Princess Diana documentary foiled Prince Charles' Camilla as Queen plan | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/838165/princess-diana-death-documentary-princes-charles-camilla)
a bit of clickbait, but should generate some debate, as I think at least there was some concern, hence these have taken so long to be broadcast in the UK.
Richard Palmer, who IMO is one of the more reliable Royal correspondents was discussing this a bit on his Twitter page after that doco was shown and the article appeared. He inferred that every now and again the issue of Camilla's title when Charles becomes King comes up in discussions with CH officials/aides etc, and he said that the consistent message from them since 2005 has been that Camilla will become Princess Consort.
I can't forgive Camilla for way she treated Princess Di | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4783708/I-t-forgive-Camilla-way-treated-Princess-Di.html)
Charles and Camilla?s cloak-and-dagger sunshine getaway | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4771382/Charles-Camilla-s-cloak-dagger-sunshine-getaway.html)
Some sort of related posts, I think both though relate to some of the words by Patrick Jephson regarding his opinion of royalty being changed through the events and about blind loyalty, etc.
Look at the pic of APB, if there isnt a better image of "cucked" I cant think of one (would you like some sandwiches sir, before you roger my wife again????? :lol: :teehee: :lol: ). But besides that, im sure he felt he was doing the "right thing" either by going along to get along, or to give allowance for his dalliances, or he might have felt it was his duty to give blind loyalty to the crown in letting Charles do what he wanted, whereas Jephson when faced with the same situation, albeit different, chose the other path (or so he claims, conveniently after Dianas death, and seeing that the bread is much better buttered on the pro-Diana side, to be fair, or at least grey).
But my point was, it seems at no point did anyone step back and say "hold on, fun is fun and all, but is this really the best thing for the country?" I think the combination of generations of British and upper classes deference to anyone remotely royal, and the at the time seemingly impossible event of a divorce led people to not ask the serious question of what the rendering asunder of this marriage would do.
I sincerely do hope Camilla finds it in her heart to forgive Amanda Platell for writing innate and hateful articles all these years. That would be the right Christian thing to do...turn the other cheek sort of thing.
The Diana documentaries are a double-edged sword. They make Diana's case very well...but in so doing they also make Charles' case without him having to lift a finger. As Diana reveals and reveals, she inadvertently condemns herself. The stories reveal someone who was brilliant in public with strangers but not so brilliant in private with closer people. It reveals a complex person who frankly many people would struggle to live with, let alone getting married.
As for the ardent prayers that Camilla will be denied her title, the government has made it absolutely clear: the moment Charles ascends to the throne, Camilla becomes his queen. They are flexible about the title she may use (it is in Charles' gift as a King) but there is absolutely no question of Camilla not enjoying the full titles and privileges of a queen. It would be absolutely scandalous for Camilla to have to courtesy and pay deference to other consorts. I am certain the government would find that totally unacceptable. Even now before she ascends the throne, Camilla is sometimes given precedence over other crown princesses because of her position and age.
I remember when some commentators said that Diana's death had effectively marked the end of the C&C relationship or hope of marriage. Look where that prediction ended? These musings, hopes and predictions will end up the same way. If Charles wants Camilla to be his queen, she will be.
Yes, wonder how APB felt as the party basked in the Turkish sun. Wondering whether the lovebirds were having a rollicking good time every night? Just handing my wife over for the duration... At least when Mrs Simpson joined Edward in that Adriatic summer holiday in 1935 he had the grace not to invite Ernest as well. Pity Charles chose not to do what Edward did, and go into exile after abdicating his position but no, can't have that. Must have cake and eat it too.
I remember the words of Diana's ballet teacher friend and her recollections of how heartbroken Diana was. Yes, some of us remember, and won't ever forget, or forgive either.
I think in terms of day to day life, there will be little difference if they stick with the Princess consort vs Queen Concert. Im sure she has many of the same comforts Diana had minus the PoW title, probably more as Charles is eager to finally have his way now :lol:
Look at DoE, even though we dont call him King Phillip, he gets treated, more or less like that, albeit,a notch less due to him marrying to the position vs HM being born to it.
Also im sure Camilla wont be put out having to show deference to other monarchs, even as a Princess consort, we can all be assured Charles will see to that :lol: :teehee:.
As for the Diana docs, I dont think they condemn her, they show many sides of her, but the worst in her, so to speak was brought out by some pretty awful circumstances. If you look at the doc with H&W, I could see so much of my own feelings, in the way the men who knew her day in, day out, pre & post wedding, described the first time they saw her, that everyone was in love with her.
I think it was the fact that she had to deal with so much change, with little support, as after all it was her job to be thrilled to watch Charles do paperwork, and maybe shed have come round to that, but I think it was the feeling that she was duped into the whole thing and likely felt made a fool of, for not seeing the C&C thing in time.
While Charles strayed with many over the married years, had his main one not been Camilla, I think it would have gone easier and shed have been easier to deal with. Its likely too late, but I do hope the docs give the UK public a chance to rethink their blind chowderhead return to clapping like trained seals to the RF, but I fear the time for that is too late, if these had come out when they did in the US, the C&C wedding would have been delayed a good 5 years at least.
But maybe this is a better time to get ppl a little riled up just before HM passes, although i doubt the British public has the stones to tell Charles, thanks, but no thanks, its william or we're going republican.
Another poll. Penny Junor comments, Ingrid Seward comments.
Most Brits want Prince William to be the next King... and over a third say Camilla Parker-Bowles should not become Queen if Prince Charles takes the (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4226442/prince-william-charles-next-king-camilla-parker-bowles/)
William will be King of England around 2037. His turn is coming, He has a wait
10 years more for QEII and then King Charles and Queen Camilla for another 10.
Polls mean nothing. Various polls from various classes of various Brits mean nothing. Zero. Squat. Nada. Nyet.
It will be King Charles and Queen Camilla as she will be to Euro crowned heads, world leaders, and the aristocracy,nobility of England.
I cannot stand her,. She will use her correct rank, title of Queen.
:hehe:Karma and Diana the gifts that keep on giving to Charles and Camilla. Diana only had to live with a crowded marriage for 15 years now Camilla has to live with a crowded marriage until the day one of them departs.
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on August 13, 2017, 04:40:13 PM
William will be King of England around 2037. His turn is coming, He has a wait
10 years more for QEII and then King Charles and Queen Camilla for another 10.
Polls mean nothing. Various polls from various classes of various Brits mean nothing. Zero. Squat. Nada. Nyet.
It will be King Charles and Queen Camilla as she will be to Euro crowned heads, world leaders, and the aristocracy,nobility of England.
I cannot stand her,. She will use her correct rank, title of Queen.
The thing is none of them know when they will move up. Each have to be prepared and they don't know how long they have to waitl.
Double post auto-merged: August 13, 2017, 10:01:14 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 12, 2017, 05:33:12 AM
I sincerely do hope Camilla finds it in her heart to forgive Amanda Platell for writing innate and hateful articles all these years. That would be the right Christian thing to do...turn the other cheek sort of thing.
The Diana documentaries are a double-edged sword. They make Diana's case very well...but in so doing they also make Charles' case without him having to lift a finger. As Diana reveals and reveals, she inadvertently condemns herself. The stories reveal someone who was brilliant in public with strangers but not so brilliant in private with closer people. It reveals a complex person who frankly many people would struggle to live with, let alone getting married.
