Princess Diana curtseyed

[Trudie]

If "needy nag" is sexist then "lecher" or "dog" is too. That is the beauty of the English language.

Nagging is saying that same thing over and over again. Diana conceived in her mind that she had to fight Camilla by making her the big issue in her marriage. She investigated and pushed until her prophesy became self-fulfilling. If you want a happy marriage, you have to make an effort to make your home a pleasant space. Becoming a collection of repeated grievances against your husband will drive him away faster than you can say the word nag.

You keep going back to the Raymill house for some strange reason. That house is a master stroke by Camilla, absolute genius. She is always the alluring mistress, away just enough to keep him interested. Just look at their photos in Malaysia and you will see what I mean. Camilla is not in his face complaining about this and that. Diana really had no clue about men, did she?

BTW Diana had absolutely nothing in common with those women in the shelters. She was an over-privileged and over-indulged woman who did not know she had it so good. That is what is so ridiculous about this manufactured victim hood. The idea that one of the most privileged women ever is somehow the epitome of feminist victim hood. Absolute piffle!

BTW neither does Camilla. Showing up at centers for rape victims and abused women on Camilla's part is the same Camilla herself was over privileged and over indulged her entire life. Now she is also playing Victim but that is Camilla so it's OK by you. APB IMO was as bad as Charles however Camilla knew this going into that marriage waging a competition with him during their dating years Diana had no idea Charles was courting her and sleeping with Camilla at the same time until after the engagement was announced and Camilla inserted herself more and more into the relationship.

Of course Camilla was the fun mistress all she had to do back then was curtsy and jump into bed stroke his ego and send him on his way. APB was more than happy with this and knowing they were meeting up at hunts it freed him up to his own activities while Diana was, acclimating herself to royal duties, bearing royal children and juggling duties while under an intense media microscope and a cold family. Camilla was and never will be a victim of anything other than being unpopular due to her own making with her ambitions to have Charles.

[michelle0187]

^ camilla didn't keep him interested enough to stop him from sleeping with kanga. It was strange that both of them had charles before and after their pregnancies. That man had a lot of duties lol. Diana's paranoia was a bit intense but she couldn't spend enough time with him and see more of his private side that was reserved for his older circle of close friends and
I'm sure his fear of the media finding out about his love and trysts with cam, stressed the hell out of him. That kind of stress wasn't all on diana. The man hid in the boot of a car late in the night, waiting for cam to warm his bed. The public and media pressure on pc and pd to live out the fairytale fantasy wasn't because of Diana's need for the perfect marriage. It was awfully nice of camilla to give her pointers on how to cater to Charles and ask her when he'll be free, from the jump.

[sandy]

I don't think it was paranoia, Diana was spot on about Camilla.

No it was not the public and media pressure, it was Charles' own decision to marry Diana to get those heirs. He felt that because of who he is he could have his cake and eat it too. Charles could have ignored the pressure but he had to go ahead and marry someone he knew he did not love. If a reputable clergyman could have counseled them, he would have strongly discouraged Charles from marrying Diana or anybody he did not really love. The Archbishop of Canterbury knew all about Camilla but sanctioned the marriage anyway, he admitted this.

[michelle0187]

^ I don't mean her paranoia was just about camilla. Staff members ordered to lie to her about his whereabouts. But she probably figured it out. I read somewhere that she could tell where he was going just based on the car he drove off in.
There were people from his circle feeding her rumors, according to her lawyer at the time, by 91'. And of course camilla was talking to the sun.

[sandy]

Camilla was having her conversations with the Sun Editor for 10 years.

[royalanthropologist]

Diana had her suspicions. Initially there was an emotional attachment but it was definitely not physical in the beginning. Diana then made Camilla the raison d'etre of her marriage. She would not rest until Camilla was permanently banished from Charles heart. Then she started acting it out in the marriage e.g. "filthy rows".

Now that is all very well saying "I was right after all" or that "I am the wife and it is my right". The reality is that her suspicion turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. As Diana became more quarrelsome, discontented, depressed and generally unpleasant to her husband; he drifted away and straight back to his mistress. Then it became physical (circa 1985-1986).

Diana did stop even after she had her own lovers (Hewitt) and KP to herself. She kept up the pressure. Eventually the relationship with Charles was so poisoned that there was not even the remotest chance of a reconciliation. Then Diana started being pathetic (seduction with lingerie and confrontation with Camilla). There was not a chance Charles was ever going to consider returning after all that had happened but he was willing to let the marriage continue as a pretext, with everyone leading their own separate private lives.

