Princess Diana curtseyed

[royalanthropologist]

Exactly. The way people talk about Charles, you would imagine that he was beating her black and blue on a daily basis. It is just so OTT and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexities of being married to someone with emotional difficulties and other mental health issues.

My view is that if you want to have a happy home life, you invest in it and work to get it done. Don't just expect the other party to look after you and make you happy.

[Trudie]

Sorry but royalanthropologist IMO Charles didn't invest in a happy home life nor did he work to get it done. Charles always expects others to look after him and make him happy Camilla " Your greatest achievement is to Love Me", Fawcett squeezing the royal toothpaste or holding a container to collect the royal urine sample I dare say Charles is far more needy than Diana ever was but she did invest time into the marriage Charles checked out the moment the ink was barely dry on the marriage certificate.

[sandy]

Exactly. The way people talk about Charles, you would imagine that he was beating her black and blue on a daily basis. It is just so OTT and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexities of being married to someone with emotional difficulties and other mental health issues.

My view is that if you want to have a happy home life, you invest in it and work to get it done. Don't just expect the other party to look after you and make you happy.

Charles did not beat Diana but he was emotionally abusive. Charles is not perfect either and has his own issues.

So it was "OK" for Charles to be mean to her because you think she had emotional issues. And he could throw her away like yesterday's garbage because she did not cater to his every need even approving the idea of sharing him.

It is a cop out to blame the wife for "emotional issues" instead of wondering why Charles felt it OK to bed his friends' wives (pre Diana). So who do you blame for that then when Diana was not around? \

Charles is like a needy baby and the quest to make him happy must include labeling the dead ex wife and not blaming him for any part of it.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 05:55:07 PM

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.

Joint appearances are fine. I doubt Harry will fork over money to any foundation. Obama is not President any more and served out his two terms.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 05:55:58 PM

@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.

well you mentioned Meghan. I could ask you about a "tangent."

Diana gained because she was rid of Charles. Well rid of him IMO.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 05:59:28 PM

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
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.

Charles did not just have an extramarital affair. He married Diana preferring the other woman, his married Mistress Camilla and had no intention of not contacting her anymore. Camilla is a manipulator and got what she wanted by undermining the wife.

Saying "most people" do something nasty does not excuse C and C.

Did you see the photos that resurfaced showing Diana hunting in Fall 1982. And she was smiling. So your accusations are not entirely true now.

She had morning sickness in 1981 and the bulimia and of course would be moody. Why not cut her some slack?

Charles was not in love with her at all, never mind "deeply" in love. He admitted it later. How would you expect her to feel?

Charles married Diana for expediency's sake and only thought of his needs not hers.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 06:01:32 PM

Exactly. The way people talk about Charles, you would imagine that he was beating her black and blue on a daily basis. It is just so OTT and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexities of being married to someone with emotional difficulties and other mental health issues.

My view is that if you want to have a happy home life, you invest in it and work to get it done. Don't just expect the other party to look after you and make you happy.

Stephen Barry said he had people around who saw to his every need. He did not seem to look much beyond his own needs.  He had great expectations, even needing more than one woman in his life. He should not have expected the other party to think it was great that he had the "special friend" that he called up and saw at  hunts.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2017, 06:04:06 PM

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.

It's not my quote royal and you know it.

I'm not pivoting. So did you pivot when you mentioned Meghan and Obama re: harry?

Diana did not want the fights, why would she? HE seemed to want the fights with his baiting comments and wearing his mistress' cufflinks. And you think it not baiting when he crowed he needed two wives. Something you find funny, heaven knows why.

[royalanthropologist]

Sorry but royalanthropologist IMO Charles didn't invest in a happy home life nor did he work to get it done. Charles always expects others to look after him and make him happy Camilla " Your greatest achievement is to Love Me", Fawcett squeezing the royal toothpaste or holding a container to collect the royal urine sample I dare say Charles is far more needy than Diana ever was but she did invest time into the marriage Charles checked out the moment the ink was barely dry on the marriage certificate.