As for the ardent prayers that Camilla will be denied her title, the government has made it absolutely clear: the moment Charles ascends to the throne, Camilla becomes his queen. They are flexible about the title she may use (it is in Charles' gift as a King) but there is absolutely no question of Camilla not enjoying the full titles and privileges of a queen. It would be absolutely scandalous for Camilla to have to courtesy and pay deference to other consorts. I am certain the government would find that totally unacceptable. Even now before she ascends the throne, Camilla is sometimes given precedence over other crown princesses because of her position and age.
I remember when some commentators said that Diana's death had effectively marked the end of the C&C relationship or hope of marriage. Look where that prediction ended? These musings, hopes and predictions will end up the same way. If Charles wants Camilla to be his queen, she will be.
Truly, I don't think Camilla cares about the article.She probably ignored it.
There were no real new revelations about Diana since those tapes were in the public domain for years.
I doubt the royal family actually watched the program. They may have been briefed about it but I would be surprised if Camilla even watched it. Having said that, I hear she did watch panorama and found it quite theatrical. Today there was a picture of C&C going to Church. They did not look like people who were quaking in their boots about the backlash from the documentary. In fact Camilla seems to be relaxed and smiling. The rest of the family was the same.
The dreams of skipping over or three in a marriage are just that...dreams. They are not going to pass. Those members of the public who do not like C&C are going through a grieving process. Some are at the denial stage while others are at the accommodation stage. Eventually some will just have to accept reality. Barring unexpected deaths, C&C will be King and Queen. It is what it is. Likewise Diana is not in their marriage. They ignored her when she was alive and I am they certainly do when she is dead.
Ehhhhh, royal...not really. I agree and have said 100 times, TBRF and C and C could care less about PD.
QEII , I am sure, and PP even , do not say things or probably anything about PD. W and H
W and H.
It is all about them
Actually, I am wrong, very wrong.
QEII and PP did nothing to D. They were not married to her and are of a different era.
I bet they have said over the years to W and H, that their mother would so proud of them for this and that in their lives.
C and C , K and Q, next up , I am sure C has never mentioned D to W and H ..,oh how proud she would be for you William ....your family... Harry, your work.
Really,Lol👺
The British people, polls none of that matters to C. C , week, he has had pr machines working to revamp her image and him with her as a couple, but their history is still there. Pretty it up with tiaras and diamonds and years, still it was what it was.
So yes, Diana still is in the present at every turn.
Whywhywhy...can people not move on? People have. Fans of Diana's have. No one is grieving for her. Her sons miss their mother every day and think of her.
Nothing unusual there,
Don't we all miss our loved ones and think of them talk of them yet we have moved on and lived on.
Yes sandy, no one knows the when any of them will pass away, but my point is that these people do live long lives and usually die of natural cause. They have best health care and no life stresses like regular people and these BRF are waited on hand and foot. Look for C andC to live well to 90 and longer.
Diana on being the gift that keeps on giving...this August was anniversary of her passing and her sons wanted to talk.
No matter what, C is not , will never be QueenMother. MOTHER.
H andW did not fall out of the sky and PC did not reproduce like an amoeba.
sandy and royal, only time will tell about C andC if he dies beifore King.
If so , I predict Camilla will have a nice elderly life at Raymill House, her personal home bought for her by PC and be Queen Camilla to her children and grandkids. She already is to them. No formal title , coronation needed, lol.
I predict if PC dies before being K, King William and Queen Catherine and Prince Henry, Duke of whatever, won't be seeing her.
I predict Highgrove is willed by PC to his godson, Thomas PB. They have their trust funds from Sir.
I predict if Charles is K and dies first, C will be ,of course, titled Dowager,,,,but stilll, I bet King Willian the Henry, Duke of whatever will have nothing to do with her.
The longevity of the Windsors and Camilla's smoking in her early days probably mean Charles will outlive her. If at that time, they are already crowned; it will be very tempting for Charles to abdicate. I cannot see him continuing alone without her. Their fates are so entwined that it is unlikely that he would want to go on engagements alone. She has quite simply been his anchor right from the time he met her. I tend to see that with long term couples: when one dies, the other soon follows.
If she becomes a queen dowager, I can see Camilla retiring back to her private residence at Raymill. There are children and grand children to consider and plus she will not want for anything in material terms. The lack of engagement in state occasions will not be that important to her when Charles is not here. She might attend the coronation of W&K if invited and will certainly have a state funeral as a wife of a king.
Camilla has never struck me as someone who likes the bright lights or the media intrusion. Her role has always to stick up for Charles and prop him up when he needs to be propped up. Even the engagements she does to day are mostly focused on supporting Charles. She has indicated no desire for an independent public role.
I do think Charles would continue without Camilla. I doubt he would even think of abdicating.
Camilla to me appears to like the attention and is always looking for and finding the cameras. Camilla has to work not just "support" Charles. She does solo engagements. I don't think Charles needs propping up. He managed before he even met her. CHarles has insecurities and complains but he never needed propping up when he did his work and I doubt ever will.
QuoteIf she becomes a queen dowager, I can see Camilla retiring back to her private residence at Raymill. There are children and grand children to consider and plus she will not want for anything in material terms. The lack of engagement in state occasions will not be that important to her when Charles is not here. She might attend the coronation of W&K if invited and will certainly have a state funeral as a wife of a king.
I agree
@royalanthropologist that a quiet retirement to Raymill would be perfect for Camilla should Charles predecease her. I suspect that her osteoporosis will likely impact her activity level too.
Yes I do believe that she'd be invited to William and Kate's coronation but attendance might be conditional based upon her health at that point in time.
Now I'm not sure if Camilla would even want a state funeral if she were to be Queen or Princess Consort. She could indicate that she'd prefer something quieter ie: Funeral at St. George's and a private internment beside her spouse when the time comes.
Forgive me for going a bit off topic but I was wondering about this inevitable episode. Having recently toured St. George's, I'm curious as to where the next burial sites ill be. Among the more recent monarchs: George VI, Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret's ashes are in the small chapel on the side. George V and Queen Mary are in the nave. Edward VII and Queen Alexandra are closer to the altar. Does anyone know what the future plans are for QEII, DoE etc...?
^ I don't think anyone knows about the future burial sites of members of the BRF. I do know that I read that the Royal burial ground at Frogmore is full. They could maybe squash a hedgehog in there, certainly nothing larger.
Of course there are various Royal chapels in cathedrals and chapels associated with the Royal family in and around London. It may come down to cremations for the Queen and Prince Philip and their ashes put near her parents.
On the other hand, perhaps Prince Philip would prefer open air. In theory I suppose both could be buried quietly at Sandringham. Not Balmoral, I think, too remote and Scotland may split away in the future. I think both would like simple unshowy funerals and then internment in some quiet Royal Chapel, so it is likely to be St George's IMO.
In Queen Victoria's reign some of King George III's children and grandchildren opted for burials in the then new and fashionable cemeteries that were springing up, like Kensal. The BRF has been getting so large that probably only sovereigns and their immediate families will be buried in any Royal burial grounds or Chapels in the future, and the rest will be buried elsewhere.
