuse for her intrusion into the marriage. I have been critical of Diana - but I just cannot find a way to excuse Camilla. Yes Charles too. What fools they all were -
I recall some ridicule when Diana did the makeup with the surgical mask thing - really was not a high spot for her and then the criticisms about her visiting patients at night - when she was really visiting Hasnat.
What a mess they created - I'd like to think in the quiet moments of the day both Charles and Camilla have regrets about how it all turned out -
Sophie did not have the elaborate wedding that Diana and Sarah had. She is still married to someone very low in line of succession. Sophie's husband moved further down since the birth of George and he will fall another notch at the birth of George's sibling.
And you are talking the late 1990s not the present time.
Diana was still interested in charity work it was not just "for" Hasnet. She was interested in him at the time and he was interested in her.
I don't think Charles and Camilla have any regrets and showed it when Charles was wanting Camilla to go to the Diana Memorial service in 2007.
Yes they did not have the elaborate wedding because that was the couple's choice and it wisely considered the mood at the time. Since I had brought up when the newer brides entered the BRF it was correct to consider that Sophie was ranked higher than her sister-in-law Anne and other "born royal" princesses in the OoP. She was not a minor royal.
Quote from: cate1949 on November 04, 2014, 12:14:49 AM
I think no matter how Diana behaved - Camilla really was the snake in the grass and there is simply no kind of excuse for her intrusion into the marriage. I have been critical of Diana - but I just cannot find a way to excuse Camilla. Yes Charles too. What fools they all were -
I recall some ridicule when Diana did the makeup with the surgical mask thing - really was not a high spot for her and then the criticisms about her visiting patients at night - when she was really visiting Hasnat.
What a mess they created - I'd like to think in the quiet moments of the day both Charles and Camilla have regrets about how it all turned out -
:goodpost:
Yes, as I have said before, I think both Charles and Diana made mistakes that contributed to the breakdown of their marriage. However it takes a special kind of woman, and I DON'T mean that as a compliment, who would think it was quite OK to sit in the front at a memorial service to her rival.
She must have known that she had caused Diana huge anguish and heartache in her lifetime. She must have known that Diana's sons were inviting her to the memorial partly out of politeness, partly to keep their father happy. Yet, until public reaction told her different she was quite prepared to attend and listen to the prayers and tributes. The woman has the hide of a rhino! Nothing phases her!
In a way I'm sorry she didn't go. Had she gone and listened to Harry's speech about his mother and the other tributes to Diana she might have been brought to some sort of realisation about what she had done.
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on November 03, 2014, 07:03:12 PM
I admire Camilla for stastaying quiet and not reacting when she was under attack. I can only assume she and Charles had to lean on each other greatly. I feel it says something about her than Andrew still wanted to protect her evendors though he was seeing another woman and she was seeing another man. With the hell Tom and Laura went through, it is astonishing that they turned out as well as they have.
Really? Camilla wasn't that quiet like the rest of the Highgrove set plenty made it's way to the press. As for Andrew do you really believe he wanted to protect her endeavors because he thought she was so wonderful? He protected the fact his wife was sleeping with HRH The Prince of Wales a man who will be King of the Country and a very important and powerful man. Andrew wanted to stay in the royal orbit for a sense of importance Lets get real here if she was sleeping with a Baron or knight do you honestly believe he would have been so complacent?. Tom and Laura were more protected then William and Harry their only embarrassment was the world finding out their stepfather wanted to be their mothers tampon.
Quote from: Trudie on November 04, 2014, 01:33:13 AM
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on November 03, 2014, 07:03:12 PM
I admire Camilla for stastaying quiet and not reacting when she was under attack. I can only assume she and Charles had to lean on each other greatly. I feel it says something about her than Andrew still wanted to protect her evendors though he was seeing another woman and she was seeing another man. With the hell Tom and Laura went through, it is astonishing that they turned out as well as they have.
Really? Camilla wasn't that quiet like the rest of the Highgrove set plenty made it's way to the press. As for Andrew do you really believe he wanted to protect her endeavors because he thought she was so wonderful? He protected the fact his wife was sleeping with HRH The Prince of Wales a man who will be King of the Country and a very important and powerful man. Andrew wanted to stay in the royal orbit for a sense of importance Lets get real here if she was sleeping with a Baron or knight do you honestly believe he would have been so complacent?. Tom and Laura were more protected then William and Harry their only embarrassment was the world finding out their stepfather wanted to be their mothers tampon.
Andrew Parker Bowles had other fish to fry. The Parker Bowles's had long had quite an open marriage. He was seeing other women. He knew she was seeing Charles. They both kept to the old aristocratic principle that 'it's all right so long nothing come out into the open'.
Charles more or less outed Camilla in his Dimbleby interview, Camilla's father confronted Charles, making him tearful, and then APB was called 'Mr Simpson' at Ascot. Ernest Simpson was, of course, the ultimate 'man who laid down his wife for the King', or in this case the POW. It all became too much, and Andrew wanted a divorce. He and Camilla remain cordial, though.
We all know Andrew Parker Bowles had other fish to fry and He and Camilla were playing with Charles and Anne before they even married but the simple fact remained even though Charles out Camilla forcing the divorce truth is Andrew would have been less civil during his marriage breakup if Camilla's lover had been anyone other then the Prince of Wales.
Curryong your above post is right to the point and I agree however, even if Camilla had gone to Diana's memorial service and listened to Harry's speech or the other tributes I believe Camilla realized what she had done long before and really wouldn't have cared Camilla realized her ambitions and IMO that is all she really cared about. I have to disagree with you there Camilla was and always will be all about Camilla.
things could have very easily gone the wrong way for Cam and Charles and it is amazing they both were willing to "play with fire".
The Archbishop of Canterbury could have refused to cooperate and said a divorced and remarried man could not be Head of the CoE - Parliament could have refused - George IV wanted a divorce and parliament refused him - the public could have expressed such outrage that he would never have been able to be King - a lot could have gone wrong and he too could have ended up giving up his position as heir for the "woman he loved". It really took a lot of chutzpah from these two when you consider what they were risking. Cam might have spent the rest of her days as his mistress - to be overlooked and maybe even abandoned when he became King - the two Princes could have rebelled also refusing to go along with the marriage.
It is as if the two of them just sort of drifted into where they are now - Di could have refused to divorce and went along - in which case again Camilla would have been nothing more than the mistress - barred from official events etc.
What was her plan? Did she really just want to be his mistress? I rather doubt she thought she could mastermind 1) the divorce 2) the good will of the Archbishop and the Parliament and 3) Harry and Will's approval 4) the Queen's approval 5) the public's tolerance - that is a tall order when you think about it and she also had to keep Charles docile. Yes thus far they have succeeded and it does appear she will get to be Queen Consort (assuming a long and healthy life). Pretty remarkable if you consider all the ways it which it could not have worked out for her.
I wouldn't give her the credit for being so crafty - some credit - but she sure got lucky. Yes Charles pr men work overtime but if the day comes when she is crowned as consort at Westminster - she sure will have beaten the odds.
Quote from: Curryong on November 04, 2014, 01:31:14 AM
Yes, as I have said before, I think both Charles and Diana made mistakes that contributed to the breakdown of their marriage. However it takes a special kind of woman, and I DON'T mean that as a compliment, who would think it was quite OK to sit in the front at a memorial service to her rival.
She must have known that she had caused Diana huge anguish and heartache in her lifetime. She must have known that Diana's sons were inviting her to the memorial partly out of politeness, partly to keep their father happy. Yet, until public reaction told her different she was quite prepared to attend and listen to the prayers and tributes. The woman has the hide of a rhino! Nothing phases her!
In a way I'm sorry she didn't go. Had she gone and listened to Harry's speech about his mother and the other tributes to Diana she might have been brought to some sort of realisation about what she had done.
I doubt she would have cared two cents about "that ridiculous creature" as she called Diana despite Harry's speech. She would have hijacked the whole event had she shown up. She probably would have grinned for the cameras as if to say "see we've all moved on".
It was a whole lot more than "luck." The woman undermined the first wife every step of the way and manipulated and schemed. She was no passive person swept away by the tide of circumstances. She was an active participant even going to the press for ten years to give 'her side'. Camilla worked very hard to undermine the wife and had she had a shred of decency would have completely severed contact with Charles. It boils down to a wishy washy, self entitled man who lost his moral compass in the thrall of a married woman who called the shots. She played him and the Camillagate tapes shows a lot of her modus operandi. Camilla IMO was and is a greedy woman who wanted what she wanted and did not care how she went about getting it. She saw off Diana in quite a ruthless fashion.
The boys have a very complex needy father who is said to have a bad temper. The lesser of two evils was IMO to go along with what their father wanted and not oppose the marriage.
The Archbishop who married C and D knew all about Camilla but expressed no reservations to the couple. I think that gives some reasons why the Archbishops Charles dealt with were so accommodating.
Charles had a PR team to try to whitewash the situations and rehabilitate Camilla. Charles outed Camilla in 1994 and more or less became obligated.
I don't see anything laudable or remarkable about the woman "beating the odds." And it may very well be an "empty victory" since she is not a universally loved figure to put it mildly and there are people out there not rooting for her also to put it mildly.
The Queen had a habit of ostriching which really allowed the C and C situation to get worse and worse and more or less doomed Charles first marriage to Diana.
Charles did not have to give up a thing, did not care how he hurt his first wife clinging to the mistress, but his popularity IMO took a hit which he never really rebounded from (not everyone adores him to say the least).
Quote from: cate1949 on November 04, 2014, 03:24:31 AM
things could have very easily gone the wrong way for Cam and Charles and it is amazing they both were willing to "play with fire".