There are two misleading statements about those things you talk about. You are trying to give the impression that Fawcett was squeezing Charles' hand and holding him for a urine sample on a regular basis. The second is an urban legend, the first was a one-off when Charles had a broken arm. Very typical of tabloid lies and hypberbole. You say a lie long enough and it becomes true. Needing assistance when you have a broken arm is not being needy. It is getting patient care.

Then you have the vague "she did invest time into the marriage". How exactly did she invest time in it and he did not? Please explain this is an interesting thing for me. Diana fans always tell us she tried but he didn't so I want to know what exactly she did to save that marriage that he did not?
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2017, 07:10:55 AM

@sandy. I reckon you perfectly understood what I meant but it is easier to debate about the use of quotation marks and my presumed dislike of Meghan than to explain what Diana actually successfully did to make her marriage work.

You say Charles emotionally abused Diana and she did not emotionally abuse him? I consider what she was doing to be emotional abuse of the worst kind too. She was not some sweet lady who was victimized by Charles.

You gave the false impression that Charles did "throw her away like yesterday's garbage because she did not cater to his every need even approving the idea of sharing him." That is not true. Charles stayed with Diana for three to five years. The first three of those years there was no suggestion he was sleeping with Camilla. He tried to understand what was going on when Diana was behaving in an erratic manner.

No ordinary man would have stayed with Diana for two years the way she was behaving in the early part of the marriage. It is a lie to say that Charles threw her away without even trying. He just got fed up and left when Diana became impossible to live with.

You say Charles is a "needy baby" but unlike Diana he has been able to sustain a long lasting relationship with someone. Diana could not do that even after the divorce. Her love life was a mess and she kept playing these silly manipulative games with the people she was involved in. Her very last holiday was an exercise in playing games with the media, Khan, Charles, Camilla or all of them.

[sandy]

Fawcett was not a medical professional.  It is not getting "patient care" since Fawcett was not a doctor or nurse.

Diana did invest ten years in the marriage. Who are these Diana fans?

Diana was a sweet lady but found herself in a situation where the man paraded around (on his honeymoon no less) sporting cufflinks from the mistress and keeping her photos around.  And hearing the man expressing love for his mistress. A lot of women would have walked out on the honeymoon. Charles victimization of her did consist of her putting her down and saying out loud in front of guests that she and Fergie had "little minds." Making fun of the bulimia, and putting her down in front of courtiers. You say Diana did not behave right because she should have put up with whatever Charles wanted and not complained.

The thing is there are some that C and C were lovers again as early as 1983. However, it was not the point of Charles having sex with a woman, it was the emotional dependence on the mistress that Diana minded. And they did meet up at hunts and house parties and were in touch by phone.

You keep talking about CHarles "walking out on her" and even seem to revel in the (fictional) tale of Charles rejecting DIana in a humiliating way when she put on a negligee. Almost joyful at his "not wanting her anymore." If that is not tossing out a woman like yesterday's garbage I don't know what is.

No ordinary woman would have put up with Charles and the mistress and would have walked. Charles did not try. His getting "fed up" is not an excuse. She was pretty fed up with him too.

He is a needy baby. OTher than Camilla who was the married mistress, he could not sustain any relationships that lasted. He dumped Kanga, Anna Wallace walked away, after knowing him for years Amanda did not want to be his wife, Janet Jenkins had an off and on again relationship with him, and Sarah Spencer did not want him either.  He thought it was OK to sleep with his friends' wives so he could not have any real relationships as a friend since it involved helping himself to the wives.

Diana died at age 36 how can you possibly know she would not have sustained a long term relationship. She was only divorced a year yet you act like she was a Miss Havisham who died as an old woman still wearing her wedding gown now in shreds.

how could Diana up and marry and have a family in that last year--she was only divorced ONE year. SO how could she have a long term relationship if she only lived a year after that. Impossible.

Charles love life was a sordid mess and he kept on poaching his friends' wives.