Still Diana would not rest. She pushed it even further with Morton. After that Charles was really never going to come back. He must have been incredibly angry with Diana; but once again the BRF were happy for the marriage to continue officially but they compromised on a separation to allow Diana to lead her own private life as well as having access to her children.

Still Diana was not satisfied. She took it much, much further with Bashir. At that point it was no longer a question of a wife squabbling against her husband. It became a constitutional crisis with Diana actually becoming an existential threat to the monarchy. Then the queen finally came into play and ordered a divorce.

My question is this: at every stage of that process did Diana ever think about what she really wanted and whether her actions were furthering her objectives in any meaningful way? Did she imagine that after all those rows, betrayals and media exposes that Charles would ever consider reconciling with her?

To me it all played out like a series of emotional outbursts with no particular strategy. And of course: in the end Diana was the loser. She lost her marriage, title and life. Sometimes you have to think before you act.

[Curryong]

I found what Harry said on stage in Chicago today very interesting. (I've posted the clip of some of it here in the Harry thread.) In it he speaks about his mother as his greatest role model. However he also says something in that clip which is very curious. He says of Diana that he wonders how someone who did such good in the world and who cared for others could have been treated as she was by an Institution.

An Institution? The Press that everyone blamed for her death isn't an institution. The Paps aren't an Institution. The British people aren't an Institution. However, the PTB, the Establishment, the BRF, the people with power, they are an Institution. Curious, isn't it? And Harry and William, the future King, are very close.

[sandy]

Diana had her suspicions. Initially there was an emotional attachment but it was definitely not physical in the beginning. Diana then made Camilla the raison d'etre of her marriage. She would not rest until Camilla was permanently banished from Charles heart. Then she started acting it out in the marriage e.g. "filthy rows".

Now that is all very well saying "I was right after all" or that "I am the wife and it is my right". The reality is that her suspicion turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. As Diana became more quarrelsome, discontented, depressed and generally unpleasant to her husband; he drifted away and straight back to his mistress. Then it became physical (circa 1985-1986).

Diana did stop even after she had her own lovers (Hewitt) and KP to herself. She kept up the pressure. Eventually the relationship with Charles was so poisoned that there was not even the remotest chance of a reconciliation. Then Diana started being pathetic (seduction with lingerie and confrontation with Camilla). There was not a chance Charles was ever going to consider returning after all that had happened but he was willing to let the marriage continue as a pretext, with everyone leading their own separate private lives.

Still Diana would not rest. She pushed it even further with Morton. After that Charles was really never going to come back. He must have been incredibly angry with Diana; but once again the BRF were happy for the marriage to continue officially but they compromised on a separation to allow Diana to lead her own private life as well as having access to her children.

Still Diana was not satisfied. She took it much, much further with Bashir. At that point it was no longer a question of a wife squabbling against her husband. It became a constitutional crisis with Diana actually becoming an existential threat to the monarchy. Then the queen finally came into play and ordered a divorce.

My question is this: at every stage of that process did Diana ever think about what she really wanted and whether her actions were furthering her objectives in any meaningful way? Did she imagine that after all those rows, betrayals and media exposes that Charles would ever consider reconciling with her?

To me it all played out like a series of emotional outbursts with no particular strategy. And of course: in the end Diana was the loser. She lost her marriage, title and life. Sometimes you have to think before you act.

Charles should never ever have put Diana through this. He should not have married her if he did not love her. Why would a wife have to be in such a position as to have to tell her husband to stop seeing the other woman, and even the honeymoon there were problems because Charles flaunted the mistress' gift, the C and C cufflinks.

Diana had no chance. No she did not drive him away. Camilla was not going anywhere and Charles would continue to see her even if Diana put up and shut up. He resented Diana and got miffed at her popularity. So Diana was damned if she did and damned if she didn't. If she were not popular or slacked off there would be problems but she did her best but Charles still got jealous.

That lingerie story is nonsense. The night she confronted Camilla she was so angry at Charles why would she put on a negligee. She probably felt absolute contempt for him. They went to their separate rooms that night. It is odd how all these strange stories come around after Diana is dead. She never said she did that.
Blaming Diana (like Junor and her ilk do) for Charles' cheating is a big cop out. The Great Man is to blame for this one, since he married Diana knowing he did not love her. DIana was in a no-win situation.

And what about Charles as early as 1983 whingeing to his friends about Diana's popularity. Then these toadies started spreading nasty gossip about Diana and Camilla went to the Sun Editor. If Charles had gotten help for his jealousy issues and not written to his toady friends, and yes, dropped Camilla, there would have been a better outcome. Once he dragged his friends into it there was no turning back. Diana cooperated with Morton in 1992 because she was sick of the nasty gossip spread by Charles' friends.