@Curryong-Good points regarding future sites. Perhaps QEII and the DoE will be squeezed into St. George's but after that who knows? The BRF doesn't really have a long established resting place for all of the monarchs like the Spanish, Dutch, and Danish families. I did find this article from a few years ago and one poster suggests that the Queen and DoE will be with her parents eventually. Where will she rest in peace? | Queen Elizabeth II and The Duke of Edinburgh | Forum | Unofficial Royalty (http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/forum/queen-elizabeth-ii-and-the-duke-of-edinburgh/where-will-she-rest-in-peace/)
My husband and daughter kept me busy trying to explain the timelines and order of succession for English, Scottish, and British monarchs on our recent trip. Fortunately audio guides from Westminster Abbey and American travel host Rick Steve, made that task a little easier. Was very appreciative of the docent at St. George's chapel who was able to guide me back to Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's graves. Can't believe that I'd missed them on the first round and I felt like a salmon swimming upstream against a large group of Chinese tourists. :D
Really
@sandy re: Camilla looking for Cameras? That is not the impression I get from the press corps. Camilla is friendly with them and will pose how they want her to pose but I have never heard anyone in the press accusing Camilla of courting or liking media attention. For the most part, she is a very private person who typically says very little no matter what the provocation is.
Doing solo engagements does not mean that Camilla is interested in jostling for an independent role. She is merely undertaking her duties in support of the queen and her husband.
Even when the Sun came up with that made up story of the bread rolls in Wiltshire, Camilla did not bother to correct them. It was much, much later that the Sun journalists admitted that they had made up the story in the feeding frenzy. And they know of course that the royals rarely respond or sue; so they can pretty much write all the rubbish they want.
And yes, Charles himself admits how much of a support she has been to him; particularly at a time when it seemed that the entire world was against him (of course it wasn't but that is the impression you get when you read some of the gossipy tabloids). That is why I think he would be unlikely to carry on if she passed on in their old age. I may be wrong, but that is my prediction based on how close their relationship has been all these years.
Even when they were not married, Charles always went back to Camilla and relied on her unconditional support. When they were married in 2005, Charles remarked that "I always knew she was the girl for me". Of course, I could go into why he didn't marry her when he could but that is another thread.
Oh, TLLK, I'm sure you had no trouble at all keeping those monarchs and dates in your head! Isn't St George's an absolutely stunning church? If Harry marries there I will be very happy. The place absolutely oozes history.
I think Victoria possibly had the right idea in building a mausoleum for herself and her beloved husband, though it was a bit of a surprise that she insisted on a mausoleum for her mother too. She was obsessive in planning the details of these two buildings and their interiors. However, long term perhaps not such a great idea as they haven't been kept in good repair at all really.
It is a shame that there is no one building for all, as in Spain, Denmark etc., though of course quite a few early English monarchs fought and died in France and were buried in French abbeys. It's very odd though that King George I was allowed to be interred in his home in Hanover. I just wonder whether a mausoleum or two for future monarchs, near Victoria and Albert's, would be the way to go. Of course there would be questions of expense and ongoing maintenance though.
Double post auto-merged: August 14, 2017, 04:07:47 PM
Delete Double Post
Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 14, 2017, 03:55:12 PM
Really @sandy re: Camilla looking for Cameras? That is not the impression I get from the press corps. Camilla is friendly with them and will pose how they want her to pose but I have never heard anyone in the press accusing Camilla of courting or liking media attention. For the most part, she is a very private person who typically says very little no matter what the provocation is.
Doing solo engagements does not mean that Camilla is interested in jostling for an independent role. She is merely undertaking her duties in support of the queen and her husband.
Even when the Sun came up with that made up story of the bread rolls in Wiltshire, Camilla did not bother to correct them. It was much, much later that the Sun journalists admitted that they had made up the story in the feeding frenzy. And they know of course that the royals rarely respond or sue; so they can pretty much write all the rubbish they want.
And yes, Charles himself admits how much of a support she has been to him; particularly at a time when it seemed that the entire world was against him (of course it wasn't but that is the impression you get when you read some of the gossipy tabloids). That is why I think he would be unlikely to carry on if she passed on in their old age. I may be wrong, but that is my prediction based on how close their relationship has been all these years.
Even when they were not married, Charles always went back to Camilla and relied on her unconditional support. When they were married in 2005, Charles remarked that "I always knew she was the girl for me". Of course, I could go into why he didn't marry her when he could but that is another thread.
I've seen plenty of photos where Camilla looks for the cameras and grins while Charles and others in the film look ahead or talk among themselves. That's something she does. I stand by my post. At the White House visit she was turning around grinning and lost her place so she separated from the others. Then First Lady Laura Bush had to guide her to the door.
I'm not saying Camilla wants to do separate duties. She is supposed to do both. She can't just trail after her husband, she got training and instructions by Bolland and others on how to approach her role and what is expected of her. She even gives speeches.
Camilla gave an interview recently and apparently cooperated with Junor on the biography, I don't consider the wife of the heir to the throne a "private person." She is supposed to be out there and well known.
Charles has PR to deal with negative press and courtiers to advise him on it. He has "people" to work on his image.
I think Charles will continue to work if Camilla predeceases him. Some long term marrieds who mourn for their wives up and remarry. And it is a surprise to those who knew the couple. If they are lonely, some men do remarry. Not saying Charles would necessarily do it but it does happen in life. Woodrow Wilson for instance was married for a long time with grown daughters and mourned his wife remarried in a relatively short time after her death.
Even Queen Victoria became close to Mr Brown after Albert's death. She did not remarry but he became her companion (the nature of the relationship is subject to speculation).
QuoteCamilla looking for Cameras? That is not the impression I get from the press corps. Camilla is friendly with them and will pose how they want her to pose but I have never heard anyone in the press accusing Camilla of courting or liking media attention. For the most part, she is a very private person who typically says very little no matter what the provocation is.
I've noticed that many royals are accused of "looking for the camera" ie: Letizia, Maxima, Mary, Rania etc... However when you watch video, you'll typically see that they've turned their heads when their name is called by members of the press or by people who have gathered to see them arrive or exit an event.
My impression. And I'm sticking to it.
QuoteOh, TLLK, I'm sure you had no trouble at all keeping those monarchs and dates in your head! Isn't St George's an absolutely stunning church? If Harry marries there I will be very happy. The place absolutely oozes history.
IMHO it is the loveliest of the churches associated with the BRF-WA and SP so I'm on "Team St. George" but it is a tad small.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 14, 2017, 01:24:57 AM
I doubt the royal family actually watched the program. They may have been briefed about it but I would be surprised if Camilla even watched it. Having said that, I hear she did watch panorama and found it quite theatrical. Today there was a picture of C&C going to Church. They did not look like people who were quaking in their boots about the backlash from the documentary. In fact Camilla seems to be relaxed and smiling. The rest of the family was the same.
Charles actually looked odd/weird...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/08/13/12/433781B300000578-0-image-a-36_1502624877809.jpg
He does not look well. She looks at cameras and grins. Two different moods in one car
Charles is focusing on the road driving and she smiles at someone. It is wrong to say that Camilla looks for and hogs the camera. That is just not her personality.