Diana did not play media games. She was not ready to settle down and was dating. And BTW she was like Jackie the most photographed woman on the planet. She did not have to court attention. 

[Trudie]

royalanthropoligist Sandy summed it all up perfectly.

[royalanthropologist]

Hmmm. In my neck of the woods, people who are close to you like friends, family or staff do help out with personal care tasks particularly when you are injured. The fact such information was shared with the media, printed and consumed says a lot more about the participants in that media campaign than Charles himself. Charles is a good man and a great Prince of Wales. His disastrous first marriage does not entitle people to tell outright lies about him without reposte.

What did Diana invest in 10 years that Charles did not? The question is not answered. Quarreling, manipulating, leaking and squabbling your way through a 10-year nightmarish relationship does not seem to me like any kind of investment. I am interested in what things Diana did to make that home a pleasant and an attractive one that would give her husband an alternative to what Camilla offered as a mistress.

No she was not sweet to Charles and has never been sweet to him (except of course before she got that engagement ring when she was showing so much concern for the loss of his uncle Mountbatten). Once the ring was one, Diana transformed. The claws came out and she expected Charles to take it till the end of time.

It is true that Diana was sweet in public to the crowds (as well victimized and marginalized people) but not to Charles. To Charles she was bitter, vengeful and generally unpleasant. Ditto to his family which had given her so much but she did not so much as say a thank you. Instead this sweet lady referred to them as "the Germans" and that "F-in Family". "Sweet Lady" my foot!

You speak of emotional dependence. Why was Charles so emotionally dependent on Camilla when he had a wife at home? Could it be that her own emotional neediness was draining him and he could not wait to get away from her? It can be quite boring interacting with someone with whom you do not share any interests but insists you must be paying attention to them 24/7. Worse, if that person has made it their life mission to become the wronged wife of the century.

Diana dying at 36 does not in any way negate her conduct up to that point. Between 1986 and 1996; Diana tried and failed at many romantic relationships. That I think was a good indicator of where she was at in terms of her emotional maturity and ability to sustain mature romantic relationships.

You say:

"Diana did not play media games."

I say that is an outright lie. Playing media games was Diana's specialty and she was notably successful at it. Her husband could never compete in the realm of media manipulation. Some say Diana was the first true reality television star. The Kardashians had nothing on her in terms of self-exposure and emotional incontinence.
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2017, 11:04:43 AM

royalanthropoligist Sandy summed it all up perfectly.

Of course she did for you. You agree with her and that is fine. I  also totally disagree with both of you; not least because some of the stuff you write is not true and also because you leave out important details if they in any way make Charles look good or Diana bad. That is your right but I will always call out the mischaracterization when I see it.

[sandy]

I don't think the average person would have a "manservant" do the medical stuff. They would get a nurse to assist them when convalescing.

Diana invested 10 years, doing the royal work, having two royal babies, and she and Charles kept up appearances.  You keep blaming Diana for everything. Charles had something to do with the leaking, manipulating (Camilla manipulated too), quarreling, having his friends leak stories, and make it plain he considered the wife second fiddle to the mistress.

A wife should not have to compete with a mistress. Charles should have cut all ties with Camilla before he even considered marrying. He was too egocentric to think maybe a wife would not want to share him with a mistress.

Once Charles got married to Diana, the mistress's presence was made known on the honeymoon--those phone calls to Camilla, the little gifts from Camilla that Charles wore, and Charles  professing love for Camilla during the honeymoon. How sick is that.

Charles showed his true colors later on.

No it is not a lie royal. That last year you keep presuming the worst of Diana--that last Summer. That she only dated Dodi to make people jealous. How do you know that? I think she enjoyed Dodi's company and enjoyed a Summer romance. She died and she never went out and crowed I only did this to make (fill in the blanks) jealous. I think that is a lot of  projecting by someone who loathes Diana.

Comparing her to the Kardashians is a sad joke and a reflection on how you really feel about Diana.