So what was wrong with Charles dropping Camilla? IF he wanted a marriage, he should have dropped her. Diana was right.

Charles was wrong bringing Diana into this sordid situation.
Charles was the one who lost not everybody makes cop out excuses for him and do say he has a lot to answer for.

Diana won because she had some time away from him and the mistress. It was a marriage worth walking out of. Another woman who could have divorced early on (Diana could not) would have ditched him ages ago. He was not worth fighting over.

Royal, how come you give Charles a free pass over his blabbing to Dimbleby and naming Camilla and his trashing his own parents and admitting he never loved his first wife? You just rush to the Bashir interview like the Dimbleby one never existed. Charles shot himself in the foot with the Dimbleby interview.

Diana was never a threat to the monarchy. Charles was and there was talk of his abdicating (no it was not from Diana) if he married the divorced woman. He had to wait years to marry Camilla.

My question is: Did Prince Charles ever think of other people but himself in his quest to have his cake and eat it too. He decided not to marry Camilla Shand and moved on and continued to sow wild oats. But her marriage meant nothing to him because he still made her the mistress and while she was busy having babies, he helped himself to Lady Tryon. Did he think his actions had no consequences. IT all came back to bite him. He could not marry Camilla to have his babies with, so he had to find a virgin girl to have babies with and for ceremonial purposes. But he was not going to give up the Fun Mistress at the same time. Did CHarles ever think of other people besides himself? No, and he did not care who he hurt. His treatment of Diana was ugly and nasty and it is a pity Diana is blamed for it all. Disgusting in fact. And making the fictional lingerie episode seem like a "victory" for Charles because he put Diana down and rejected her because he preferred the mistress.  And all the put downs he did of Diana were because DIana complained. Maybe it is the old adage that the woman "asked for it." When women are physically abused, the husband tells her  she "asked for it" because she "nagged" him. And many times it is a complaint about a man seeing another woman.

Such thinking should be passe in this day and age.

[TLLK]

An Institution? The Press that everyone blamed for her death isn't an institution. The Paps aren't an Institution. The British people aren't an Institution. However, the PTB, the Establishment, the BRF, the people with power, they are an Institution. Curious, isn't it? And Harry and William, the future King, are very close.

Yes it is interesting and I agree as a private citizen that the media/paps are not an institution, however  I have to wonder if due to his life experiences, if  Harry (and his family) view the media/paps as an "institution?" An "institution" that he must endeavor to work with and  do battle with on a near constant basis.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Well with in the US the press being called the "fourth estate" and freedom of the press enshrined, one could call it an institution, most countries have govt run/partial funded press (BBC, CBC, NPR, etc) so its not as clear cut as Executive/Judicial/Legislative branches.

It would be nice though in my mind if hes taking the pi$$ out of the RF for his Mums treatment, hes already called out the old guard for their dealing of mental issues and such.

Although as I wrote in the Harry thread, I think it was a mis step to speak at the Obama Foundation after the scandals over the Clinton Foundation pay for play, it puts him in a political position with little payoff for him (loads for the Obamas tho). With the fashion of the day ppl having to denouce previous positions or behaviors, if this foundation  follows the same path, he'll have to do some unnecessary backpedaling. Im guessing the proximity of Toronto to Chicago played a part.....

[royalanthropologist]

I found what Harry said on stage in Chicago today very interesting. (I've posted the clip of some of it here in the Harry thread.) In it he speaks about his mother as his greatest role model. However he also says something in that clip which is very curious. He says of Diana that he wonders how someone who did such good in the world and who cared for others could have been treated as she was by an Institution.

An Institution? The Press that everyone blamed for her death isn't an institution. The Paps aren't an Institution. The British people aren't an Institution. However, the PTB, the Establishment, the BRF, the people with power, they are an Institution. Curious, isn't it? And Harry and William, the future King, are very close.

He may well be referring to the BRF but I must point out that the press is most definitely an institution. Absolutely.
Double post auto-merged: November 01, 2017, 06:45:31 PM

@sandy. Your post is classic Diana:

"It really is my husband's fault. He made me the way I am. He should not have put me in this position. But again, I want a happy family and marriage. I also want to remain married to him."

There is nothing, absolutely nothing that Diana did between 1981 and 1996 that was ever an effective strategy for getting that happy family she so crazed. In fact quite the opposite, everything she did had the consequence of ensuring that there was not a chance Charles would ever reconcile with her. All she was left with was her bitterness, loneliness and the strange self-justification of being a very public and effective victim.