The Archbishop of Canterbury could have refused to cooperate and said a divorced and remarried man could not be Head of the CoE - Parliament could have refused - George IV wanted a divorce and parliament refused him - the public could have expressed such outrage that he would never have been able to be King - a lot could have gone wrong and he too could have ended up giving up his position as heir for the "woman he loved". It really took a lot of chutzpah from these two when you consider what they were risking. Cam might have spent the rest of her days as his mistress - to be overlooked and maybe even abandoned when he became King - the two Princes could have rebelled also refusing to go along with the marriage.
It is as if the two of them just sort of drifted into where they are now - Di could have refused to divorce and went along - in which case again Camilla would have been nothing more than the mistress - barred from official events etc.
What was her plan? Did she really just want to be his mistress? I rather doubt she thought she could mastermind
Cam did not want to be queen, she never envisaged Diana wanting a divorce and was IMO more than happy to remain as C's mistress all her life.
Quote from: Curryong on October 31, 2014, 07:11:43 AM
Quote from: amabel on October 31, 2014, 06:32:29 AM
Why do you say that? She had an affair with Hewitt while married to Charles. Did anyting bad happen to her?? If she had stayed within her marriage, she and Charles would now be a middle aged couple watching their son getting married. I hardly think if she had stayed married to Charles, that she would have died in a car accident in Paris... an accident which happened largely because she had trusted herself to the messy security system of a foolish man like Dodi.
So if Diana, (who, let me emphasise, I do not let off the hook for her mistakes) had been satisfied with an open marriage like Camilla Parker Bowles's, everything would have been fine and dandy would it?
Hmmm ... she WAS satisfied with an open marriage as she took a lot of lovers (at least 4 that we know of) it's only when her adulterous relationships didn't work out she became a witch as she saw C & C happy together ...
Quote from: Curryong on November 04, 2014, 01:31:14 AM
Yes, as I have said before, I think both Charles and Diana made mistakes that contributed to the breakdown of their marriage. However it takes a special kind of woman, and I DON'T mean that as a compliment, who would think it was quite OK to sit in the front at a memorial service to her rival.
She must have known that she had caused Diana huge anguish and heartache in her lifetime. She must have known that Diana's sons were inviting her to the memorial partly out of politeness, partly to keep their father happy. Yet, until public reaction told her different she was quite prepared to attend and listen to the prayers and tributes. The woman has the hide of a rhino! Nothing phases her!
In a way I'm sorry she didn't go. Had she gone and listened to Harry's speech about his mother and the other tributes to Diana she might have been brought to some sort of realisation about what she had done.
Actually it was her husband who wanted her to attend (other than the fact she was invited) I doubt she was dying to go ... in fact it was reported that was one of the rare times C&C had an epic fight ...
Well, the story that I read was that, though Charles was insisting she go, Camilla did not want to. William and Harry intervened and asked her to reconsider, which she did. But when it was plain that the public was outraged, she stayed home. Simple to me....
They're human beings, not monsters, so I hope that they have many regrets. But even regrets can't make the world (or their world) stop.
Cindy
Eri were you there living with Charles and Diana? Diana was never OK with an open marriage that was a fact. Back then divorce was not a option. Who exactly is the fourth affair? the only ones ever made public was Hewitt during the marriage, Khan during the separation and Dodi post divorce any other alleged affairs were never confirmed or denied to this day 17 years after her death so what exactly is your point?
Quote from: Eri on November 04, 2014, 08:04:05 AM
Quote from: Curryong on October 31, 2014, 07:11:43 AM
Quote from: amabel on October 31, 2014, 06:32:29 AM
Why do you say that? She had an affair with Hewitt while married to Charles. Did anyting bad happen to her?? If she had stayed within her marriage, she and Charles would now be a middle aged couple watching their son getting married. I hardly think if she had stayed married to Charles, that she would have died in a car accident in Paris... an accident which happened largely because she had trusted herself to the messy security system of a foolish man like Dodi.
So if Diana, (who, let me emphasise, I do not let off the hook for her mistakes) had been satisfied with an open marriage like Camilla Parker Bowles's, everything would have been fine and dandy would it?
Hmmm ... she WAS satisfied with an open marriage as she took a lot of lovers (at least 4 that we know of) it's only when her adulterous relationships didn't work out she became a witch as she saw C & C happy together ...
She was not satisfied with the open marriage. She even told Camilla "I want my husband" during their confrontation. And Eri what do you mean by "we". This is your opinion who are the "we" that you refer to. Certainly I don't share your opinion.
She became a witch? Tell me how you really feel about Diana?
By the way Camilla was married to someone else when she was "with" Charles in case you did not know it. So apparently she believed in open marriages.
And did you follow Diana around so you have a count of her "lovers." Seems like more of a witch hunt.
Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2014, 02:48:07 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 04, 2014, 07:18:37 AM
Quote from: cate1949 on November 04, 2014, 03:24:31 AM
things could have very easily gone the wrong way for Cam and Charles and it is amazing they both were willing to "play with fire".
The Archbishop of Canterbury could have refused to cooperate and said a divorced and remarried man could not be Head of the CoE - Parliament could have refused - George IV wanted a divorce and parliament refused him - the public could have expressed such outrage that he would never have been able to be King - a lot could have gone wrong and he too could have ended up giving up his position as heir for the "woman he loved". It really took a lot of chutzpah from these two when you consider what they were risking. Cam might have spent the rest of her days as his mistress - to be overlooked and maybe even abandoned when he became King - the two Princes could have rebelled also refusing to go along with the marriage.
It is as if the two of them just sort of drifted into where they are now - Di could have refused to divorce and went along - in which case again Camilla would have been nothing more than the mistress - barred from official events etc.
What was her plan? Did she really just want to be his mistress? I rather doubt she thought she could mastermind
Cam did not want to be queen, she never envisaged Diana wanting a divorce and was IMO more than happy to remain as C's mistress all her life.
Really? So how come she said yes to Charles marriage proposal and went ahead and married him.
Charles wanted the divorce.
I think Camilla had huge ambitions, why else would she have become mistress to the Prince of Wales. His sycophantic friends rallied around her and not Diana.
With all due respect, Sandy, it's all hearsay. We offer our opinions based on what we've read. :shrug: I'm not saying Camilla should have gone. It's probably best that she didn't. I could be wrong, but still, I can't imagine she was like a bull in a china shop, forging ahead and demanding that she be included.
Cindy
I think in many ways she is like a bull in a china shop. She may be totally insensitive. There are people like that in the world.
The point is as the senior royals Harry and William have more heirs and heiresses, it is inevitable that Edward slips further down in the line of succession. Even Bea and Eugenie's future children will be ahead of Edward.
Quote from: Eri on November 04, 2014, 08:04:05 AM
Quote from: Curryong on October 31, 2014, 07:11:43 AM
Quote from: amabel on October 31, 2014, 06:32:29 AM
Why do you say that? She had an affair with Hewitt while married to Charles. Did anyting bad happen to her?? If she had stayed within her marriage, she and Charles would now be a middle aged couple watching their son getting married. I hardly think if she had stayed married to Charles, that she would have died in a car accident in Paris... an accident which happened largely because she had trusted herself to the messy security system of a foolish man like Dodi.
So if Diana, (who, let me emphasise, I do not let off the hook for her mistakes) had been satisfied with an open marriage like Camilla Parker Bowles's, everything would have been fine and dandy would it?
Hmmm ... she WAS satisfied with an open marriage as she took a lot of lovers (at least 4 that we know of) it's only when her adulterous relationships didn't work out she became a witch as she saw C & C happy together ...
With the exception of Hewitt I don't believe she was physically intimate with anyone else during her marriage. I do believe that she was emotionally involved though with other men though.
Quote from: cinrit on November 04, 2014, 02:57:52 PM
With all due respect, Sandy, it's all hearsay. We offer our opinions based on what we've read. :shrug: I'm not saying Camilla should have gone. It's probably best that she didn't. I could be wrong, but still, I can't imagine she was like a bull in a china shop, forging ahead and demanding that she be included.
Cindy
Agreed and at a discussion board like RIF there will be many different accounts to be shared.
Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2014, 03:11:50 PM
Quote from: cinrit on November 04, 2014, 11:33:53 AM
Well, the story that I read was that, though Charles was insisting she go, Camilla did not want to. William and Harry intervened and asked her to reconsider, which she did. But when it was plain that the public was outraged, she stayed home. Simple to me....
They're human beings, not monsters, so I hope that they have many regrets. But even regrets can't make the world (or their world) stop.
Cindy
In the end the right decision was made for her to stay away from the service. IMO I cannot understand why she would want to go the event, but she likely found herself in a difficult position with Charles and his sons requesting that she attend.
Hmm, not sure. I have doubts now about Manakee... I think that other than Hewitt though she didn't have any other lovers until she was separated from Charles, But she was still married ot him and at least one of her lovers was a married man. I think that its possible that her desire to "get out of the marriage" which led her to do Morton was because she had broken up with J Hewitt and she wanted ot be Free to find another steadier relationship. Had the Hewitt affair lasted, she migh have put up with the marriage
I really find it difficult to believe William and Harry were "urging" her to go. She would have hijacked the ceremony being there. I think they were being polite and breathed sighs of relief when she backed out of going. If she had gone there it would have become a soap opera with pictures of her "reacting" to the service. Totally tasteless--I can't imagine the boys wanting her there.Charles I think was the one pushing her to show they had "moved on."
I read an article that before Camilla and Charles married she would be demanding about her going places with him and with an "I'm going" show up at the event. It would not surprise me if she was the one who wanted to go to the Memorial the most.
Diana denied the affair with Mannakee when asked point blank. Why is she disbelieved? If Charles denied something, would he be believed. Is it just Diana.