In any case, the point is that they are not looking that they are much bothered by the present hullabaloo. If anything, rumors are that the queen intends to create a regency when she is 95. The skipping over remains nothing but a pipe dream.
She smiles for the cameras. But he does look sick or worried or maybe both. I never saw him looking like that before.
I doubt the Queen would create a Regency. She would distribute her work but I doubt she'd want to have a Regency. Charles may not want it either because then when he becomes King then there would be pressure for him to have a Regency.
QuoteIt is wrong to say that Camilla looks for and hogs the camera.
Good point
@royalanthropologist and IMO this is true for many royal ladies who are often accused of doing the same. The expectation is that when the various royals are out and about on their public duties (funerals and memorial services being the exception) is that they will be courteous, dignified and friendly and for most of them (mostly the ladies) that includes smiling for the cameras. Even the older generation of royals including:QEII, Princess Beatrix (former queen), Queen Margrethe, and the consorts Silvia, Sonja, Sofia, and Maria Teresa have been doing the same for decades. However they're never accused of "hogging the cameras."
I don't know where the "hogging the cameras" came from. I never said it I just said Camilla notices the cameras and smiles at them (sometimes while the others were busy talking or attending to duties). I don't think one single royal in a group can 'hog the cameras." I notice though that Charles and Camilla and other royals do mug for the cameras, including, Kate, WIlliam and Harry. The Queen and the previous generation never went in for that. Maybe the newer generations were advised to do so to look "human" by mugging.
Im sure if they were bothered, theyd not show it in public, as much as id love to see charles throw things at the tv watching them, or W&H saying "dad, you got some s'plainin to do!" i doubt that happened.
They probably watched some of them or had staffers watch for anything that would be a concern for future outings and such in case the press asked a question,etc. but unlike the british public, this is all info mostly we saw from 2003/4. Maybe things like Jephsons comments are new, although im sure they probably knew that from previous interactions with him over the years.
As much as Diana fans would love to see it cause a reality show ruckus among them, thats not going to happen. They are though, valuable for moving public opinion, which as much as some claim carries no weight, it does, otherwise so much money wouldnt have been spent on the "Mrs PB" project. Monarchy is in a strange place as its no longer the "off with their heads" stage of absolute rule, and its not a big brother style voting your fav monarch on or off the island/house, etc.
It does however, give me a bit of hope and change of feeling towards the British public that at least prt of their post 97 reaction to the RF was affected by this information being withheld from them for so long.
This is why Camilla may never be Queen | 9Honey (http://honey.nine.com.au/2017/08/22/12/11/this-is-why-camilla-may-never-be-queen)
Royal law and custom experts, is this accurate or clickbait???
Constitutional experts have argued back and forth for at least a decade to my knowledge about the legality of Charles and Camilla's union.
IMO immediately after the Queen's death (or even before if there's a regency) it will come down to this. The grey men at BP will sniff the air of public opinion in Britain at the time. If it is completely negative towards Camilla being crowned queen (that is, hovering below the 30% level,) they are likely to advise that Camilla be Princess Consort. If under those circumstance Charles (unpopular himself in comparison to others) insists on Camilla being crowned Queen, then they will let him swing in the breeze and pay for it in the court of public opinion.
If, on the other hand Camilla's popularity jumps ahead in the next few years/decade and things look good then all will be set fair for a double crowning.
If Camilla is not crowned because of negative public opinion then the argument put forward will be that she feels that because of her position as a second wife/divorcee she would prefer to take on the title of Princess Consort. (Charles would probably be livid but that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.) I doubt that the arguments about the legality of their civil marriage would be brought up into the light of day as a reason. That would open up yet another old controversy.
As far as I remember there were several rather esoterical arguments brought up at the time against legality as it was not a C of E wedding in church surroundings and Charles was heir to the throne, but many constitutional experts were consulted and felt that a civil union would be quite legal.
Charles was stuck between a rock and a hard place at the time, as the Queen as Supreme Governor of the Church of England took the advice of her Archbishops, which was that they would prefer not to preside over the marriage ceremony of two individuals who had been responsible for the dissolving of each other's marriages. That remains the position of the Cof E today.
(It lets Harry off the hook by the way if he and Meghan marry within the Church as he wasn't responsible at all for Meghan's divorce.)
There is a serious danger in these constitutional shenanigans. If a civil marriage is no longer as valid and as equal as a church one then there will be demands for reform. As far as I can tell, the COE establishment has recognized the marriage and Camilla is entitled to all the rights of a wife of the POW. They released a statement to that effect and the attorney general said the same thing. The "constitutional experts" will continue arguing about it, just like they argued about the end of the war of roses but to no effect.
You are right though about consideration of public opinion. However, I somehow doubt any government is going to countenance a queen consort of the United Kingdom being downgraded in any way. Camilla will have all the rights of a queen. We also know that a coronation is not necessary to become King or Queen in this country. It happens upon the end of the old reign.
Sky Views: Diana's impact has sidelined Charles (http://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-dianas-impact-has-sidelined-charles-11004028)
Had to post it, besides the content, top pic was from Charlottetown 83' :crazylove:
Some excellent points put by Sky Duch_. Thanks for posting this. And doesn't Diana look absolutely gorgeous in that photo! :blowkiss: People will say some of the revelations of this summer haven't done Diana's reputation much good. However, it appears that they haven't done Charles any good at all, and CH press office must be perturbed, I should think.
And it does not help Charles that William publicly empathized with Diana re: the Panorama Interview. Diana's revelations were around for some time now there was really nothing new. The tapes transcripts and youtube videos were readily available.
@sandy In most of your posts as always you have been right, as you have said many times over the years it seems there is no real big lovefest between Charles and Camilla and William and Harry. While the boys may love their father, The interviews given by the Princes especially William defending Panorama speaks volumes. The points in the above article demonstrates just how much Diana gave of herself something that will never be seen again from a royal. What a pity Charles could not or would not appreciate just how big an asset Diana was not just to her family but to the whole institution of monarchy.
I am waiting out a hurricane, Haurricane Harvey, so I'll be posting and on line a lot. :hi:
:Houston , Texas area here.
Some points.... Only QEII and PP do not grin everything they see a camera. Any camera, anytime, etc. Th rest of them .they all mug for the cameras. Anytime they see a camera, they will smile, grin. Just riding. Walking ...etc. :D
Camillla will be titled Queen Camilla to King Charles. She will be titled so and received by others of royalty and govt officials . No way no how will be be titled and called Princess Camilla to Queen Letiza, Queen Maxima, etc.
The polls, so what.
W and H love their father, no doubt. No doubt, they are civil, tolerate etc. of Camilla. It is without , Camieala knows her place and does motherly advise, intrude, be too personal and familiar with them she knows her place. She stays in her place. W , H, K stay in their places. Ex. I am sure Camilla has not had a talk to Harry about his relationship withMM... Do you love her...And she , you....date...proposal... I must meet her,... ummmmm, NOWAY! We know the boys are close. We know W is close to Mom and Dad , The Mids.
No, no fans of BRF, PD, want to see reality tv there because it will not happen. Ever!
W and H loved their mother. They are not those controlled little boys of 12 and 15. To speak of their mother and all now as they are men and talk ,show pictures of the 20 years of her passing says enough.