If Diana's primary objective was to expose C&C, become the most famous woman in the world and win a PR war; then I give her 100%. If she wanted to destroy C&C, may be about 50%. They are not particularly popular within Diana's fans but again the other 50% she did not achieve. They married and Camilla got the position that was once Diana's.

However, if Diana wanted a happy family life or to be queen then she got 0%. She made Camilla a nexus of her marriage and in the end she did indeed become a nexus of her marriage. Maybe she should have taken a leaf from Mrs. Hoare and Mrs Carling about dealing with a mistress who will not go away.  Those women did not turn their homes into a battleground on account of a mistress. They just discreetly handled the matter and Diana was forgotten as far as their family was concerned.

BTW "love" is not the only reason why people marry. That is a fairy tale idea that sometimes does not fit in with life. It is entirely possible and legitimate to marry in order to have legitimate children. Indeed biologists tell us that procreation is not about "love" at all. Diana was living in Barbara Cartland world if she thought that every marriage was based on "love".

[Curryong]

Harry may have mis-spoken in the Q and A session. However, the Press is not enshrined in the Constitution in Britain  (the country of course has no written Constitution, merely precedent and statute law) and judging by what Charles and his sons think of the media, especially tabloids) I doubt very much that Harry thinks of the Press as an institution. 'Rabble' would be more the thinking!

I spoke to two friends, one Aussie, one British last night. They have both followed the BRF, and Diana and Harry in particular, for years as have I. Without my mentioning it both zoned in on that one phrase of Harry's conversation and both said they believed that he was referring to the Royal family and TPTB.

By the way, Mrs Carling called Diana out publicly  for becoming close to her husband. The Carlings separated and divorced shortly afterwards. I don't call that being discreet. Nor do I believe that she kept her mouth shut in the home about Will Carling's behaviour. I admire her for making it clear his behaviour wasn't acceptable. Keeping your trap shut and being nice while your husband plays away from home isn't admirable in my view. It is enabling behahiour, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, Mrs Hoare kept quiet. Bully for her. Keeping a shell of a so-called marriage around you while your husband is unfaithful again and again must have done things to her soul, self respect, view of her life marriage, that would be so extraordinarily sad. Like seeing the ruins of an ancient Abbey when it's reason for being and its inhabitants are no longer there.

Yes, some people in Western societies marry for  reasons other than love. However, the vast majority of those individuals who wed do so because they are in love with each other. I would suggest that very very few grooms stand at the altar in love with another woman and marrying because they feel the pressure on them is too much to resist.

[royalanthropologist]

I know but sometimes you have to think whether making a statement is more important than your personal happiness or safety. You have to admit that if Diana wanted a happy home, she made a pretty hash of things. That is not to say that it was her role alone but I don't think she was that reasonable or easy to live with.

True about most grooms but POW is not most grooms. An ordinary man would have told his father where to go after bullying him all his life and then trying to suggest what he might or might not do with his girlfriend. Likewise the idea of spoiling someone's reputation because you are going out with them seems a tad old fashioned.

As for Harry, I hope to God he is careful. As his mother learnt, you take on the monarchy or its associated institutions at your cost. He is already flirting with danger in his meetings with the Obamas and Clintons (partisan). Then the issue of the girlfriend might raffle a few feathers. The BRF knows how to fight back and its blows can be quite devastating to the individual.

In any case I really question whether the BRF did anything out of ordinary to make Diana suffer.  It is true that they did ignore her and later on isolated her when she fell out with Charles; but she was not really their target from the word go. Some of them like PM were surprisingly supportive until she pushed things too far. I would say the queen was even overly patient and indulgent when Diana started making terrible mistakes. In any case, what did Diana expect?

For most families once you fail out with their own, they close ranks. Charles was their flesh and blood. It is natural that they would side with him against an outsider, particularly given the considerable power he is likely to wield when he becomes King. Diana's own family were quite happy to throw her under the bus when she became difficult so that may have made her psychologically too desperate to win approval in the family she married into.

[TLLK]

Harry may have mis-spoken in the Q and A session. However, the Press is not enshrined in the Constitution in Britain  (the country of course has no written Constitution, merely precedent and statute law) and judging by what Charles and his sons think of the media, especially tabloids) I doubt very much that Harry thinks of the Press as an institution. 'Rabble' would be more the thinking!

This might be mine and Duch's North American view regarding the press as in institution in our society. Rabble it is!!! :lol:

Yes, some people in Western societies marry for  reasons other than love. However, the vast majority of those individuals who wed do so because they are in love with each other. I would suggest that very very few grooms stand at the altar in love with another woman and marrying because they feel the pressure on them is too much to resist.