What about Charles' own little soap opera of a life, admitting in public he cheated on his wife. And working with Junor who wrote yet another Diana bashing book.

How could DIana have a "romantic relationship" with any future, before she divorced. Divorce was finally called for in 1995. She had no future with these men.

And Charles was still a married man with a married woman until 1996. It was not a "permanent" relationship either. It took him years to marry Camilla. Camilla was involved with her husband for 22 years. Charles did not get a divorce until 1996. 

Did you expect Diana to leave the royal family in 1986 to have a "permanent" relationship with Hewitt. Really! Diana would have lost custody of the children if she did. You seem to forget that.

Charles decided to marry Diana knowing he did not love her. Diana found out after she married him he was not giving up Camilla. You seem to think she should have just put up and shut up about it because the Great Man is always right. He's not, and he even cheated on Camilla with other women all through the years of the "great love story." Pathetic.

[Trudie]

OK royal just how did Diana invest in the marriage. For openers Diana tried her hardest to please Charles on engagements only to hear him complain. Diana tried to fit in with his friends, going shooting, taking riding lessons, going to polo etc. Diana supported his work with the Princes Trust appearing with him at concerts etc I have yet to see Camilla support his charity. I want to know just what exactly shows just how much Charles invested when one considers he checked out with the ink barely dry on the marriage certificate.

[royalanthropologist]

@sandy writes:

"Diana invested 10 years, doing the royal work, having two royal babies, and she and Charles kept up appearances."

And how exactly is this any different from what Charles was doing? Didn't he do royal work or didn't he have the babies or didn't he keep up the appearances?

As for the manservant stuff, that is his business. Neither the manservant nor POW complainers. It is the outsiders that made a deal out of it. In any case I have proved my point that it was misleading to give the impression that it was a regular occurrence. It was not.

[sandy]

Charles did not "have babies." He fathered them for one thing.

Diana stayed in the marriage for ten years. Charles had his mistresses watch him get married and paraded around wearing his mistress' cufflinks on the honeymoon. Diana came into the marriage in good faith, Charles did not.

And on another thread you appear to condone Charles "walking out" on Diana and after she had the heirs. And applaud the involvement with the Fun Mistress.

[royalanthropologist]

OK royal just how did Diana invest in the marriage. For openers Diana tried her hardest to please Charles on engagements only to hear him complain. Diana tried to fit in with his friends, going shooting, taking riding lessons, going to polo etc. Diana supported his work with the Princes Trust appearing with him at concerts etc I have yet to see Camilla support his charity. I want to know just what exactly shows just how much Charles invested when one considers he checked out with the ink barely dry on the marriage certificate.

Working the crowds is not equivalent to working on the marriage. As far as working the crowds was concerned, Diana was close to 100% successful. She retained that even after her divorce. But as a wife...she was terrible. Just terrible. The idea that Diana tried to fit in with Charles's friends or that somehow Camilla does not support the Princes' trust is preposterous.

I am yet to see anyone but the fringe claiming that Diana supported Charles more than Camilla. She did not. Her popularity was personal to her and did not extend to him. Of course, later on she unsuccessful tried to destroy him using her popularity. That is the exact opposite of a loving and supportive wife.
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2017, 12:22:34 PM

Charles did not "have babies." He fathered them for one thing.

Diana stayed in the marriage for ten years. Charles had his mistresses watch him get married and paraded around wearing his mistress' cufflinks on the honeymoon. Diana came into the marriage in good faith, Charles did not.

And on another thread you appear to condone Charles "walking out" on Diana and after she had the heirs. And applaud the involvement with the Fun Mistress.

A bit sexist isn't it? Man plays no role in having babies and all that? And some people have the nerve to call me sexist???

Clinging onto a marriage and making the other person's life a misery in the process does not seem to be much of an investment. Diana was clinging on for dear life when she realized that Charles had left and was quite capable of not returning to her whatever she did. It was was one row too far for him. For her it was a matter of personal pride. Someone had said no to her and was leaving her. She could not cope, hence all the drama.