It says volumes.
Gosh, FanDianaFancy, stay safe in that awful weather! Texas is doing it tough at the moment.
QuoteI am waiting out a hurricane, Haurricane Harvey, so I'll be posting and on line a lot. :hi:
:Houston , Texas area here.
Be safe
@FanDianaFancy! My sister is north in the Dallas area so she's safe, but please be careful in the southern part of the state.
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on August 26, 2017, 02:17:18 AM
I am waiting out a hurricane, Haurricane Harvey, so I'll be posting and on line a lot. :hi:
:Houston , Texas area here.
Some points.... Only QEII and PP do not grin everything they see a camera. Any camera, anytime, etc. Th rest of them .they all mug for the cameras. Anytime they see a camera, they will smile, grin. Just riding. Walking ...etc. :D
Camillla will be titled Queen Camilla to King Charles. She will be titled so and received by others of royalty and govt officials . No way no how will be be titled and called Princess Camilla to Queen Letiza, Queen Maxima, etc.
The polls, so what.
W and H love their father, no doubt. No doubt, they are civil, tolerate etc. of Camilla. It is without , Camieala knows her place and does motherly advise, intrude, be too personal and familiar with them she knows her place. She stays in her place. W , H, K stay in their places. Ex. I am sure Camilla has not had a talk to Harry about his relationship withMM... Do you love her...And she , you....date...proposal... I must meet her,... ummmmm, NOWAY! We know the boys are close. We know W is close to Mom and Dad , The Mids.
No, no fans of BRF, PD, want to see reality tv there because it will not happen. Ever!
W and H loved their mother. They are not those controlled little boys of 12 and 15. To speak of their mother and all now as they are men and talk ,show pictures of the 20 years of her passing says enough.
It says volumes.
Take care FDF. Stay safe.
Charles did not hire all those spin doctors and consult with Smith and Junor just so she would be Princess Consort. I agree
Prince Charles left in a gloomy and introspective mood over recent bad polling and Diana documentaries, say friends.
Princess Diana death: Prince Charles in despair ahead of anniversary | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/846220/princess-diana-prince-charles-death-anniversary-royal-family-latest-news)
Charles is still so out of touch 20 years later. If only he and Camilla didn't have such a ruthless sense of entitlement Diana would have had no need to expose the lies and deceit imposed upon her by these two. They still don't get it that their position is there by the will of the people even 40 years ago The DOE acknowledged that publicly the people loved Diana as she gave back that same love with all her charities I will say it again Charles should have realized he had a true asset in Diana and he failed to appreciate her.
Hmmm. I can see the anonymous sources who are close to the family are at it again. Just this very day the DM reports that the Prince is ignoring all the hullabaloo and going on a number of visits. Then the very same sources tell us in the express that he is gloomy about it all. Frankly speaking; it all seems like a lot of rubbish. Press manufactured crises to keep the fickle masses occupied and not thinking of really important things like Brexit.
As for Charles appreciating Diana, you can't force someone to love another. He did not love her and that's all there is to it. Even worse, he could no longer live with her. Saying that he ought to have loved her is in the realms of should've, could've etc. Sometimes you just have to accept that not everybody loves you in the way that you expect or want. That is why we have the option of separation, breaking up and divorce; options that should have always been available to C&D had it not been for the silly palace rules.
In terms of Diana being an asset, it was a mixed picture. Diana did many good things but she also harmed the royal family in many ways. No other royal spouse has damaged the reputation of the institution in quite the same way that Diana did. Even in death, the things she did continue to damage the institution (recordings, interviews, books etc.) On balance, I do think that apart from the children; they actually regretted Charles marrying her. It was a disaster. Perhaps they have now learnt a lesson and will never again support an arranged marriage based on shallow criteria of "suitability".
QuotePress manufactured crises to keep the fickle masses occupied and not thinking of really important things like Brexit.
Considering that it is August in Europe when so many people including public figures are on vacation, I'm not surprised to see the press doing their best to "sell" something.
The terror attacks in Barcelona, flooding in Houston, anything Trump related, North Korea, and the late Princess of Wales seem to be keeping them afloat until September.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 27, 2017, 03:41:21 PM
Hmmm. I can see the anonymous sources who are close to the family are at it again. Just this very day the DM reports that the Prince is ignoring all the hullabaloo and going on a number of visits. Then the very same sources tell us in the express that he is gloomy about it all. Frankly speaking; it all seems like a lot of rubbish. Press manufactured crises to keep the fickle masses occupied and not thinking of really important things like Brexit.
As for Charles appreciating Diana, you can't force someone to love another. He did not love her and that's all there is to it. Even worse, he could no longer live with her. Saying that he ought to have loved her is in the realms of should've, could've etc. Sometimes you just have to accept that not everybody loves you in the way that you expect or want. That is why we have the option of separation, breaking up and divorce; options that should have always been available to C&D had it not been for the silly palace rules.
In terms of Diana being an asset, it was a mixed picture. Diana did many good things but she also harmed the royal family in many ways. No other royal spouse has damaged the reputation of the institution in quite the same way that Diana did. Even in death, the things she did continue to damage the institution (recordings, interviews, books etc.) On balance, I do think that apart from the children; they actually regretted Charles marrying her. It was a disaster. Perhaps they have now learnt a lesson and will never again support an arranged marriage based on shallow criteria of "suitability".
I never said he had to love her all I said was he never appreciated that she was an asset to him and his work. Instead of making snide remarks and putting her down on occasion that was all Diana really wanted she herself said they made a great team. That said of couse Diana became angry and she exposed the ill treatment she received
I would say that appreciation is a two-way street. Right from the moment she set eyes on him, Diana was criticizing everything about Charles, his life, his family, his friends, his work etc (I am not making this up...just referencing her own words). She never liked him very much, let alone love him. If someone is making you unhappy and they insist that they are an asset to you, it can be quite disconcerting. That is what they call cognitive dissonance.
Diana was an asset to the people she interacted with in terms of her charity work and public works. She was not an asset to Charles (with the obvious exception of having children with him): certainly not in an emotional way. Never once have I heard of her giving him any advice or support or defending him. On the contrary, she often consorted with his enemies to share stories that put in him in a bad light. Later on when she became vengeful, she did much to ruin his reputation. If that is what is being an asset, I dread to think what the alternative is.
she was certainly an asset in the early days. The RF had gone very dull and didn't attract more than moderate attention. Diana drew crowds. She was charming and beautiful nad people loved her. however she did unfortunately overshadow C and her in laws in the first years but I don't believe that was a conscious thing on her part. later she did use her power as a media draw to "win battles" against him..
I agree entirely that in the early days Diana was really great for the monarchy. She did much to revive their visibility. It is only later that her popularity and media savvy was used to devastating effect. And of course the monarchy was an asset to her. Without the Windsors, Diana would join the list of fairly anonymous aristocrat wives that litter the countryside.
On a personal level, I do not think that relationship was ever really quite right. I was staggered that from the one go there were issues. Both parties did not really know each other or what the other person wanted. You cannot be an asset to someone if you are actually making them miserable; worse still if you are in a marriage. Both parties were destroying one another by the end. I make the distinction between the monarchy as an institution and Charles the man. With Charles the man, the marriage to Diana was just never right.