Carling denied any affair took place. Hoare did not confirm or deny. Diana denied being intimate with Mannakee.
Diana did not cooperate with Morton because of Hewitt. But because of the years of nasty press leaking by Charles pals and the need for her to get her side out there.Also Charles was becoming more and more emotionally abusive, putting her down in public. She was tired of it.
I don't think Diana wanted a sham of a marriage with her keeping people on the side and Charles being with his mistress. And again, Charles made it difficult because he became more emotionally abusive.
I agree that she was only physically intimate with Hewitt while married to Charles. However I do believe that she had an emotional attachment to the others.
At the end of the day, Charles, Camilla and Diana were involved in adultery.
Yes, they were all adulterous. But if you think of it in degrees, Charles and Camilla were like a Cat 4 Hurricane, and Diana a tropical storm. If a man isn't willing to give up his mistress and work at having a happy marriage, there really isn't a marriage to salvage.
Whatever Diana's faults, Charles and Camilla's were huge, dishonest, and marriage-destroying.
^ Well said! :notworthy:
Quote from: sandy on November 04, 2014, 04:59:41 PM
Diana denied the affair with Mannakee when asked point blank. Why is she disbelieved? If Charles denied something, would he be believed. Is it just Diana.
Carling denied any affair took place. Hoare did not confirm or deny. Diana denied being intimate with Mannakee.
Diana did not cooperate with Morton because of Hewitt. But because of the years of nasty press leaking by Charles pals and the need for her to get her side out there.Also Charles was becoming more and more emotionally abusive, putting her down in public. She was tired of it.
I don't think Diana wanted a sham of a marriage with her keeping people on the side and Charles being with his mistress. And again, Charles made it difficult because he became more emotionally abusive.
I totally agree with all this Sandy. Not only when Diana confronted Camilla did she say she wanted her husband, In the Gilbey tapes Diana said Charles made her life real torture. Charles was downright nasty and verbally abusive to Diana. I wonder how many of Charles defenders would put up with a marriage like Diana's?.
At the time of the Memorial service William and Harry were under the umbrella of CH. Therefore any planning and inviting would have been done by Charles Private Secretary. Charles and Camilla were married by then so my guess is William and Harry sent the invitation to their father and because Camilla was his wife she was included in the invitation. I really don't believe William or Harry dreamed she would accept and when it was put out that she didn't want to go I think that was a fake PR move. I also think that the Princes begging her to go was again Charles PR at it's best. Camilla never lacked nerve that was very apparent during Diana's lifetime.
This isn't precisely a question about Charles in the War of the Wales years, but do you think he has some sort of detachment from reality in his emotional life? In what sort of universe would a 32 year old man think that his young fiancee would be quite OK about him seeing an ex mistress alone and giving her a farewell gift of a bracelet? Or later, in phoning Camilla to tell her of Diana's pregnancy. Similarly, Charles was oblivious to Diana's feelings when he wore Camilla's cufflinks in front of her. I don't think Charles was being consciously cruel. It seems to be more a sort of obliviousness to someone else's feelings.
During the 'happy engagement' interview he came out with 'whatever love means' after being asked if he and Diana were in love. (An odd question anyway!) Penny Junor and others have described him as an extremely sensitive man. Perhaps he is but on many occasions he seems to have over-intellectualised things to an extraordinary degree.
Your engagement interview is hardly the time to make a comment on the philisophical nature of love! A friend described the comment as 'an awkward attempt at introspection'. The trouble is, there seems to be quite a lot of this clumsiness (almost an emotional disconnect) about Charles.
When Charles was supposed to have made the statement 'Oh, It's a boy. And he's even got red hair" when seeing Harry for the first time, was he not aware that his wife, from a family of redheads, feeling exhausted from childbirth, might take that statement the wrong way? When Charles read of Diana's feelings of devastation at his comments, later when the Morton book came out, he was reportedly 'horrified'.
Again, the obliviousness! Yet this is a man who becomes upset over the plight of Christians in the Middle East, the environment and world peace and many other issues. Is his behaviour the result of his rather cold, buttoned-up upbringing? His intellectual 'probing' nature? I'm genuinely puzzled by it.
I would guess that it is a combination of Charles not having had the typical family experience growing up (the Queen, much as I admire her for how she has carried out her official role, does not seem to have been the doting mother type, and Phil really really wasn't a warm father) and being the heir in an era where that gave him pretty much a pass on everything (all PoWs have mistresses, etc.). I think Charles hadn't really learned how to have functional, equal relationships with women, and in general had not had the kind of family life that taught him how to express emotion appropriately, etc.
None of which is an excuse for his failings, of course, but I can see how in his very unusual upbringing and somewhat formal relationship with his parents, he turned out the way he did. I think over the years he has learned how to be better in personal relationships -- first with Will and Harry (especially after Diana's death, when he really stepped up with them) and also through his long relationship with Camilla (who, whatever else might be said, he seems to genuinely love).
I think Charles loves himself. If he had loved Camilla he would have told her to wait for him. If he loved her he would have considered her as suitable to be his wife and mother of his heirs.
I think he should have left WIlliam and Harry out of the Camilla campaign.
Sandy I totally agree with your post. Canuck I know you are not offering up an excuse however, Charles although he had a very formal upbringing he did have emotional attachments specifically with his grandmother. The QM doted on Charles and was his support system even while he was in boarding school and there was his nannies. He doted on both his sons as infants and it was always evident in videos how relaxed and paternal he was just look on you tube at his helicopter landing and the hugs flying between him and the Princes. Charles flat out never loved Diana she was just his brood mare and the suitable wife.
These threads seem to be verreing off topic? we have discussions of Diana in Cam's thread, vice versa
With regard to Charles and the obliviousness he shows towards other people's feelings, which I wrote about in my former post. It wasn't just Diana.
Anna 'whiplash' Wallace was an official girlfriend of Charles's. Charles was genuinely astounded when Anna Wallace greeted him at the end of a night where he had danced constantly with Camilla, with "You have left me alone all evening. Now I'm afraid you'll have to continue without me". And she walked.
Anna was a strong-minded woman, which Charles must have known. Did he expect that anna would accept it all with a simper and a "That's all right, darling." just because he was POW? If he doesn't have some sort of emotional disconnect, some lack of commonsense , then he has the most massve sense of entitlement since the days of the French 'Sun King'!
As I observed before, that clashes with his anguish about and well known concern for environmental issues and sensitiyity towards people of Christian faith in the Middle East etc.
I don't see what this has to od with C s behaviour during the wales war, but IIRC Charles left Anna alone after a few dances ot have duty dances wiht other women. She was angry..but it was "proper party behaviour!" I think it was at another dance where he danced with Camilla a lot and she brorke up with him.
well Since I have b een trying to stick to the rules and stay on topic, I don't quite know what to do... I don't want to get told off for veering off topic, but there does not seem ob any thing from the mods on this issue
My last post on Charles referenced my post before that and was a continuation of it. I opened the first post by explaining that it wasn't specifically about Charles during the 90's, but an exploration of his extraordinarily obtuse attitude towards females. The second post, about the evening Anna Wallace finished with him (to his astonishment) was a further illustration of that. (These attitudes continued during the 1990's, by the way.)
Quote from: amabel on November 04, 2014, 07:18:37 AM
Quote from: cate1949 on November 04, 2014, 03:24:31 AM
things could have very easily gone the wrong way for Cam and Charles and it is amazing they both were willing to "play with fire".
The Archbishop of Canterbury could have refused to cooperate and said a divorced and remarried man could not be Head of the CoE - Parliament could have refused - George IV wanted a divorce and parliament refused him - the public could have expressed such outrage that he would never have been able to be King - a lot could have gone wrong and he too could have ended up giving up his position as heir for the "woman he loved". It really took a lot of chutzpah from these two when you consider what they were risking. Cam might have spent the rest of her days as his mistress - to be overlooked and maybe even abandoned when he became King - the two Princes could have rebelled also refusing to go along with the marriage.
It is as if the two of them just sort of drifted into where they are now - Di could have refused to divorce and went along - in which case again Camilla would have been nothing more than the mistress - barred from official events etc.
What was her plan? Did she really just want to be his mistress? I rather doubt she thought she could mastermind
Cam did not want to be queen, she never envisaged Diana wanting a divorce and was IMO more than happy to remain as C's mistress all her life.
I agree, Camilla still doesn't seem so keen on the idea of being Queen or a Princess. Its just what has been thrown at her because of the choices she and others made. She didn't scheme into this posituon, she seemed fine to be left in the background.
I am so tired of people acting like Charles is some anomaly because he lived in a world where husbands have mistresses. Charles is far from the only man in the royal family who has lived this way, nor is it only a British thing. American aristocracy live by the same rules as evidenced by marriages like JFK and Jackie and FDR and Eleanor. I've even heard of these kinds of arrangements in sports like basketball etc. I'm not saying it's right but it is common and a lot more men live that way than Charles. In addition I no longer believe Charles marri3d Diana planning to keep Camila on the side. That is Diana's version of the story but it doesn't mean it's the truth. I think Charles and Camilla remained friends, but he couldnt understand or grasp how being friends with your ex would hurt Diana and truthfully a lot of women.
:goodpost: :notworthy: :goodpost:
I don't see how they could have been traumatized by the War of the Waleses and begging Camilla to attend! They are not delusional!
Quote from: Trudie on November 04, 2014, 10:31:46 PM
At the time of the Memorial service William and Harry were under the umbrella of CH. Therefore any planning and inviting would have been done by Charles Private Secretary. Charles and Camilla were married by then so my guess is William and Harry sent the invitation to their father and because Camilla was his wife she was included in the invitation. I really don't believe William or Harry dreamed she would accept and when it was put out that she didn't want to go I think that was a fake PR move. I also think that the Princes begging her to go was again Charles PR at it's best. Camilla never lacked nerve that was very apparent during Diana's lifetime.