True statement regarding marriage in the Western World circa 20th century to the present. Likely the only ones who might have had similar feelings are other royals who were supposed to marry someone from their own class/background because they were acceptable: Reportedly Belgium's Princess Josephine-Charlotte and her spouse Prince Jean of Luxembourg each had feelings for other people when they wed.  Spain's Infanta Elena and her ex-Jaime Machialar are IMO a  more recent example of this type of matchmaking.

[sandy]

Carling did deny an affair. Both Carling and Julia moved on and remarried, happily. I think Carling has a few children now.

Junor praises Camilla for being outspoken and discouraging other women from getting close to Charles. Yet she did not apply the same praise to Diana. Maybe Camilla was wary that when the man marries a mistress he leaves a vacancy. Camilla did get Elizabeth Buchanan sacked who did appear to have a huge crush on Charles and the two spent time together.

Julia C. did have the freedom to divorce her husband. Divorce was discouraged for Diana and Charles early on and Charles had gotten so used to the arrangement with the PBs he did not want to end it when he married Diana. I think he wanted one big happy family. With Diana playing nice with Camilla and being "civilized" even though Camilla was strictly contemptuous of Diana.

[dianab]

I found what Harry said on stage in Chicago today very interesting. (I've posted the clip of some of it here in the Harry thread.) In it he speaks about his mother as his greatest role model. However he also says something in that clip which is very curious. He says of Diana that he wonders how someone who did such good in the world and who cared for others could have been treated as she was by an Institution.

An Institution? The Press that everyone blamed for her death isn't an institution. The Paps aren't an Institution. The British people aren't an Institution. However, the PTB, the Establishment, the BRF, the people with power, they are an Institution. Curious, isn't it? And Harry and William, the future King, are very close.

the windsors are the 'Institution' of MONARCHY...and happens his dearest father is the next head of this Institution... his darling cold/remote, out of touch granny is the current head of that mess... no one of them have some problem with all slander the memory of Diana suffers in the last 20 years...

[sandy]

He may well be referring to the BRF but I must point out that the press is most definitely an institution. Absolutely.
Double post auto-merged: November 01, 2017, 06:45:31 PM

@sandy. Your post is classic Diana:

"It really is my husband's fault. He made me the way I am. He should not have put me in this position. But again, I want a happy family and marriage. I also want to remain married to him."

There is nothing, absolutely nothing that Diana did between 1981 and 1996 that was ever an effective strategy for getting that happy family she so crazed. In fact quite the opposite, everything she did had the consequence of ensuring that there was not a chance Charles would ever reconcile with her. All she was left with was her bitterness, loneliness and the strange self-justification of being a very public and effective victim.

If Diana's primary objective was to expose C&C, become the most famous woman in the world and win a PR war; then I give her 100%. If she wanted to destroy C&C, may be about 50%. They are not particularly popular within Diana's fans but again the other 50% she did not achieve. They married and Camilla got the position that was once Diana's.

However, if Diana wanted a happy family life or to be queen then she got 0%. She made Camilla a nexus of her marriage and in the end she did indeed become a nexus of her marriage. Maybe she should have taken a leaf from Mrs. Hoare and Mrs Carling about dealing with a mistress who will not go away.  Those women did not turn their homes into a battleground on account of a mistress. They just discreetly handled the matter and Diana was forgotten as far as their family was concerned.

BTW "love" is not the only reason why people marry. That is a fairy tale idea that sometimes does not fit in with life. It is entirely possible and legitimate to marry in order to have legitimate children. Indeed biologists tell us that procreation is not about "love" at all. Diana was living in Barbara Cartland world if she thought that every marriage was based on "love".

Um, you made up the quote by Diana and I never said it. It is all yours.

So people are believing in fairy tales if they marry for love. My oh my that would put the reception catering and bridal gown companies out of business. I  think it praiseworthy that people do believe in love and marry for it. Not the cynical way that Charles did. Just to get heirs.

I think Mrs Hoare (who had the purse strings in the marriage) was no compliant "little woman."  I think she made her feelings well known to her husband. Her husband had an "official" mistress before he had the relationship with Diana.  Mrs Hoare always had the upper hand IMO. She held the purse strings.

well there was NOTHING Charles did during that time period to show he worked on the marriage. Several things: he took Camilla's photograph with him on his honeymoon with Diana; he wore the C and C cufflinks on his honeymoon with Diana (Junor did give a minor reproach to Charles over this), he started whining about Diana's popularity and whining to his friends; he kept on seeing and calling Camilla; and he ditched Diana for the mistress. why is it that you keep blaming Diana for everything? Oh that's right...You are a big Camilla fan.