She would most likely have been better off marrying someone who loved her and she loved. But then she would not have had her two beloved sons.
Charles had to do the courting and proposing, he should have stated clearly and thoroughly what his expectations were. Before he even proposed. Diana then could have agreed or disagreed with those expectations.
Charles the man IMO wanted things his way or the highway. He could have been a non-royal and still wanted the marriage on his own terms. The marriage was not right because Charles the man and the royal knew he did not love her. He was unrealistic in thinking he could "learn" to love her. That was very naive and unrealistic on his part.
I doubt she would have been much better off without proper psychological support. Diana had many deep-seated emotional issues that would have reared their head in all her relationships. Indeed they did for many of her relationships (even the ones that were not romantic). She just could not deal with rejection on any level and went to pieces when it happened. The constant fear of being abandoned haunted her to the very end.
BTW, a proposal is not a command. It is a request and a lady always has the option of saying yes or no. I hear some people said no to Charles so it was not as if the sky would fall in if Diana said no. Diana was not some prisoner who had no options .
Besides, she knew exactly what the deal was and wrote about it in Morton. Charles did not really love her and she knew it. He loved and was in love with Camilla. She knew all that and even thought about cancelling the wedding. Later on she even confessed to George Michael that it was an arranged marriage. Diana knew what was going on but ignored it because she wanted her perfect ending.
What she wanted was to be married to the Prince of Wales (Charles just happened to be in that position at the time) and later become queen in a fairy tale romance that closely mimicked the Barbara Cartland stuff she had been reading. She never knew, understood, sympathized with or loved the man she married. Her recordings also show that she never liked or cared for him right from the beginning. The same feelings were reciprocated on Charles' side.
The reason why Charles was able to cope better with the failed marriage was that Camilla was there as an alternative. He was not being rejected but was the one rejecting. He was not being abandoned because Camilla would always be there for him as she had been since they met. That is why he was so casual about the whole thing when it broke down and was glad when the marriage ended. He could not care less that Diana had lovers.
It is also not true that Charles did not try. He tried to make the marriage work in his own way right up to 1984. At that point, he gave up because they could not even live together anymore without raising a stink. It was a constant battle with tantrums, fights, quarrels etc. He felt that he had made a terrible mistake marrying Diana and could not be bothered to put in any more half-hearted efforts.
People do learn to love one another after arranged marriages. If that was not the case, half the marriages in India and Pakistan would end but they do not. However, if you both have unrealistic expectations of one another divorce is the only sensible solution instead of raising a stink that engulfs virtually everybody around you.
I have always been on record that short of not proposing to Diana at all; Charles should have bargained for a clean divorce in 1986. That entire decade between 1986-1996 was a complete waste of their lives bickering over that which could never be mended.
Quote
If that was not the case, half the marriages in India and Pakistan would end but they do not.
Hah. They are not allowed to pick their own spouses but they'll be allowed to divorce? They also function with a huge honor concept so divorce would bring dishonor. Domestic abuse and adultery rates are high. Some of those women aren't allowed to work or study because it's time for marriage. Please don't glamorize arranged marriages. It's a stupid system and women suffer.
Women aren't allowed to move out of their homes till they marry because that would bring dishonor or shame. They are molded into this subservient wife that caters to the guy and his family. It's all very old fashioned.
There are different sorts of arranged marriages. Up to the 20th C most marriages in Europe were "arranged" to some extent... in that there were not thtat many options, people married wthin their class and usually their locality.. so choice was limited.. and people usualy married to suit their families as much as themselves. It didn't mean that they were forced into it, and divorce wasn't an option, usually but the marriages worked out. Some didn't, but usually people had realisitic expectations and didn't expect "Big romantic love" but grew to love each other. Not all were successful, some were very unhappy - but there were probably more happy marriages than now. Among the British upper classes - where we do know a bit about tehm as they are "recorded"...some marriages worked out OK, some were very happy and some were just arrangements.. where the couple produced children and then usually took lovers on the side.
Diana's marriage wasn't "an arranged one".. She and Charles dated, they had a chance to get to know each other and both knew that it was a partnership that was not supposed to end in divorce.. They weren't forced to marry and while it was expected tat even if it didn't work out they weren't supposed to get a divorce, she was hardly ill treated or forced to lead a narrow life. She had plenty of opportunties for interesting work as Princess.. She had a wider life than she would have had as an ordinary aristocrat and if she had wanted to get more education, there was nothing to stop her doing so.
and the RF clearly were willing to turn a blind eye and protect her if she took a lover who made her happier than Charles, provided she was loyal to C and to the RF and acted politely in private and in public. So if it wa an arranged marriage, it was one that had a reasonable chance of being hapy, and if it didn't become "happy", it could have been comfortable if Diana had accepted the limitations.
Very true. I even know people from Pakistan and India who started off with an arranged marriage but learned to love their spouse. It is not impossible. This idea of a big romance was all in Diana's head. I actually don't believe she actually believed in it. Being Princess of Wales is not some silly romantic tale. It is serious business. You are in effect going to be central to a large extended powerful family in addition to being a representative of a nation.
It is not about everlasting romantic love and a husband who caters for you every whim. Diana could not hack it on those terms in the end but was also afraid of losing all the perks that the position gave her. That is the real reason she could not bear a divorce or Charles remarrying. Her biggest worry was Charles marrying Camilla and being happy whilst she was abandoned or ignored. Hence the post-divorce media offensives.
As Camilla has shown, it is possible to remain married to Charles successfully...warts and all. He is not an impossible man to be married to. He is capable of being considerate and caring to his wife. What he cannot abide is insolence, impertinence or his position being challenged. Diana did exactly those things and he said goodbye.
wel i don't know how you can say that the idea of a big romance was in Diana's head and also that she didn't beleive in it.
I think that she DID believe in it. Charles spoke of marriage earlier and said that since his marriage had to last 50 years, it was a partnership, a friendship, as muich and more than a romantic love affair. But that's true of all marriages. You need solid bedrock because the romance will fade.
Diana was young and naïve and DID believe that she was in love with Charles and that at least at first, she though that he loved her and that they would live happily ever after.
And I think he was willing to be in love with her. He was attracted.. she seemed like a nice simple innocent girl, and that she had enough nous to learn the duties of a princess, and was willing to put up iwht the limitattions. I tihnk he was worried at times that she was too young and that perhaps she DIDNT really understand the role that well.. and that perhaps she was too young to be married.
So he had misgivings, and I think she too began to have some, during their engagement.. I think she grew afraid that he cared more for Camilla than she had first realised.
And of course Diana was annoyed and upset that if Charles split with her and esp if he remarried, she would not be queen or Princess of Wales and of course she felt that she had made a big effort to do the job well and should not be deprived of it. However she was the one who had pushed things to the point where a divorce was probably the only option.
I think that while I'm glad that Charles and Camilla have a happy comfortable marriage, its a great pity that Diana did not decide to overlook her husband's mistress, keep her job and position and quietly find a discreet lover. Its not as easy as it might have been 100 years ago, for a wife to have a long standing quiet affair.. but if she had found someone who was happy with her, who was perhaps divorced, the RF would have tired to ensure that she was protected from gossip.. and she would IMO have been a good Queen in due course.