The Duchess was INVITED by her stepsons and declined and even then she was INVITED again any other spin on the situation is just that spin and Di's fans imagination working over time ...
*Hair of the Dog by Nazareth plays quietly in the background* :lol:
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on November 05, 2014, 10:55:37 AM
I am so tired of people acting like Charles is some anomaly because he lived in a world where husbands have mistresses. Charles is far from the only man in the royal family who has lived this way, nor is it only a British thing. American aristocracy live by the same rules as evidenced by marriages like JFK and Jackie and FDR and Eleanor. I've even heard of these kinds of arrangements in sports like basketball etc. I'm not saying it's right but it is common and a lot more men live that way than Charles. In addition I no longer believe Charles marri3d Diana planning to keep Camila on the side. That is Diana's version of the story but it doesn't mean it's the truth. I think Charles and Camilla remained friends, but he couldnt understand or grasp how being friends with your ex would hurt Diana and truthfully a lot of women.
Really? Husbands having mistresses is not a good thing and hurtful to the wife. Cheating on one's wife is still wrong no matter who the couple is. Free passes for cheating husbands given I see.
Camilla and Charles could never really remain "friends" as history has proven. They kept in touch throughout the marriage and it was not just Diana's testimony--his valet Stephen Barry noted Charles would ring up Camilla during his honeymoon with Diana.
I see some sexism with the Little Woman having to put up with the Great Man's philandering. Back to the Dark Ages.
Franklin Roosevelt told his mother and Eleanor he would stop seeing Lucy Mercer. He lied. I don't condone dishonesty.
Jackie was said to have gotten some sort of settlement from her father in law to put up with her husband's cheating so he could be President.
Camilla was quite active in undermining Diana and had the nerve to sit in Diana's place at Highgrove and play hostess even ordering servants around. If the woman did not want anything she would have butted out and told Charles to work on his marriage. She went to the Sun editor. The woman is no innocent. As far as the spin of her not wanting anything I have a bridge to sell people who believe that. This woman has plenty of ambitions and did not get where she is today by being kind.
Quote from: Eri on November 05, 2014, 12:43:36 PM
The Duchess was INVITED by her stepsons and declined and even then she was INVITED again any other spin on the situation is just that spin and Di's fans imagination working over time ...
There were no decrees or statements that this is true. I think it was whitewashing. I think the boys breathed sighs of relief when Camllla backed down. And why Camilla would even consider this is really weird--she would be inviting a lot of criticism to herself with the media going after her for hypocrisy. And undoing all the Spin that Charles orchestrated.
[mod]Several posts have been removed or edited because they did not abide by our community standards (Rules (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?action=about) and Etiquette (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?action=about;sa=Etiquette) ) . Replies may also be deleted. Please keep to the subject at hand and NOT each other. Thanks![/mod]
Quote from: snokitty on November 05, 2014, 06:21:15 AM
Because three threads were not needed. It always winds up involving all three and there really is no way to avoid that.
Hi snokitty here's a little background on the threads. It was discussed awhile ago before you returned and with two members of the moderation team who agreed it would help cut down on the War of the Wales topic being introduced into too many threads.
Whatever The Duchess did (if she indeed did it) was in The Princes's home!!! So if anything HE should be burned to the stake for it ... not that I think he should as Di HAD THE NERVE to sleep IN HIS HOME with her lover HEWITT !!! So here comes that very funny time of the Day when Di fans throw stones from her glass house seriously every single thing Cam did Di did also so some trying to make The Duchess out to be a "monster" is hilarious and useless as very few buy into it especially we under 40 ...
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on November 05, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: amabel on November 04, 2014, 07:18:37 AM
Quote from: cate1949 on November 04, 2014, 03:24:31 AM
things could have very easily gone the wrong way for Cam and Charles and it is amazing they both were willing to "play with fire".
The Archbishop of Canterbury could have refused to cooperate and said a divorced and remarried man could not be Head of the CoE - Parliament could have refused - George IV wanted a divorce and parliament refused him - the public could have expressed such outrage that he would never have been able to be King - a lot could have gone wrong and he too could have ended up giving up his position as heir for the "woman he loved". It really took a lot of chutzpah from these two when you consider what they were risking. Cam might have spent the rest of her days as his mistress - to be overlooked and maybe even abandoned when he became King - the two Princes could have rebelled also refusing to go along with the marriage.
It is as if the two of them just sort of drifted into where they are now - Di could have refused to divorce and went along - in which case again Camilla would have been nothing more than the mistress - barred from official events etc.
What was her plan? Did she really just want to be his mistress? I rather doubt she thought she could mastermind
Cam did not want to be queen, she never envisaged Diana wanting a divorce and was IMO more than happy to remain as C's mistress all her life.
I agree, Camilla still doesn't seem so keen on the idea of being Queen or a Princess. Its just what has been thrown at her because of the choices she and others made. She didn't scheme into this posituon, she seemed fine to be left in the background.
I think she would have been if not perfectly happy, with being C's mistress, happy enough. I dot think she ever thought that Charles and Di would divorce, but when they did, naturally she was going to want to marry him and I certainly can't blame her for wanting to share his rank. But I don't think she was ever crazy about being Queen.. per se.
Quote from: sandy on November 05, 2014, 04:38:36 PM
Quote from: Eri on November 05, 2014, 12:43:36 PM
The Duchess was INVITED by her stepsons and declined and even then she was INVITED again any other spin on the situation is just that spin and Di's fans imagination working over time ...
There were no decrees or statements that this is true. I think it was whitewashing. I think the boys breathed sighs of relief when Camllla backed down. And why Camilla would even consider this is really weird--she would be inviting a lot of criticism to herself with the media going after her for hypocrisy. And undoing all the Spin that Charles orchestrated.
She considered going because HER FAMILY her husband and his sons invited her INVITED her !!! It was an impossible situation for her she was invited as the boy's stepmother but she couldn't go for obvious reasons declining and having to tell them NO over and over again !!!
well they were in a difficult positon. I don't say the boys wanted to invite her -but if they didn't it would look bad. and possible it was felt that it would look bad if she said no, initially. I think she might have been better to make a polite refusal from the first but to thank them for the invite, but say it was their mother and she didn't want to intrude.
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on November 05, 2014, 10:55:37 AM
I am so tired of people acting like Charles is some anomaly because he lived in a world where husbands have mistresses. Charles is far from the only man in the royal family who has lived this way, nor is it only a British thing. American aristocracy live by the same rules as evidenced by marriages like JFK and Jackie and FDR and Eleanor. I've even heard of these kinds of arrangements in sports like basketball etc. I'm not saying it's
I agree Katerina. I don't think ti is that unusual, among upper class people of whatever era and Charles is hardly "a unique monster," in that respect.
It may be acceptable now for the upper classes to divorce, the way it wasn't 50 years ago, but not all of them rush to the divorce court every time they find out about an indiscretion. I agree that I don't think that Charles intended to return to his affair with Cam, when he married. I think that he was not happy with DI, she wasn't happy with him, the marriage was a failure, and he turned back to his old love and left Di to find a man herself if she wanted.
I don't know if it was so common among the American upper classes, but probably it was,
and even today, in other ranks of society, I should say that a lot of people turn a blind eye, and don't go rusihng off to end their marriages over an affair...
^^^I agree that is a reasonable summary of what likely happened.
I think Charles had every intention of keeping in touch with Camilla--Stephen Barry said Charles phoned her on the honeymoon and they met up at the hunts. She indicated she was "there for him." He was too emotionally attached to Camilla to have much of an incentive to work on his marriage to Diana. He admitted he preferred Camilla to Diana at the time of his marriage to Diana (this appears in his authorized biography). Diana was happy with Charles and Charles was affectionate with Diana at first. They had two children together so the marriage was not a "failure". Charles I think wanted heirs and the suitable wife and after that he resumed intimacy with Camilla though they were never really out of touch before that.
Why should Diana have to turn a blind eye? After Charles went back to Camilla he got emotionally abusive with Diana and started putting her down in front of other people. I think Camilla had the upper hand every step of the way. It was not just their sleeping together, Camilla undermined the wife.
Diana hardly rushed to the divorce court. She put up with the marriage for 10 years before the Morton book was published.
Quote from: amabel on November 05, 2014, 05:18:58 PM
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on November 05, 2014, 10:55:37 AM
I am so tired of people acting like Charles is some anomaly because he lived in a world where husbands have mistresses. Charles is far from the only man in the royal family who has lived this way, nor is it only a British thing. American aristocracy live by the same rules as evidenced by marriages like JFK and Jackie and FDR and Eleanor. I've even heard of these kinds of arrangements in sports like basketball etc. I'm not saying it's
I agree Katerina. I don't think ti is that unusual, among upper class people of whatever era and Charles is hardly "a unique monster," in that respect.
It may be acceptable now for the upper classes to divorce, the way it wasn't 50 years ago, but not all of them rush to the divorce court every time they find out about an indiscretion. I agree that I don't think that Charles intended to return to his affair with Cam, when he married. I think that he was not happy with DI, she wasn't happy with him, the marriage was a failure, and he turned back to his old love and left Di to find a man herself if she wanted.
I don't know if it was so common among the American upper classes, but probably it was,
and even today, in other ranks of society, I should say that a lot of people turn a blind eye, and don't go rusihng off to end their marriages over an affair...