Charles exposed Camilla as his married mistress. Morton did not call Camilla the mistress or lover of Charles. then there was the Camillagate tape which did not force the divorce but Charles blabbing that she was in 1994, exposed Camilla as his married mistress.

Carling denied the affair. Carling did not name diana as "mistress" and neither did Hoare. Charles OTOH crowed to all the world that she was his married mistress.
Double post auto-merged: November 01, 2017, 09:17:20 PM

I know but sometimes you have to think whether making a statement is more important than your personal happiness or safety. You have to admit that if Diana wanted a happy home, she made a pretty hash of things. That is not to say that it was her role alone but I don't think she was that reasonable or easy to live with.

True about most grooms but POW is not most grooms. An ordinary man would have told his father where to go after bullying him all his life and then trying to suggest what he might or might not do with his girlfriend. Likewise the idea of spoiling someone's reputation because you are going out with them seems a tad old fashioned.

As for Harry, I hope to God he is careful. As his mother learnt, you take on the monarchy or its associated institutions at your cost. He is already flirting with danger in his meetings with the Obamas and Clintons (partisan). Then the issue of the girlfriend might raffle a few feathers. The BRF knows how to fight back and its blows can be quite devastating to the individual.

In any case I really question whether the BRF did anything out of ordinary to make Diana suffer.  It is true that they did ignore her and later on isolated her when she fell out with Charles; but she was not really their target from the word go. Some of them like PM were surprisingly supportive until she pushed things too far. I would say the queen was even overly patient and indulgent when Diana started making terrible mistakes. In any case, what did Diana expect?

For most families once you fail out with their own, they close ranks. Charles was their flesh and blood. It is natural that they would side with him against an outsider, particularly given the considerable power he is likely to wield when he becomes King. Diana's own family were quite happy to throw her under the bus when she became difficult so that may have made her psychologically too desperate to win approval in the family she married into.

Charles wears all those medals, has all those titles, and wealth but he is still an ordinary flesh and blood man not above "normal" morals and ethics and behavior.

Prince Philip never told Charles he could not marry Camilla. Charles did not even try, he gave her a pass in the early seventies. And did not say, Camilla I am not ready to marry now but I want you to know we have a future together which I very much want. He did not even try! As for Philip "forcing" him to marry Diana that is a lot of rubbish. Charles was 32 and could say no. One part of the advice of PHilip made sense to me. It said if he did not want to marry her let her go. Charles admitted later h e preferred his mistress so his father's advice made perfect sense. Charles tends to blame others.

I think Charles was the difficult one, like a big pampered baby who wanted to get his own way and have his way or the highway. His bedding his friends' wives was just gross and nobody forced him into doing it.

Why do you object to Harry's girlfriend? She is a divorcee just like Camilla was when she married Prince Charles. There were no children involved in Meghan's marriage. And Harry is single. They did not break up each other's marriages to be together.

So you think Harry is difficult while Charles who did worse is not? Because of Meghan?!

Diana's reputation would not have been spoiled if Charles broke up with her before the engagement. He would have been doing her a favor. He should have decided if he wanted to force a PB divorce then or find another woman who would agree with his terms (Maybe someone in the Highgrove set and palsy walsy with Camilla would have agreed to the terms.)

BTW William is friendly with Obama too.

[royalanthropologist]

The quote refers to an attitude not a literal list of your words @sandy and you know that very well I am sure.

You also seem not to understand that C&D had very different perspectives and priorities in that marriage. It was Diana that stood to lose by the divorce. If we believe your interpretation of Diana's version: all Charles wanted was those heirs. To that extent he had achieved what he set out to do. He would not be particularly hurt or concerned if the marriage failed after that. For Diana it was the exact opposite. She wanted to remain in the marriage so in actuality it was her priority to ensure that the home was not in such a state of conflict that Charles no longer wanted to be there.

I have never heard anyone saying that Charles initiated a quarrel about Camilla or any of Diana's affairs. It was Diana that mainly started and pushed the rows. Charles was largely indifferent. In fact she would get more furious if he refused to quarrel with her and went to the garden. She wanted to have the fights. He did not. Some people say that Charles ought to have acceded to Diana's demands in order to stop the rows but that only works when the man is in love with you and not someone else. Diana was using the wrong tactics on the wrong man and he left he subsequently (BTW it is no use denying this when Diana herself told the world about it).

It is also not true to say that Charles did not try at all. He did and even Diana acknowledged he did. He had tolerated Diana's antics for 3-4 years. If what is reported is true, no man would have remained with Diana for even two years. Diana failed to build on what was available and instead became idealistic about what was possible. This man was not madly in love with her and she knew that but behaved as if he was the one that needed her most. Then she wanted this ideal home but did not quite know how to make it happen. Diana was never going to maintain a happy home by nagging Charles about Camilla. That was a shortcut to separation and divorce.