It may well be true that Diana came into the marriage "in good faith" but she was a terrible wife to Charles once that ring was on her finger. Had she not been a bad wife to him, Camilla would probably have faded into obscurity.

I do think Charles was right to leave his toxic relationship with Diana. It was doing neither of them any good. In fact I would have preferred if they had divorced amicably in 1983 rather than putting us all through this soap opera of a hellish marriage.

[sandy]

And as a husband Charles was terrible just terrible an awful. Any man going into the marriage preferring the mistress is a walking disaster. He admitted doing this too.

Charles introduced Diana to his friends while they were dating. And she was trying to fit in. This is a fact.

Diana wanted to support Charles but Charles did not want her he wanted to run to the mistress for comfort. He should not have married Diana under those conditions. He just cared about getting those heirs and as you said, he could then walk away once the mission was accomplished.

Charles and Camilla and their cronies are still doing character assassinations on Diana. Junor is buddy buddy with them and the biggest Diana basher, ever.

Charles did not appreciate Diana and childishly pouted and got jealous of her.

[royalanthropologist]

Exactly. Just like Diana never appreciated Charles perhaps??? Not a word of praise for him but constant complaints and condemnation. Yes, he was a bad husband but she was also a terrible wife. I see no reason why he had to put up with her bad behavior. Best thing to do is leave and find a new life elsewhere IMO. That is what he did and I think it was the right thing for him. He is much happier now.

I have never ever queried that Diana tried to fit in with Charles, his life and family BEFORE the engagement and marriage. It was after the marriage that things went downhill. Before, she wanted to put her best foot forward and was eager to please. That is why everyone including the queen was shocked at the transformation. How could this previously sweet and fun girl have turned into a nightmare within a space of a few months? They were all perplexed.

[sandy]

Diana admired Charles calling him "amazing" at the outset.She thought the world of him.

Why wouldn't she complain? Should she have simpered over how"wonderful" Charles has two women looking after him?

Why is it so important to some that the man be happy? It's like hoping a baby will enjoy a toy and be happy over it.

How do you know the Queen was "shocked." The woman knew all about Camilla yet condoned the marriage, so I don't know why she would be in shock.

Diana was not a nightmare she was an "annoyance" to the Great Man because she complained.

[royalanthropologist]

You ask for the umpteenth time @sandy:

"Why is it so important to some that the man be happy?"

We've been through this many times Sandy. It is a very, very simple equation:

Charles Happy=No Separation/Divorce.

Charles Not Happy=Separation/Divorce

If Diana wanted to remain married to Charles then the equation has the answer why it is very important for Charles to be happy in his relationship or marriage.

The same applies to Diana but unfortunately for her, Charles never really minded when they were separated or divorced. It was not his priority then and he had no interest in maintaining the relationship. She was the one who was more interested in keeping the marriage going than him. It was an unequal relationship.

You say "she thought the world of him"

Wrong I say. She called him creepy the first time she met him. Later on she called him "the great white hope".  That is not thinking the world of him. It is holding your powder dry until the ring is on your finger. Then you let your true feelings show. 

I know the queen was shocked because of reading the literature talking about the marriage. Just like you get all your information about C&D. No difference.

There is a fine line between "annoyance" and "nightmare". Charles saw them as one and the same. 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

I agree about the equation, pragmatically,Charles held the ultimate balance of power, and while she could out do him in the media and the public, she couldnt get his own family to side against him.

Im not so sure its as cut and dried as her holding her powder dry to use once the ring was on her finger. Like any courtship, one tries to put the best foot forward and hide ones worst attributes. I think it was when she realized that she wasnt going to get what she wanted but he would, that she lashed out.

But im sure just as the RF hid the worst about them until she was in and had heirs, im sure Diana hid some things as well. Thats what makes the story so interesting, they're both trying to play the same game, but like Vegas, the house always wins. I wish that had been one time she went by the head and not the heart.