Tell me something Katerina and amabel would you put up with your husband having a mistress? Common or not I do not believe their is a woman alive who unless they were a gold digger or only interested in their place in high society that would turn a blind eye, especially if the mistress undermined and disrespected the wife in the manner Camilla did to Diana. Oh and amabel FYI it was Charles to filed for the separation and divorce. So Diana didn't go rushing to the courts it was the Great Man.
^ That's my thoughts, too
@Trudie. Who the hell would put up with that? It's just nasty IMO.
Quote from: Eri on November 05, 2014, 04:55:04 PM
Whatever The Duchess did (if she indeed did it) was in The Princes's home!!! So if anything HE should be burned to the stake for it ... not that I think he should as Di HAD THE NERVE to sleep IN HIS HOME with her lover HEWITT !!! So here comes that very funny time of the Day when Di fans throw stones from her glass house seriously every single thing Cam did Di did also so some trying to make The Duchess out to be a "monster" is hilarious and useless as very few buy into it especially we under 40 ...
Really Eri ? then since you are under 40 and wasn't old enough to remember all that really happened I find it hilarious that you say Diana fans throw stones from her glass house. No Diana didn't do the same things as Camilla first of all Diana never took over a wife's home and undermined her. As for sleeping with Hewitt in HIS HOME well News flash Charles never owned his homes, Highgrove is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall Diana was The Duchess of Cornwall and KP is owned by the Crown. Now are you married? if so I then assume the home you share with your husband is His HOME rendering you either homeless or a simple room mate.
Quote from: amabel on November 05, 2014, 05:12:13 PM
well they were in a difficult positon. I don't say the boys wanted to invite her -but if they didn't it would look bad. and possible it was felt that it would look bad if she said no, initially. I think she might have been better to make a polite refusal from the first but to thank them for the invite, but say it was their mother and she didn't want to intrude.
Camilla and Charles should have had common sense and both stayed away. There really was no reason even for Charles to go since the only relationship they really shared was Diana being the mother of his heirs. The way both treated Diana IMO it was a slap in the face for even one to attend. Camilla could have said no in the very beginning however she didn't and then it was put out she didn't want to attend but Charles wanted her there. Well as I said Charles slapped Diana in the face even though she had been dead 10 years for even dreaming of bringing Camilla but he also had the nerve to go and did.
I don't think Charles would have (or should have) missed her memorial, if only to be there in support of his sons.
Fine Canuck lets think about it he was right to support his sons however, they were by then adults and Charles should have shown common sense and decency by no insisting Camilla go. Charles showed support for his sons at the proper time Diana's funeral they were school boys ten years later they were adults no reason for Charles to hold their hand. I have two children by my first marriage in the event something happens to my ex husband I have no intentions of going with my husband now, I will just console my children in private.
Thank you SophieChloe it is refreshing to see someone else who thinks it is just nasty. Besides Charles and Diana married in the 1980's not Victorian or Edwardian England nor the mid century where the Aristocratic men felt it was a boost to their manhood and wives accepted it because they had no choice because they were dependent on their husbands financially. For a man who likes to think of himself as enlightened Charles was born in the wrong century or time and place because that behavior is totally unacceptable.
Trudie , good points.
For C and C to go this would have been PR nightmare. Danceon the grave the young girl of the 1980s' who you both set out to fool an destroy in July 1981.
ONCE again, PD has given new life , god pr, everything to C an C.
By having them not show up was the best thing ever possible. Being there would have been in poor taste.
As for PC supporting has sons they were grown ups. To be there to support his sons to the woman he treated like a man treats the town wh(*3 would have been foolish and a pr nightmare.
NOTE, PC and C never mention PD . No reason to. She was not their mother.
They want her long gone dead and every year adds more distance
Everything came up smelling like roses and better than PC and C could have ever wished, hoped for ,o r imagined.
..
Quote from: Trudie on November 05, 2014, 10:30:09 PM
Fine Canuck lets think about it he was right to support his sons however, they were by then adults and Charles should have shown common sense and decency by no insisting Camilla go. Charles showed support for his sons at the proper time Diana's funeral they were school boys ten years later they were adults no reason for Charles to hold their hand. I have two children by my first marriage in the event something happens to my ex husband I have no intentions of going with my husband now, I will just console my children in private.
While I agree Charles' support was far more urgently needed immediately after Diana's death when the boys were younger, I don't think that means his support was not also appreciated on the occasion of her memorial.
As to the public perception, Charles was unlikely to placate Diana's most ardent fans either way. If he hadn't gone, he would have been accused of disrespecting her, turning his back on his sons, etc. Given the very public nature of their marriage and Diana's role as a member of the BRF, I think it was right for Charles to attend the memorial even if some people (in private families, attending private funerals/memorials) would not do the same for their exes.
I think in the end it was the right decision for Camilla not to go, but I don't blame anyone for initially deciding that she should attend. That was an even trickier situation.
Quote from: amabel on November 05, 2014, 05:18:58 PM
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on November 05, 2014, 10:55:37 AM
I am so tired of people acting like Charles is some anomaly because he lived in a world where husbands have mistresses. Charles is far from the only man in the royal family who has lived this way, nor is it only a British thing. American aristocracy live by the same rules as evidenced by marriages like JFK and Jackie and FDR and Eleanor. I've even heard of these kinds of arrangements in sports like basketball etc. I'm not saying it's
I agree Katerina. I don't think ti is that unusual, among upper class people of whatever era and Charles is hardly "a unique monster," in that respect.
It may be acceptable now for the upper classes to divorce, the way it wasn't 50 years ago, but not all of them rush to the divorce court every time they find out about an indiscretion. I agree that I don't think that Charles intended to return to his affair with Cam, when he married. I think that he was not happy with DI, she wasn't happy with him, the marriage was a failure, and he turned back to his old love and left Di to find a man herself if she wanted.
I don't know if it was so common among the American upper classes, but probably it was,
and even today, in other ranks of society, I should say that a lot of people turn a blind eye, and don't go rusihng off to end their marriages over an affair...
Very true Amabel, even today women still put up with it for different reaeons. In America the basketball player Kobe Bryant is still married to the woman he cheate on. Hilary Clinton is still married and we may never know how many affairs Bill had, I mean do you really think the Lewinsky debacle would scare him enough to keep his pants on? I've heard rumors that th3 rule is just dont embarrass me. Of course I'm not excusing Charles behavior just pointing out that it is not isolated to him and there are many marriages that work despite infidelity.
If it is true that Camilla didn't want to go to the Diana memorial (and I'm still not sure of that) but Charles insisted, then it is yet another example of his obtuseness in emotional matters. It's just a lack of sensitivity and common sense that I can't comprehend.
Nearly 20 years on the reverberations continue.....
Blow for Camilla as new poll shows majority of Britons want the Prince of Wales on the throne next... but say she should only become Princess Consort (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2820392/Blow-Camilla-new-poll-shows-majority-Britons-want-Prince-Wales-throne-say-Princess-Consort.html)
Time to duck :hide: curryong you know there is going be a big uproar here with that article by the usual people. :happy15:
^ Kobe Bryant's wife was a nobody before she married him and probably loves the lifestyle. As for Hillary and Bill well that is a very powerful political alliance. But again they want to put up with it. Again the mistresses did not practically move in and undermine the wife.
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on November 05, 2014, 11:21:08 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 05, 2014, 05:18:58 PM
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on November 05, 2014, 10:55:37 AM
I am so tired of people acting like Charles is some anomaly because he lived in a world where husbands have mistresses. Charles is far from the only man in the royal family who has lived this way, nor is it only a British thing. American aristocracy live by the same rules as evidenced by marriages like JFK and Jackie and FDR and Eleanor. I've even heard of these kinds of arrangements in sports like basketball etc. I'm not saying it's
I agree Katerina. I don't think ti is that unusual, among upper class people of whatever era and Charles is hardly "a unique monster," in that respect.
It may be acceptable now for the upper classes to divorce, the way it wasn't 50 years ago, but not all of them rush to the divorce court every time they find out about an indiscretion. I agree that I don't think that Charles intended to return to his affair with Cam, when he married. I think that he was not happy with DI, she wasn't happy with him, the marriage was a failure, and he turned back to his old love and left Di to find a man herself if she wanted.
I don't know if it was so common among the American upper classes, but probably it was,
and even today, in other ranks of society, I should say that a lot of people turn a blind eye, and don't go rusihng off to end their marriages over an affair...
Very true Amabel, even today women still put up with it for different reaeons. In America the basketball player Kobe Bryant is still married to the woman he cheate on. Hilary Clinton is still married and we may never know how many affairs Bill had, I mean do you really think the Lewinsky debacle would scare him enough to keep his pants on? I've heard rumors that th3 rule is just dont embarrass me. Of course I'm not excusing Charles behavior just pointing out that it is not isolated to him and there are many marriages that work despite infidelity.
Monica Lewinsky did not get to marry Bill Clinton. Camilla succeeded in seeing off the wife. Hillary and Bill have more of an alliance and political ambitions. Hillary knows she would never be replaced by a mistress.
Saying other people do it does not whitewash Charles and Camilla's actions.
Camilla had a lot riding on the C and D marriage not working and she undermined Diana every step of the way.
Double post auto-merged: November 06, 2014, 01:13:38 AM
Quote from: Trudie on November 05, 2014, 10:42:20 PM
Thank you SophieChloe it is refreshing to see someone else who thinks it is just nasty. Besides Charles and Diana married in the 1980's not Victorian or Edwardian England nor the mid century where the Aristocratic men felt it was a boost to their manhood and wives accepted it because they had no choice because they were dependent on their husbands financially. For a man who likes to think of himself as enlightened Charles was born in the wrong century or time and place because that behavior is totally unacceptable.
Count me in I think it is nasty and unacceptable behavior. It is also sexist and the man is condoned for treating the wife like dirt.