As for the stuff about W&H and Meghan: I feel that you are deliberately misinterpreting my post in order to pivot back to the C&C hatefest. I am sure you know that none of the things you are attributing to me are true or were stated in my post.

[sandy]

A quote is supposed to be from a source. I am not the source of your quote. It is all yours. I am not the source. You can't claim I wrote something I did not. It's yours.

Diana lost nothing. Charles did want the heirs. Smith, who likes Charles, does say he married to have heirs and otherwise he probably would not have married. This from the book she wrote about Charles that was published this year. So don't you believe her? Why do you say it is "my" interpretation. I was not the first or only source of that. Please check your style guides and use quotes when you have a source and don't make up a source and put it in quotes.

Diana said "my life is torture." Why would she want to stay in that sort of marriage. Charles was increasingly putting her down in private and in public.

So you "know" Diana started the rows? Is this because you can't believe Charles is capable of doing anything wrong?! Since when do you "know" who started the rows. Charles wearing those cufflinks would not bring a "pretty cufflinks darling" remark by Diana. Charles did some baiting or was very stupid or maybe both.

Again, why do you give Charles a free pass when it is known (confessed to by Charles himself) that he did not love Diana when he married her? I am curious why you keep ignoring the obvious.

YOu mean she tolerated his antics. Charles said he was not in love with her not madly not anything not in love with her.  Diana had the misfortune of marrying Charles. He deserves a crude sneaky woman like Camilla.  It is interesting how women closer to his age turned him down. He had to court a nineteen year old who was naïve, but learned the hard way after the marriage.

Yes Charles tried enough to have those heirs.

Oh Diana had no right to complain about Camilla in your world. I think blaming the wife to elevate the mistress is a cop out.

You can't possibly blame Diana for Camilla bagging his friends' wives. I guess you have to find a scapegoat for that gross behavior of Charles, instead of blaming Diana.

You put down Harry because of Mehgan. It was not a "oh how wonderful for Harry he found Meghan." And Harry is in no trouble for being friends with Obama. For one thing, Obama is not President anymore.

You misinterpret many of my posts and in the last reply keep crediting me with YOUR quote.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Its not about Harry being in trouble about being friends with Obama, hes certainly fine to do that, but he also has to be aware that any royal hanging around with a politician exposes themselves to be used for political purposes, or to be claimed to be "politicizing" the RF.

With Prince Andrew having to back away from Jeffrey Epstein, and Charles friendship with Jimmy Saville, Diana and Tony Blair(which came out posthumously) and her appearance in the White House in 96 helped the Clinton re-election bid, one has to be careful about who one day may be problematic.

With the recent Clinton Foundation scandal, appearing at the Obama foundation was ill advised imo, it would be different if they were all appearing together for say, the Red Cross, etc. that would be different.

[amabel]

^ I don't mean her paranoia was just about camilla. Staff members ordered to lie to her about his whereabouts. But she probably figured it out. I read somewhere that she could tell where he was going just based on the car he drove off in.

For gods sake most peolple having affairs lie and get other people to lie.  Diana lied about when she was going to see Gilbey in London, saying she was going for back treatment. 
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 08:25:16 AM

The quote refers to an attitude not a literal list of your words @sandy and you know that very well I am sure.

You also seem not to understand that C&D had very different perspectives and priorities in that marriage. It was Diana that stood to lose by the divorce. If we believe your interpretation of Diana's version: all Charles wanted was those heirs. To that extent he had achieved what he set out to do. He would not be particularly hurt or concerned if the marriage failed after that. For Diana it was the exact opposite. She wanted to remain in the marriage so in actuality it was her priority to ensure that the home was not in such a state of conflict that Charles no longer wanted to be there.

I have never heard anyone saying that Charles initiated a quarrel about Camilla or any of Diana's affairs. It was Diana that mainly started and pushed the rows. Charles was largely indifferent. In fact she would get more furious if he refused to quarrel with her and went to the garden. She wanted to have the fights. He did not. Some people say that Charles ought to have acceded to Diana's demands in order to stop the rows but that only works when the man is in love with you and not someone else. Diana was using the wrong tactics on the wrong man and he left he subsequently (BTW it is no use denying this when Diana herself told the world about it).