I think that because Di didn't always think ahead, she gave way to impulses to hit out at Chalres and to try and break with the RF, and then realised that it was a scary place, outside the RF.. and feared the divorce.
But I believe that in spite of Charles's feelings for Camilla, he was wiling to make hs marriage work, to be faithful and he picked a girl who was sutiable and alos someone whom he thougt he could love..and who shared his interests.
But Diana was fragile, she was easily upset and once married, I think she realised how trapped she was.. and acted up.. and she grew ill and irrational with her bulimia and depression. And Charles found it hard to grow into love with her, when she was so erratic. They did both try, I think that she tried to win his love sexually but was afraid that she didn't have the experience that his past mistresses had, and she tried to learn to like riding etc, to please him.. and she worked hard at being good at the job side of their life, so as to be admired for her hard work and skill at charming the public. But she din't really like the country life.. and it was all a massive strain for botht of them, trying to fit into the ways of someone else who was so different.
Quote
Very true. I even know people from Pakistan and India who started off with an arranged marriage but learned to love their spouse.
No they don't. They learn to tolerate each other. Most of those people you know were probably blind dates. They still call it an arranged marriage but they are vert westernized.
how on earth do you know wehther they "tolerate" or love each other? The idea behind an arranged marriage is that love grows, usually after marriage. It may not always happen but that is the idea of it. Just as in upper class "semi arranged marriages" in say the 19th C, the ideal was that a married couple might not fall In love or might nto be too happy together but that they had a loyalty to each other, formed a parternship, rather than a "love marriage"..
Lots of things went on in the 19th C that don't go on today for a reason. How come the Western world can progress and move forward but india and Pakistan are supposed to stay in the 19th century and keep on having arranged marriages? Why not bring it back in England too? It's not a choice based decision. They eother marry when their parents want them too or have to face the consequences of their actions for going against societal norms.
Quote from: tiaras on August 28, 2017, 01:57:24 PM
Lots of things went on in the 19th C that don't go in today for a reason. How come the Western world can progress and move forward but india and Pakistan are supposed to stay in the 19th century and keep on having arranged marriages? Why not bring it back in England too?
What on earth do you mean? Noone's dictating whether India etc SHOULD or should nto have arranged marriages.. its up to them. I'm just discussing the idea that Charles and Diana had an arranged marriage.. IMO they didn't.
People in these marriages don't have a choice. It's s not up to them.
Quote from: tiaras on August 28, 2017, 02:00:59 PM
People in these marriages don't have a choice. It's s not up to them.
well its nothing to do with Diana and Charles marriage.
Yes it is. If Charles parents said it's about time to marry and have heirs and Diana's parents wanted their daughter to be princess of Wales and people were manipulated then it was semi arranged. Leading people to believe they chose this marriage when indeed they didnt.
I-yi-I :thumbsdown:
Quote from: tiaras on August 28, 2017, 02:35:18 PM
Yes it is. If Charles parents said it's about time to marry and have heirs and Diana's parents wanted their daughter to be princess of Wales and people were manipulated then it was semi arranged. Leading people to believe they chose this marriage when indeed they didnt.
they did choose the marriage. They both wanted to get married, They dated, they decided to marry each other
And you were talking about arranged marraiges in india etc. I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I don't think that this thread is really the place to discuss it...
@royalanthropologist brought it up and I responded.
OK but it is a seaparte issue. Diana and Charles IMO couldn't be said to have an "arranged marriage". and as I've said, there are degrees of "arranging" a marriage. in the 19th C upper class people and royals did usually marry with some parental "help", the whole point of the Social Season was to create a climate where upper class people could meet and have some choice.. but still usually the parents were expected to consent. If they didnt', a couple could stil marry but if their parents weren't keen on the suitor, they could refuse to allow them money or a house or whatever and make it moere difficult.
Chlares was restrticed in whom he could marry, but he still had a fair degree of choice. And he could have delayed his marriage longer but he was already over 30 and it was really time that he got settled so there were lmiits on how much more time he could devote to seeking a wife..
Diana wanted to get married but she was hardly "manipulated" into marrying charles.. she wanted to marry him...
32 is not really that old, maybe it was considered old back then. Theoretically Charles could have found a much younger bride down the road (like Prince Albert did). Diana thought Charles loved her and did not know all about Charles' expectations. When she saw the cufflinks on the honeymoon from Camilla she realized what was in store for her. Charles forgot or did not want to clue her in before the wedding.
Double post auto-merged: August 28, 2017, 03:55:37 PM
Quote from: tiaras on August 28, 2017, 02:35:18 PM
Yes it is. If Charles parents said it's about time to marry and have heirs and Diana's parents wanted their daughter to be princess of Wales and people were manipulated then it was semi arranged. Leading people to believe they chose this marriage when indeed they didnt.
It was not an arranged marriage. But suppose it had been and contracts were signed and it was set up before their pre engagement meetings, then a date was formally set for the engagement and so on. It did not give Charles carte blanche to cheat on his wife.
Double post auto-merged: August 28, 2017, 03:59:49 PM
Quote from: amabel on August 28, 2017, 10:24:36 AM
wel i don't know how you can say that the idea of a big romance was in Diana's head and also that she didn't beleive in it.
I think that she DID believe in it. Charles spoke of marriage earlier and said that since his marriage had to last 50 years, it was a partnership, a friendship, as muich and more than a romantic love affair. But that's true of all marriages. You need solid bedrock because the romance will fade.
Diana was young and naïve and DID believe that she was in love with Charles and that at least at first, she though that he loved her and that they would live happily ever after.
And I think he was willing to be in love with her. He was attracted.. she seemed like a nice simple innocent girl, and that she had enough nous to learn the duties of a princess, and was willing to put up iwht the limitattions. I tihnk he was worried at times that she was too young and that perhaps she DIDNT really understand the role that well.. and that perhaps she was too young to be married.
So he had misgivings, and I think she too began to have some, during their engagement.. I think she grew afraid that he cared more for Camilla than she had first realised.
And of course Diana was annoyed and upset that if Charles split with her and esp if he remarried, she would not be queen or Princess of Wales and of course she felt that she had made a big effort to do the job well and should not be deprived of it. However she was the one who had pushed things to the point where a divorce was probably the only option.
I think that while I'm glad that Charles and Camilla have a happy comfortable marriage, its a great pity that Diana did not decide to overlook her husband's mistress, keep her job and position and quietly find a discreet lover. Its not as easy as it might have been 100 years ago, for a wife to have a long standing quiet affair.. but if she had found someone who was happy with her, who was perhaps divorced, the RF would have tired to ensure that she was protected from gossip.. and she would IMO have been a good Queen in due course.
I think that because Di didn't always think ahead, she gave way to impulses to hit out at Chalres and to try and break with the RF, and then realised that it was a scary place, outside the RF.. and feared the divorce.
But I believe that in spite of Charles's feelings for Camilla, he was wiling to make hs marriage work, to be faithful and he picked a girl who was sutiable and alos someone whom he thougt he could love..and who shared his interests.