[SophieChloe]

[gmod]Many of these posts are getting personal. Rein it in folks, rein it in. Cheers. SCxx [/gmod]

[sandy]

You ask for the umpteenth time @sandy:

"Why is it so important to some that the man be happy?"

We've been through this many times Sandy. It is a very, very simple equation:

Charles Happy=No Separation/Divorce.

Charles Not Happy=Separation/Divorce

If Diana wanted to remain married to Charles then the equation has the answer why it is very important for Charles to be happy in his relationship or marriage.

The same applies to Diana but unfortunately for her, Charles never really minded when they were separated or divorced. It was not his priority then and he had no interest in maintaining the relationship. She was the one who was more interested in keeping the marriage going than him. It was an unequal relationship.

You say "she thought the world of him"

Wrong I say. She called him creepy the first time she met him. Later on she called him "the great white hope".  That is not thinking the world of him. It is holding your powder dry until the ring is on your finger. Then you let your true feelings show. 

I know the queen was shocked because of reading the literature talking about the marriage. Just like you get all your information about C&D. No difference.

There is a fine line between "annoyance" and "nightmare". Charles saw them as one and the same. 

Fact: Charles was on a weekend house party where Diana was invited by Philip De Pas. She sat next to Charles and said how sad he looked he made a pass at her. He also asked her to return home with him and she said if she left early she'd have been rude to the host.  I think if Diana had given in to the pass she'd have been derided as 'too easy.' She hardly knew him then and it took her by surprise. She started dating him later.  She was not repelled by him, just taken by surprise by a man she barely knew then.

Charles Foolish/Deceitful - Not telling his wife to be the truth about his feelings for Camilla and marrying her even though he (as he admitted later) he preferred his mistress.

Charles Happy - When he gets what he wants at other people's expense.

The Queen was shocked and hurt by Charles confessions of her "bad" parenting. Charles siblings were quick to defend their parents (this in 1994). Never referred to because it destroys the spin of Charles the Perfect.

Diana said Charles was "amazing" in the engagement interview. SHe was besotted with him , she said so, and witnesses around the couple said so. Her father said she was "over the moon."
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2017, 11:00:38 PM

I agree about the equation, pragmatically,Charles held the ultimate balance of power, and while she could out do him in the media and the public, she couldnt get his own family to side against him.

Im not so sure its as cut and dried as her holding her powder dry to use once the ring was on her finger. Like any courtship, one tries to put the best foot forward and hide ones worst attributes. I think it was when she realized that she wasnt going to get what she wanted but he would, that she lashed out.

But im sure just as the RF hid the worst about them until she was in and had heirs, im sure Diana hid some things as well. Thats what makes the story so interesting, they're both trying to play the same game, but like Vegas, the house always wins. I wish that had been one time she went by the head and not the heart.

Diana's mother was not fond of Prince Charles. She specified in her will that he was not to attend her funeral. She was bitter about the royals not letting her see her deceased daughter's body. Diana's father died before the Morton book was published. Raine and Diana initiated a friendship at the time of John Spencer's death. Her brother obviously did not have good things to say about Charles after Diana died. Sarah and Jane never commented publicly about Charles. So most took Diana's side but too little too late.

[royalanthropologist]

It was an unequal relationship. Diana stood to lose more than Charles if the relationship ended after 1983. The decision that faced her was whether to work on the marriage or to leave. Working on the marriage includes ensuring that the home does not become a scene for continuous reprimands, rows and tearful recriminations.

If you can't do that, you accept an amicable separation with your unofficial household at KP and him at Highgrove.   Diana instead the worst middle way: fight Charles in the home and not leave.  Go after him and try to expose him at every opportunity. Try to be in his face as much as possible and invite yourself to places where he is going to be. Leak nasty stories about him and his family to the media as well as using the children as bait. Meanwhile ham it up in the press as the wronged wife of the century.