It is also not true to say that Charles did not try at all. He did and even Diana acknowledged he did. He had tolerated Diana's antics for 3-4 years. If what is reported is true, no man would have remained with Diana for even two years. Diana failed to build on what was available and instead became idealistic about what was
As

Charles has a bit of a temper but he's not IMO a naturally hot tempered or argumentative person.  That's to say if he's crossed or angry, he will lose his temper but he isn't "always up for a row" as the Spencers seem to be.
He did seem to walk away from Diana's arguemtns, and that did make her more furious.  They were temperamentally mis matched.  he didnt' want to have  a big row and make it up in bed, he just wanted a quiet life.. I agree tht he did try with the marriage for some eyars, and I think that when he married Diana, although he wasn't deeply in love with her, he was attracted to her, fond of her, and had ben touched by her ready sympathy when he lost Mountbatten.  I think he believed she was a warm hearted girl who would be a loving companion and that they had enough in common to build a marriage.  they both love their sons, and had they had a BIT more in common and had Diana not been bulimic, and not IMO mature enough to handle such a public marriage and all the crazy press attention, I think they would have grown into a happy relationship.
But they had almost nothing in common, and he was unable to cope with Diana's suddnen change from a simple country loving girl who seemed happy with him, to a sick unhappy traumatised young woman who hated the country, was constantly depressed or angry, and ill.

[royalanthropologist]

@sandy. That tangent about me not liking Meghan (where you got that from is a mystery to me) and use of quotation marks is deliberate on your part (as if I stated that is what you said). You know what I meant but are deliberately trying to muddy the waters with superfluous details in the hope of obscuring the gist of my argument. This is not the first time you are doing this. You pick something from an entire post and try to raise a debate about it in order to mask a wider argument you are not winning.

As you know very well my point is this: Diana did not do anything meaningful to make the marriage work and yet she constantly said that she wanted it to work. You don't express a wish for something to work and then do absolutely nothing to make it work. To say that "Diana lost nothing" in her divorce is a nonsense and you know it is a nonsense. If she lost nothing, she would not have resisted the separation and divorce like she did.

The rest are just tangents and red herrings to mask the real issues.

[amabel]

Its trure that it is nonsense to say that "Diana lost nohting in the divorce."  but not true that she didn't try and make the marriage work.  She did her best, but she was part of the problem.. and her very nature and charles' were so much at odds that they simply didn't have much chance of a happy marriage.  I think that Diana did try, at frist but her emotions (as they often did) kept getting the better of her.   She might have had to settle for a "not very close" marriage, where all they really had in common was the children.. but she coudlnt' really do that.  She got upset and emotional.  She got angry that Charles didn't spend all his time with her, and convinced herself that he was longing for Camila all the time.  And the more that Diana raged or cried, problaby Charles DID long more and more for Camilla.  So in effect, like many people who are accused of infidelity all the time, he went back tio Cam.
But Diana did make stabs at making the marriage work.  SHe tried to learn to ride.  They shared love and care for the children...
She tried to get on with the RF in private but she didn't really take to them.. nor I think when they got ot know her better, did they like her very much.
However it is indeed nonsensical to say she lost nothing in the divorce.  She got a good money settlement.. but she was not goig to be as rich as if she had remained Charles' wife.  SHe lost the HRH, more than that the RF did cool on her and gave up any show of protecting or supporting her, as they would have done in public if she had remained as C's wife. She lost friends among the upper class and was forced to rely on the celebrity class for friends....

[royalanthropologist]

I actually agree with Amabel and she has reminded me of how Diana tried. But the emotional neediness of her personality, tendency to histrionics and short term perspective almost always undermined her efforts. POW was not going to sit with her and keep her company to show that he had forgotten Camilla. It was just never going to happen and she was unrealistic thinking it would. Had POW been that kind of man, he would not have achieved anywhere the things that he has achieved in life.

You want a serious rich successful husband but then expect him to be indulging in endless intimate moments with you to keep you happy? Not going to happen. Hewitt was the exact opposite: not wealthy or successful but always there when she wanted (until his job took him off). Once again she ended up not being able to cope with him. What did Diana really want? I think she wanted a fantasy of an ideal husband that she was never going to get. The poor little rich girl that is unhappy about her gilded lifestyle, wanting to be at one with the poor but still enjoying the perks of royalty. Very sad IMO.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 11:34:24 AM

Having said all that: I accept that she became worse the longer she remained married to Charles and in the BRF. Her experiences and tenure as Princess made existing problems worse in my view. A personality like Diana's needs a husband who is very different from Charles and certainly not a senior executive in an ancient establishment. But the paradox is this: she wanted no other husband than one who was like Charles and in Charles' position. A hopeless venture.

[amabel]

According to Charles bio, he DID often "sit with her" and try to soothe her and look after her. But that can be very wearing, looking after someone who is very very emotional and suffering from something like bulimia ,whch causes mood swings.