But Diana was fragile, she was easily upset and once married, I think she realised how trapped she was.. and acted up.. and she grew ill and irrational with her bulimia and depression. And Charles found it hard to grow into love with her, when she was so erratic. They did both try, I think that she tried to win his love sexually but was afraid that she didn't have the experience that his past mistresses had, and she tried to learn to like riding etc, to please him.. and she worked hard at being good at the job side of their life, so as to be admired for her hard work and skill at charming the public. But she din't really like the country life.. and it was all a massive strain for botht of them, trying to fit into the ways of someone else who was so different.
Charles pushed things to the point by keeping in contact with his mistress. Diana did not live in a vacuum and just decided she'd make things difficult. Charles is a his way or the highway kind of person and Diana put up with the marriage for ten years. She was also beset by Charles increasing resentment of her which he did not bother hiding and his friends leaking stories. Camilla was throwing her weigh around as well.
Maybe Diana was old fashioned but she wanted a real marriage and not have discreet affairs that really had no future for her. Suppose she fell madly in love with a lover and he with her and they wanted to marry and have children. She most likely could not because if she decided to up and leave Charles she'd risk losing custody of their children.
Charles did show his contempt for her and in public, with put downs. It is bordering on masochism for a wife to put up with that. Charles would give her cheap gifts and give the mistress expensive jewelry. Who needs that rubbish from him
Double post auto-merged: August 28, 2017, 04:02:17 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 28, 2017, 09:18:24 AM
Very true. I even know people from Pakistan and India who started off with an arranged marriage but learned to love their spouse. It is not impossible. This idea of a big romance was all in Diana's head. I actually don't believe she actually believed in it. Being Princess of Wales is not some silly romantic tale. It is serious business. You are in effect going to be central to a large extended powerful family in addition to being a representative of a nation.
It is not about everlasting romantic love and a husband who caters for you every whim. Diana could not hack it on those terms in the end but was also afraid of losing all the perks that the position gave her. That is the real reason she could not bear a divorce or Charles remarrying. Her biggest worry was Charles marrying Camilla and being happy whilst she was abandoned or ignored. Hence the post-divorce media offensives.
As Camilla has shown, it is possible to remain married to Charles successfully...warts and all. He is not an impossible man to be married to. He is capable of being considerate and caring to his wife. What he cannot abide is insolence, impertinence or his position being challenged. Diana did exactly those things and he said goodbye.
Charles did not spell out the terms. That was the issue. If he wanted her to tolerate his mistress and not expect love from him, he should have told her before any engagement happened.
I don't think it "insolent" for a woman to challenge a man for keeping another woman on the side. He was disrespectful to Diana from the get go. And a woman is not inferior no matter what titles the husband has and deserves respect
Contracts aren't signed for an arranged marriage. They weren't signed in 19 th century and they aren't being singed now in those countries where it is still prevalent.
It's not surprising there's no love in an arranged marriage because there never is.
Quote
the 19th C upper class people and royals did usually marry with some parental "help", the whole point of the Social Season was to create a climate where upper class people could meet and have some choice.. but still usually the parents were expected to consent. If they didnt', a couple could stil marry but if their parents weren't keen on the suitor, they could refuse to allow them money or a house or whatever and make it moere difficult.
How lovely so in 19th century England women had more rights than the women in countries where this is still going on today.
There would have to be contract today especially in the royal family (if this sort of thing is practiced in future) or families of ultra rich people. It would be something that would require an attorney to draw up papers and all agree to terms. They just could not up and decide it's an arranged marriage. Terms would need to be spelled out. Sometimes marriages are arranged before the parties come "of age" and a date is set in advance. In the royal family if they still had this sort of thing a contract would be a "must." In George IV's case, there was a contract and the bride's family included a dowry agreed upon ahead of time (which came in handy since George as Prince of Wales was a spendthrift who had to pay off debts).
Quote from: tiaras on August 28, 2017, 05:06:26 PM
Contracts aren't signed for an arranged marriage. They weren't signed in 19 th century and they aren't being singed now in those countries where it is still prevalent.
It's not surprising there's no love in an arranged marriage because there never is. How lovely so in 19th century England women had more rights than the women in countries where this is still going on today.
It is simply your opinion that there is no love in arranged marriages. Many people would say different. And if you want to discuss them as part of a foregin culture, why not do it on the politics threads?
No I have experience with that system, you don't, you're speaking about arranged marriages as an outsider. You're glamorizing something that isn't healthy and confusing it with blind dates and period dramas. My response was to
@royalanthropologist if the topic irks you so don't respond simple.
I'm not glamorising it at all, I said I don't have a strong opinion about It. But I have heard of people whom it worked for, and others whom it didn't work for. As I've said, arranged marriages in another culture aren't the same as what happened with Charles and Di, or even what happened in say 19th C Britain... If you do have strong feelings about it, in India and Pakistan, I would say it is better discussed on the politics threads.
It's more than 60% of the world rather than just those two countries.
Diana was 19, there was no way she wasn't coaxed into that situation by some family members. Charles was 32 he wanted a trophy wife and was also imo coaxed into marriage as it was 'time'. I don't believe external forces didn't play a part in that union.
Diana's grandmother was pushing for the marriage. Her father was delighted when Charles phoned him and told him Diana accepted his proposal of marriage. Frances had misgivings but kept them to herself. I think Diana loved Charles and was not some cold and calculating person but she had little experience and if she had had a steady boyfriend previously she might have noticed more red flags than she did with Charles. Charles needed heirs and he did not want his brother to be the next in line (he has been quoted as making disparaging comments about his brothers and there is no love lost between him and Andrew) so he married Diana and I believe had no intention of stopping seeing Camilla. But Charles knew the score and knew he did not love Diana so I blame him the most. He was the one who decided to court Diana nobody could possibly "make him" unless he had some willingness himself.
I agree totally with Sandy. Just yesterday I was watching a bit of their wedding the look on Charles face going from Buckingham Palace to the Abbey and walking the aisle he look most unhappy while Diana on the other hand had that adoring look of love for Charles especially once she joined him at the altar. Looking back at Princess Anne and The Queens weddings both bride and groom looked extremely happy smiling and waving at the crowds going to the Abbey but Charles looked like he was heading toward the tower,
I do not understand constant digs at a long gone dead woman who had her story written to the last chapter because she is dead.
But if makes one happy in his/her opinion, ok. Fine. Enjoy yourself. Oh, the hatred or obsession with a dead woman is funny to me.
Topic here....back to the topic.
YES, PCs plans for Camilla's coverage -big birthday and Junor' s book, were foiled ...again , and whatever milestones of theirs will be foiled ...again and again by Ds ghost.
She lived.
Press will always have PD mentioned at anything in their lives. It just cannot be helped.
Now, W and K are having baby 3 and PH will probably marry MM, more press on PDs heirs
More media on again, on how she would be trilled to bits with W and H and their lives.
I prefer to post future things, speculations.
Camilla is going to be QofE , titled so.
She is not and will never be the popular one with her media and subjects.
Many of her subjects her age group and from now on will start dying out.
In 20 years, fewer people in the population there will be living who fans of PD and were alive during her lifetime.
QEII still has years on her last ten years to reign.
She is going to make that 100 birthday and history as longest reigning monarch.
C and C will be alive until at least 90. 20 years from now. A long time.
These people live forever.
W and K kids will be 24, 22, and 20.