As a consequence of Diana's decision to pursue this strategy, their relationship became worse and worse by the day. Morton and Panorama were typical of this strategy: doing everything to annoy Charles and poison the well of their relationship but simultaneously also insisting that you do not want a divorce. Many woman who are reluctantly divorced do this so Diana is not unique. They create chaos, disharmony and resentment in the home but still insist that they want their husband back.

Others rather paradoxically call it "fighting for their marriage".

I say: no dear, that is not fighting for your marriage or fighting for your man. It is actually fighting your husband and you will most certainly lose him in the process.

[Curryong]

Harry was born in September 1984, so Charles and Diana's relationship didn't end in 1983. This was especially so as Diana described she and Charles as being ultra-close during that pregnancy. And for years Diana held her peace as far as planting bad stories about Charles was concerned. Much of the behavior you've spoken of occurred late in the 1980s/1990s. And why does only Diana have to restrain herself from recriminations, reprimands and rows? Charles dished out plenty of the former himself, especially with regard to Diana's popularity.

Charles could row himself with the best of them, and does 'working on the marriage'  include farces like Charles slipping out in his pyjamas for assignations with Mrs PB, (leading to his valet having to wash green stained pyjama bottoms) circling TV programmes in the Radio Times he had no intention of watching, phoning his mistress at every opportunity and going off in the middle of the night in a certain car for assignations? (I don't know who he was fooling because it certainly wasn't the staff!) High-minded, much? Or just like every other cheating spouse in the world?

Diana did spend most of her time at KP and did leave Charles 'at peace' at Highgrove in an unofficial separation after a number of years. She certainly wasn't 'in his face' for most of the time there. He indulged himself at Highgrove with the above grubby activities, before the official separation.

Or is that not 'poisoning the well' of their relationship? But of course, according to you, Charles was responsible for about 10% of the unravelling of his marriage and Diana bears the rest of the load. What is it, 90-95%?

The trouble with you, Royal, is that you believe that human beings who have been terribly hurt in their marriages, as Diana was in loving someone who was never really in love with her, should behave like cold rational calculating machines, taking it all like Sylvia and Sophia, smiling and playing nice while their heart's breaking and never once trying to hit back and always, always making cool rational decisions about the future. 

Well, sorry, I've got news for you. Heartbroken people act with their hearts and guts and emotions. I have seen the results of not hitting back among friends and acquaintances over the decades. I don't believe in discounting emotions and passions in relationships. These are human beings we are discussing, not robots. And one of the main reasons I admire Diana so much is that Yes she was flawed, but My God she was also very very human!

[amabel]

oh come, Diana wasn't sitting in KP while Charles "indulged in wicked affair with Camilla"...  She was alos having an affair, and when the affair with J Hewit ended, she had another affair...
and where did "hitting back" get her?  She was out of the RF, lost her HRH, lost the support of the RF, and in time she began to lose the support of the public.

[royalanthropologist]

@Curryong. I actually don't knock Diana for her emotional response. It was her situation and experience. She is the best judge of what her responses would be. Speaking personally as an outsider with a very different personality and lifestyle from hers, I would not really know what went on in her marriage. I only make comments about reaction and consequences of her reactions.

The problem that I saw is that Diana anticipated or expected  that the other side would not respond emotionally or even with cold efficiency. Diana was surprised by the brutality and finality of her estrangement from Charles. She described him as being beastly for retaliating against her. Once you take on the "fighting route", you should also be prepared for the results.

I vehemently disagree with her portrayal of her marriage as the worst thing that happened to her. She was raised to a very privileged position and at first the BRF was doing their best to let her in. She had people at her beck and call. The public was wild about her. She was set for life and was destined to be a great anchor in the British Establishment like the QM.

On a personal level Charles was nowhere as dismissive as he was later in the marriage. He was certainly not sleeping with Camilla in the beginning.  All these she threw away at the altar of Camilla. It was Camilla do or die.

For the most part, all that came to Camilla was  delivered on a platter. Diana was doing all the handy work of destroying the marriage even when Camilla was a way. Diana's suspicions were driving her crazy and she was becoming impossible to live with let alone reason with.