Quote from: Trudie on November 05, 2014, 09:33:24 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 05, 2014, 05:12:13 PM
well they were in a difficult positon. I don't say the boys wanted to invite her -but if they didn't it would look bad. and possible it was felt that it would look bad if she said no, initially. I think she might have been better to make a polite refusal from the first but to thank them for the invite, but say it was their mother and she didn't want to intrude.
Camilla and Charles should have had common sense and both stayed away. There really was no reason even for Charles to go since the only relationship they really shared was Diana being the mother of his heirs. The way both treated Diana IMO it was a slap in the face for even one to attend. Camilla could have said no in the very beginning however she didn't and then it was put out she didn't want to attend but Charles wanted her there. Well as I said Charles slapped Diana in the face even though she had been dead 10 years for even dreaming of bringing Camilla but he also had the nerve to go and did.
I agree. One odd thing I noticed is that Charles had to inspect the speech Harry had prepared about Diana. As if he might find something "subversive." I think both Charles should have stayed away along with Camilla. A bit late in the day for Charles to honor Diana's memory. He had no honor for her in her lifetime. Seems very fake to me.
Double post auto-merged: November 06, 2014, 01:19:25 AM
Quote from: Canuck on November 05, 2014, 11:04:44 PM
Quote from: Trudie on November 05, 2014, 10:30:09 PM
Fine Canuck lets think about it he was right to support his sons however, they were by then adults and Charles should have shown common sense and decency by no insisting Camilla go. Charles showed support for his sons at the proper time Diana's funeral they were school boys ten years later they were adults no reason for Charles to hold their hand. I have two children by my first marriage in the event something happens to my ex husband I have no intentions of going with my husband now, I will just console my children in private.
While I agree Charles' support was far more urgently needed immediately after Diana's death when the boys were younger, I don't think that means his support was not also appreciated on the occasion of her memorial.
As to the public perception, Charles was unlikely to placate Diana's most ardent fans either way. If he hadn't gone, he would have been accused of disrespecting her, turning his back on his sons, etc. Given the very public nature of their marriage and Diana's role as a member of the BRF, I think it was right for Charles to attend the memorial even if some people (in private families, attending private funerals/memorials) would not do the same for their exes.
I think in the end it was the right decision for Camilla not to go, but I don't blame anyone for initially deciding that she should attend. That was an even trickier situation.
Charles did seem out of place and I think it would have been better for him to stay with Camilla at home. I think he would have shown respect by staying away.
Double post auto-merged: November 06, 2014, 01:21:12 AM
Quote from: Eri on November 05, 2014, 05:01:03 PM
Quote from: sandy on November 05, 2014, 04:38:36 PM
Quote from: Eri on November 05, 2014, 12:43:36 PM
The Duchess was INVITED by her stepsons and declined and even then she was INVITED again any other spin on the situation is just that spin and Di's fans imagination working over time ...
There were no decrees or statements that this is true. I think it was whitewashing. I think the boys breathed sighs of relief when Camllla backed down. And why Camilla would even consider this is really weird--she would be inviting a lot of criticism to herself with the media going after her for hypocrisy. And undoing all the Spin that Charles orchestrated.
She considered going because HER FAMILY her husband and his sons invited her INVITED her !!! It was an impossible situation for her she was invited as the boy's stepmother but she couldn't go for obvious reasons declining and having to tell them NO over and over again !!!
I don't believe the boys asked her again much less urged her to attend. Why would they want to turn their mother's memorial into a travesty with Camilla hijacking the event. It was not an impossible situation if she had had the decency to say no even if her obtuse husband said she should go.
Quote from: amabel on November 05, 2014, 05:18:58 PM
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on November 05, 2014, 10:55:37 AM
I am so tired of people acting like Charles is some anomaly because he lived in a world where husbands have mistresses. Charles is far from the only man in the royal family who has lived this way, nor is it only a British thing. American aristocracy live by the same rules as evidenced by marriages like JFK and Jackie and FDR and Eleanor. I've even heard of these kinds of arrangements in sports like basketball etc. I'm not saying it's
I agree Katerina. I don't think ti is that unusual, among upper class people of whatever era and Charles is hardly "a unique monster," in that respect.
It may be acceptable now for the upper classes to divorce, the way it wasn't 50 years ago, but not all of them rush to the divorce court every time they find out about an indiscretion. I agree that I don't think that Charles intended to return to his affair with Cam, when he married. I think that he was not happy with DI, she wasn't happy with him, the marriage was a failure, and he turned back to his old love and left Di to find a man herself if she wanted.
I don't know if it was so common among the American upper classes, but probably it was,
and even today, in other ranks of society, I should say that a lot of people turn a blind eye, and don't go rusihng off to end their marriages over an affair...
No they don't. I've read it was considered more as a middle-class trait to end a marriage over an affair. The upper classes appeared to look the other way more frequently in the past decades and centuries. However, I believe that in recent years more people are unwilling to put up with that type of behavior. (The marital woes of American politicians that have played out on the front pages with some spouses leaving and some choosing to stay.)
Glad to know that I'm firmly middle-class.
:hide: :hide:
Quote from: amabel on November 05, 2014, 04:58:15 PM
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on November 05, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: amabel on November 04, 2014, 07:18:37 AM
Quote from: cate1949 on November 04, 2014, 03:24:31 AM
things could have very easily gone the wrong way for Cam and Charles and it is amazing they both were willing to "play with fire".
The Archbishop of Canterbury could have refused to cooperate and said a divorced and remarried man could not be Head of the CoE - Parliament could have refused - George IV wanted a divorce and parliament refused him - the public could have expressed such outrage that he would never have been able to be King - a lot could have gone wrong and he too could have ended up giving up his position as heir for the "woman he loved". It really took a lot of chutzpah from these two when you consider what they were risking. Cam might have spent the rest of her days as his mistress - to be overlooked and maybe even abandoned when he became King - the two Princes could have rebelled also refusing to go along with the marriage.
It is as if the two of them just sort of drifted into where they are now - Di could have refused to divorce and went along - in which case again Camilla would have been nothing more than the mistress - barred from official events etc.
What was her plan? Did she really just want to be his mistress? I rather doubt she thought she could mastermind
Cam did not want to be queen, she never envisaged Diana wanting a divorce and was IMO more than happy to remain as C's mistress all her life.
I agree, Camilla still doesn't seem so keen on the idea of being Queen or a Princess. Its just what has been thrown at her because of the choices she and others made. She didn't scheme into this posituon, she seemed fine to be left in the background.
I think she would have been if not perfectly happy, with being C's mistress, happy enough. I dot think she ever thought that Charles and Di would divorce, but when they did, naturally she was going to want to marry him and I certainly can't blame her for wanting to share his rank. But I don't think she was ever crazy about being Queen.. per se.
Maybe she does not like to work that hard at royal duties but she seems to be grinning and preening for photos seeking out cameras and wearing the bling. If she were not crazy about being Queen she could have said no to Charles proposal.
Double post auto-merged: November 06, 2014, 03:42:01 AM
Quote from: Eri on November 05, 2014, 04:55:04 PM
Whatever The Duchess did (if she indeed did it) was in The Princes's home!!! So if anything HE should be burned to the stake for it ... not that I think he should as Di HAD THE NERVE to sleep IN HIS HOME with her lover HEWITT !!! So here comes that very funny time of the Day when Di fans throw stones from her glass house seriously every single thing Cam did Di did also so some trying to make The Duchess out to be a "monster" is hilarious and useless as very few buy into it especially we under 40 ...
It was her home too. So if these "rules" apply Kate is just chattel and William can toss her out on a whim from His House. The royal wives get the titles their husbands have and the husband's homes are their homes too. Diana did get KP in the divorce settlement a home she shared with Charles. Camilla fans do plenty of tossing of stones from glass houses.
Camilla played hostess at Highgrove in the Wife's absence. She ordered around servants. And she certainly did not "own" Highgrove. Camilla threw her weight around.
Double post auto-merged: November 06, 2014, 03:45:34 AM
Charles got criticized by his fellow officers for sleeping with Camilla, a fellow officer's wife. The complaints to the Queen fell on deaf ears. Had he not had the POW title he would have been ousted or perhaps demoted. Which is why he had this huge sense of entitlement since people kowtowed to him.
And I cannot believe the usual "everybody does it" excuse. Everybody doesn't.
Charles maternal grandfather was involved with a married woman (according to documents used in the Shawcross authorized biography of the Queen Mother) before he became interested in Lady Elizabeth. He had enough sense to say goodbye for good to the married woman and marry someone suitable and not keep the married woman on the side because "he could." Too bad Charles did not share this attitude.
Quote from: Trudie on November 05, 2014, 09:19:04 PM
Quote from: Eri on November 05, 2014, 04:55:04 PM
Whatever The Duchess did (if she indeed did it) was in The Princes's home!!! So if anything HE should be burned to the stake for it ... not that I think he should as Di HAD THE NERVE to sleep IN HIS HOME with her lover HEWITT !!! So here comes that very funny time of the Day when Di fans throw stones from her glass house seriously every single thing Cam did Di did also so some trying to make The Duchess out to be a "monster" is hilarious and useless as very few buy into it especially we under 40 ...
Really Eri ? then since you are under 40 and wasn't old enough to remember all that really happened I find it hilarious that you say Diana fans throw stones from her glass house. No Diana didn't do the same things as Camilla first of all Diana never took over a wife's home and undermined her. As for sleeping with Hewitt in HIS HOME well News flash Charles never owned his homes, Highgrove is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall Diana was The Duchess of Cornwall and KP is owned by the Crown. Now are you married? if so I then assume the home you share with your husband is His HOME rendering you either homeless or a simple room mate.
If the home wasn't Chuck's how could it be Di's? :hmm: The home was bought by The Prince before he was married to his first wife and he lives there with his second wife it is no one's home but his!!! It takes a special kind of woman to sleep on the home owned by your husband with your lover with your kids there and Di was that kind of special ... so again I wouldn't go into a competition on who was bad and who was good because Di was no Angel as everything Cam did Di did also so ...
Eri it was Chuck and Di's marital home. While you think Diana was that kind of special woman she learned from the Master Camilla herself. Camilla would have Charles over to Boldehyde manor the home she shared with her husband for weekends her kids were present and so was Andrew who would discreetly leave them alone that has been put out there and I also remember TPB speaking about Sir coming over in his youth while plugging a book. I never said Diana was an Angel but Diana was not the one who brought a lover into her marriage keep that in mind.
Well not to go off Topic in 1977 Princess Margaret's marriage ended because of infidelity Charles and Diana married in 1981 so in the real grand scheme of things there were some just not willing to look the other way.
[mod]Hi Folks, I have merged all 3 threads discussing the behaviour of Charles, Diana, & Camilla during the War of the Wales years :flower: [/mod]
A good idea SophieChloe and thank you for doing this.
Quote from: Curryong on November 05, 2014, 11:25:03 PM
If it is true that Camilla didn't want to go to the Diana memorial (and I'm still not sure of that) but Charles insisted, then it is yet another example of his obtuseness in emotional matters. It's just a lack of sensitivity and common sense that I can't comprehend.
I doubt if she wanted to go, but possibly Chalres felt that it would look better if she DID attend.
That's my sense, amabel. Here's an article from the time explaining some of what went on:
Quote
Vivien Parry, a friend and one of the original trustees of the Diana memorial committee, said that she felt sympathy for the duchess. "I do feel sorry for her as Camilla probably did not want to go or feel it was right to go from the outset.
"This has become a public relations disaster. The Royals appear to have learnt little from the lessons of 10 years ago.
"Camilla was stuck between a rock and a hard place because the Prince of Wales wanted her to go and because she was asked by William and Harry. They are fond of her. She is fond of them. She wanted to support them.
Diana's memorial 'overshadowed by Camilla' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561408/Dianas-memorial-overshadowed-by-Camilla.html)
And from the same article, it does seem that Will and Harry were very much on board with inviting Camilla initially:
QuoteWhen Prince William and Prince Harry announced the service last December, they emphasized that it would be marked by a spirit of conciliation.
"The service is going to include both sides of the family, our mother's side and our father's side - everyone."
I think it was a nice idea on their part to bring everyone together, but ultimately Camilla was right to say she wouldn't attend -- the public was just not okay with it, and it would have been a distraction.
To be honest, I do feel now years later, if Cam was willing to go and the boys wanted her, it seems a bit much that the public, who did not know Diana, were able ot push her away from going. Having said that, I think that she would probably not have really wanted to go, but I can quite see how Charles would think it looked better if she was accepted as part of the memorial.
Double post auto-merged: November 06, 2014, 04:52:05 PM
Quote from: Izabella on November 06, 2014, 12:04:30 PM
Oh! If only Shakespeare was alive. He would have had a field day with this lot. :windsor1: Camilla sounded like a conniving, manipulative home wrecker. She came in like a wrecking ball! :lol:
and how does that differ from Diana's being involved iwht 2 married men to the point where one marriage borke up and the other one certainly wobbled. She wanted to get Ol Hoare to leave his wife and children for her.. wasnt' that home wrecking?
Quote from: Trudie on November 06, 2014, 11:07:40 AM
Eri it was Chuck and Di's marital home. While you think Diana was that kind of special woman she learned from the Master Camilla herself. Camilla would have Charles over to Boldehyde manor the home she shared with her husband for weekends her kids were present and so was Andrew who would discreetly leave them alone that has been put out there and I also remember TPB speaking about Sir coming over in his youth while plugging a book. I never said Diana was an Angel but Diana was not the one who brought a lover into her marriage keep that in mind.
Other than it being Chuck's home as Di lived at KP !!! Let me get this straight ... let me get this straight ... Di could sleep with Hewitt (with the children there) on Chuck's PROPERTY :puke: but God forbid if Chuck invited at dinner whoever in HIS bloody home OK ... where is the roll eyes emotion around here?
Hewitt never played host in Charles absence nor ordered the servants around like Camilla did.
Charles played house with Camilla at Highgrove yet Diana is crucified for bringing hewitt there. Double standards anybody? There is no way to prove or disprove Hewitt slept with Diana there. According to his book they spent "those times" at KP and at his mother's home.
It is OK I suppose for Charles to have romps with Camilla in the Highgrove Garden while his wife and children were asleep.
Double post auto-merged: November 06, 2014, 06:09:04 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 06, 2014, 04:50:57 PM
To be honest, I do feel now years later, if Cam was willing to go and the boys wanted her, it seems a bit much that the public, who did not know Diana, were able ot push her away from going. Having said that, I think that she would probably not have really wanted to go, but I can quite see how Charles would think it looked better if she was accepted as part of the memorial.
Double post auto-merged: November 06, 2014, 04:52:05 PM
Quote from: Izabella on November 06, 2014, 12:04:30 PM
Oh! If only Shakespeare was alive. He would have had a field day with this lot. :windsor1: Camilla sounded like a conniving, manipulative home wrecker. She came in like a wrecking ball! :lol:
and how does that differ from Diana's being involved iwht 2 married men to the point where one marriage borke up and the other one certainly wobbled. She wanted to get Ol Hoare to leave his wife and children for her.. wasnt' that home wrecking?
I don't think the boys "wanted her there." Charles controls the PR spin and could put out such stories. The boys would have to be totally brain dead to think it would be "OK" for the woman who loathed their mother to "honor" their mother. She would have totally hijacked the purpose of the Memorial Service.
Charles just shows how much of a dolt he is if he thought it "OK" for Camilla to be there.
Hoare is still with his wife to this day. He never confirmed or denied an affair. Carling denied an affair.
Camilla undermined Diana every step of the way and got most of what Diana had.
Double post auto-merged: November 06, 2014, 06:12:26 PM
Quote from: Canuck on November 06, 2014, 04:47:16 PM
That's my sense, amabel. Here's an article from the time explaining some of what went on:
Quote
Vivien Parry, a friend and one of the original trustees of the Diana memorial committee, said that she felt sympathy for the duchess. "I do feel sorry for her as Camilla probably did not want to go or feel it was right to go from the outset.
"This has become a public relations disaster. The Royals appear to have learnt little from the lessons of 10 years ago.
"Camilla was stuck between a rock and a hard place because the Prince of Wales wanted her to go and because she was asked by William and Harry. They are fond of her. She is fond of them. She wanted to support them.
Diana's memorial 'overshadowed by Camilla' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561408/Dianas-memorial-overshadowed-by-Camilla.html)
And from the same article, it does seem that Will and Harry were very much on board with inviting Camilla initially:
QuoteWhen Prince William and Prince Harry announced the service last December, they emphasized that it would be marked by a spirit of conciliation.
"The service is going to include both sides of the family, our mother's side and our father's side - everyone."
I think it was a nice idea on their part to bring everyone together, but ultimately Camilla was right to say she wouldn't attend -- the public was just not okay with it, and it would have been a distraction.
William and Harry never ever publicly said anything. I take this story with a grain of salt. The boys would have to be hard hearted brain dead people if they even remotely thought it was "OK" for Camilla to be there. She would have hijacked the Memorial Service. Plus it would have had a horrible effect on her image, making her look insensitive and just plain hypocritical.
Let's give the boys some credit for being decent human beings. Charles controlled the PR and no doubt wanted to use the boys in his quest to bring Camilla along.
The Queen was rumored to advise Camilla to refuse and have a "diplomatic" illness.
Camilla could have said no to the invite from the get go.
Double post auto-merged: November 06, 2014, 06:14:15 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 06, 2014, 04:41:40 PM
Quote from: Curryong on November 05, 2014, 11:25:03 PM
If it is true that Camilla didn't want to go to the Diana memorial (and I'm still not sure of that) but Charles insisted, then it is yet another example of his obtuseness in emotional matters. It's just a lack of sensitivity and common sense that I can't comprehend.
I doubt if she wanted to go, but possibly Chalres felt that it would look better if she DID attend.
It would look a whole lot worse if she did attend. It shows Charles total stupidity if he felt that way.
Quote from: Eri on November 06, 2014, 05:08:54 PM
Quote from: Trudie on November 06, 2014, 11:07:40 AM
Eri it was Chuck and Di's marital home. While you think Diana was that kind of special woman she learned from the Master Camilla herself. Camilla would have Charles over to Boldehyde manor the home she shared with her husband for weekends her kids were present and so was Andrew who would discreetly leave them alone that has been put out there and I also remember TPB speaking about Sir coming over in his youth while plugging a book. I never said Diana was an Angel but Diana was not the one who brought a lover into her marriage keep that in mind.
Other than it being Chuck's home as Di lived at KP !!! Let me get this straight ... let me get this straight ... Di could sleep with Hewitt (with the children there) on Chuck's PROPERTY :puke: but God forbid if Chuck invited at dinner whoever in HIS bloody home OK ... where is the roll eyes emotion around here?
Do you even take the time to read the posts you respond to? I said and if you can try reading my post slowly Charles had no problem going to Andrew Parker Bowles home Boldehyde Manor His Property to sleep with Camilla with the Parker Bowles children there so It takes a special kind of man and woman to do that with the Husband and Children home. So if you are now done being sick over Diana I suggest you park your self in the Loo and be Sick over Charles and Camilla.
Quote from: Canuck on November 06, 2014, 04:47:16 PM
That's my sense, amabel. Here's an article from the time explaining some of what went on:
Quote
Vivien Parry, a friend and one of the original trustees of the Diana memorial committee, said that she felt sympathy for the duchess. "I do feel sorry for her as Camilla probably did not want to go or feel it was right to go from the outset.
"This has become a public relations disaster. The Royals appear to have learnt little from the lessons of 10 years ago.
"Camilla was stuck between a rock and a hard place because the Prince of Wales wanted her to go and because she was asked by William and Harry. They are fond of her. She is fond of them. She wanted to support them.
Diana's memorial 'overshadowed by Camilla' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561408/Dianas-memorial-overshadowed-by-Camilla.html)
And from the same article, it does seem that Will and Harry were very much on board with inviting Camilla initially:
QuoteWhen Prince William and Prince Harry announced the service last December, they emphasized that it would be marked by a spirit of conciliation.
"The service is going to include both sides of the family, our mother's side and our father's side - everyone."
I think it was a nice idea on their part to bring everyone together, but ultimately Camilla was right to say she wouldn't attend -- the public was just not okay with it, and it would have been a distraction.
The service was to include both sides of the family their mother's side and father's side the spirit was concilliation was for the hostility displayed by both sides at the time of Diana's death, The Windsor coolness and Earl Spencer eulogy. Camilla is not related to the Princes other then by her marriage to Charles she is not and never will be Blood family.
I agree Trudie, It would have been in the spirit of Bad Taste had Camilla shown up there.
Beyond bad taste Sandy it's bad enough for the Spencer family to have to see photographs of Camilla at royal events with William and Harry grinning like the Cat who got the Cream playing loving Stepmummy. It would have been a total slap at such a semi private memorial for Diana to have her there.
Quote from: amabel on November 06, 2014, 04:50:57 PM
To be honest, I do feel now years later, if Cam was willing to go and the boys wanted her, it seems a bit much that the public, who did not know Diana, were able ot push her away from going. Having said that, I think that she would probably not have really wanted to go, but I can quite see how Charles would think it looked better if she was accepted as part of the memorial.
Double post auto-merged: November 06, 2014, 04:52:05 PM
Quote from: Izabella on November 06, 2014, 12:04:30 PM
Oh! If only Shakespeare was alive. He would have had a field day with this lot. :windsor1: Camilla sounded like a conniving, manipulative home wrecker. She came in like a wrecking ball! :lol:
and how does that differ from Diana's being involved iwht 2 married men to the point where one marriage borke up and the other one certainly wobbled. She wanted to get Ol Hoare to leave his wife and children for her.. wasnt' that home wrecking?
Not sure if it's home wrecking but she rattled the foundation IMO. :nod: All of those involved were not thinking of those whom they were hurting as they were far too focused on what they wanted. :no:
Quote from: cate1949 on November 08, 2014, 05:10:05 AM
The thing is though - and I said this before - Camilla was yes an adulterous person who was utterly wrong but just like Diana she too was a woman who had certainly been subjected to the same restricted roles available for women of her class and the same misogynistic norms. Do we - in the role of women enforcing paternalistic codes on other women - go after Camilla a bit harder than we go after Charles?
This is an excellent question, and I think the answer is often yes: people seem to blame Camilla at least as much (and sometimes moreso) than Charles.
And that just doesn't seem right to me. I don't really think Camilla cheated on her own husband -- by all accounts he was doing the same, and they both knew about one another's affairs and were fine with them. That's just an open marriage without the label, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I do lay some blame on Camilla for engaging in an affair with a man she knew was married and whose wife was not okay with it. That's obviously not an okay thing to do, and she doesn't get a pass from me on the grounds that it wasn't her marriage. But Charles was far, far more in the wrong, as the person who actually made the vow to Diana, yet people seem to go after Camilla even more than him. Which is typical of these situations, the woman is always blamed more.
And all of that said, I do think that ALL of the involved parties were in difficult situations. Yes, Diana was very badly treated and I'm sure it was awful for her. And Charles shouldn't have married someone he barely knew (and he was older and should have known better as compared to Diana). But once he made that mistake and they turned out to be terribly incompatible, I have some sympathy for him. No, he shouldn't have cheated, no matter what. But he was in his mid 30s and basically trapped (at that point, no one thought the heir would be able to divorce) with a woman he didn't love or even get along with, facing the prospect that he would be married to her in an increasingly unhappy dynamic the rest of his life.
If I had been in his shoes, I would like to think I would have handled it better. But I don't know for sure I would have. It's easy for all of us to sit here at our computers with no real stake in the situation condemning the people involved, but I know I'm far from perfect and I can understand how things might have gone so wrong on all sides.
:goodpost:Canuck and cate.
Quote from: TLLK on November 08, 2014, 04:47:19 AM
Quote from: amabel on November 06, 2014, 04:50:57 PM
To
Double post auto-merged: November 06, 2014, 04:52:05 PM
Quote from: Izabella on November 06, 2014, 12:04:30 PM
:lol:
and how does that differ from Diana's being involved iwht 2 married men to the point where one marriage borke up and the other one certainly wobbled. She wanted to get Ol Hoare to leave his wife and children for her.. wasn't' that home wrecking?
Not sure if it's home wrecking but she rattled the foundation IMO. :nod: All of those involved were not thinking of those whom they were hurting as they were far too focused on what they wanted. :no:
She didn't succeed with Hoare, but I think that was not for want of trying. He did leave his wife for a bit, but I think in the end he went back because he didn't' want to leave his wife, who had the money, nor his kids. as For Carling, his flirtation with Di Did result in his wife getting a divorce. Diana didn't care IMO about the wives or girlfriends of men she was interested in. And that was her downfall. the public began to feel that she was complaining about Camilla stealing her husband but she Had no scruple about taking other women's husbands. I think she just didn't think, when she fell for a man, she just focused on getting him, and when she had his attention, as with Will C, I think she sometimes lost interest. But with Hoare, Id' say she was genuinely in love and wanted him to marry her, but he didn't really want ot.. He loved her but not enough to give up his family, and preferred in the end ot return ot his wife. If she had been content with affairs conducted discreetly and in private, where she accepted that the man wasnt' going to leave his family for her, and she wasn't going to give up her position for him, I doubt if she would have beene any more unhappy.. and stuck ot upper class men who knew how to be discreet and were not going to talk to the papers...
Double post auto-merged: November 08, 2014, 08:57:19 AM
Quote from: Canuck on November 08, 2014, 05:31:45 AM
Quote from: cate1949 on November 08, 2014, 05:10:05 AM
?
ThisI
Yes, Diana was very badly treated and I'm sure it was awful for her. And Charles shouldn't have married someone he barely knew (and he was older and should have known better as compared to Diana). But once he made that mistake and they turned out to be terribly incompatible, I have some sympathy for him. No, he shouldn't have cheated, no matter what. But he was in his mid 30s and basically trapped (at that point, no one thought the heir would be able to divorce) with a woman he didn't love or even get along with, facing the prospect that he would be married to her in an increasingly unhappy dynamic the rest of his life.
If I
I agree that Charles should have been more careful. I think he didn't know Di well, but he could have probably prolonged the courtship a bit longer, without too much public fuss. There would have been some, because he was over 30, and he was now at an age where he should marry, and Shy pretty Diana had attracted the Love and attention foe the press and public and everyone saw her as the perfect Queen to be. But I think he might have gotten away with saying "I Dot know her well enough" for another few months. Having said that, though, I think that Diana was convinced that she enjoyed the same things as he did and that she was capable of going on believing that to the point where she convinced Charles that she DID fit in iwht his life and share his feelings and hobbies. She was Young and unformed....and eager to be his wife.
And So I'm not sure if a longer courtship would have really affected the outcome. I think that C was feeling he really had to get married. If he gave Di up, and started all over again, would he find a suitable wife? And since he had to have a virgin, he was going to have to pick a young girl. I think he was fond enough of her to make himself believe he was in love, and that she was if rather young, well able to fit in with the RF and their lifestyle and with his.
I think once he had taken the plunge he did start to have doubts and perhaps he realised then that he would never feel as close to her as he did to Cam, but he was committed then and could not get out. and he probably hoped that he would make her happy and she'd make him happy. I think that it became apparent on their honeymoon that things weren't going to be easy. He could see that Di was losing weight and was probably aware she was making herself vomit, on the ship... They had rows over his feelings for Camilla. When they got to Balmoral Dian was weepy and sick and miserable and I think that it was obvious that there was something more than ordinary unhappiness going on. -or trouble adjusting to married life, hence the RF getting psychiatrists in...I think that Charles tred and so did Diana, but they were not compatible. She was ill, she hated the formality of RF life, and felt trapped. They stumbled on for a few years, and had some Happy times, but as Di matured, I think she became more distanced from the lifestyle she Had married into, and did not like it much. She and Charles grew Even more apart.
I think that since he knew he could not get a divorce and life with Diana was not working out he returned to Cam, and left Di to find a man who would make her happier... provided she was discreet, now that they Had the heir and spare. I can't see what else he could do. Would Di have been any happier with him, just because he was not seeing or sleeping with Camilla? would she like him any better? I don't think so. If their sex life wasn't going well what was there between them except their children? why pursue intimacy with someone you don't like or ge on with? So he stayed with Cam and Di found James Hewitt. It wasn't a perfect solution but I tink it would have worked better than the way that DIana ended up playing it....
I don't see Diana as a wh)re, I sympathise with her. I don't see Camilla as a whore either..
I do sympathise with DIana,. I just think she was very foolish..
[mod]Time for a new thread : The War Of The Wales Years & Behaviour Of All Those Involved - Part 2 (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=72565.msg1312821#msg1312821) :hug:[/mod]