All Camilla had to do was watch and let her self-destruct, which Diana duly did.  In her desire to retaliate, Diana actually forgot who brought her to her position and why she was there. She was not the queen's child and should always have remembered that. Never ever push the monarch too far or you will get burnt.

There is something pathetically sad about Diana watching Camilla's 50th birthday and complaining to her therapist "the old hurt is coming back. I am so needy". The necklace Camilla was wearing was like "a dagger to my heart". Diana saw before her eyes what she had lost. Charles was not the ogre she had sold to the world.

In fact it could be argued that he was the only man that could have made her happy. Certainly he was the only one who was able to live with her for over 3 years. The rest were falling away at an alarming rate, partly because of her personalty and position. All this which had once been hers, she had handed to the mistress with her OTT reactions. She was the left consoling herself with the likes of Dodi.

Sylvia and Sophia took another route which has kept them safe, at least in public. They do not complain about their lot because they understand the deal and their situation. You behave and remain queen with all that it entails. The price you accept is that your husband is not going to always be a "proper husband" to you.

Everyone would be surprised and even outraged if Syliva and Sophia's husbands forcibly divorced them or removed their titles.  With Diana it was a natural consequence of her reactions. Diana (and some of her supporters) complained about the strength of the punishment she got for speaking out but in my view it was all to be expected once she went down the fighting route. Neither Charles nor the queen was going to sit back and let her do damage to them without a response.

I don't believe in the idea of fighting for fighting's sake. You fight with a purpose, not just lashing out to hurt anybody that is nearby. Diana clearly stated that she wanted the marriage to work...but then did things that were guaranteed to ensure that marriage would never work. That is my definition of aimless lashing out for its own sake and nothing more.

[amabel]

well Diana was prone to do that.. In one bio, I have read that she said to one of her aides, "you know I never meant this to happen", when the divorce was going through..and the aide thought "Huh?? What?? She MADE this happen"
She was the one who fought to get out of the marriage and then seemed afraid and angry when the queen finally decreed a divorce.  Left to himself, Charles would have gone on seeing Camilla discreetly and being married to Diana, and leaving her to find a man if she wanted one.   Diana kicked up a  fuss and went on pushing until she was finally pushed out. The RF and the queen DID want to keep her inside the tent, and were prepared to overlook her having a lover provided she was discreet, even prepared I think to tolerate her being more popular than Charles...and being a bit "outside the box".  THey knew she was an asset and they didn't want to lose her. But when she openly fought her husband and the RF, they would not tolerate that forever.
Diana arranged the Bashir interview in secret because she KNEW that the RF would be furious, then was suprirsed when the queen lost her patience and said this is the end, you're getting a divorce

[sandy]

oh come, Diana wasn't sitting in KP while Charles "indulged in wicked affair with Camilla"...  She was alos having an affair, and when the affair with J Hewit ended, she had another affair...
and where did "hitting back" get her?  She was out of the RF, lost her HRH, lost the support of the RF, and in time she began to lose the support of the public.

Diana did not indulge in any affair until Charles went back to Camilla. He never really"left" Camilla with those phone calls, meetings and so on.  DIana was not the type to enter a nunnery at age 23 no less.

DIana was not 'out" of the royal family, she still was mother to a future monarch and was going to be seen at royal events involving William and Harry, and no, she did not lose the support of the public. No way. If she had, there would have been no big funeral for her since "nobody" would have cared.

Hitting back got her story out there. if she had not all the trash from Penny Junor and her ilk would be "accepted."


Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2017, 10:26:11 AM

@Curryong. I actually don't knock Diana for her emotional response. It was her situation and experience. She is the best judge of what her responses would be. Speaking personally as an outsider with a very different personality and lifestyle from hers, I would not really know what went on in her marriage. I only make comments about reaction and consequences of her reactions.

The problem that I saw is that Diana anticipated or expected  that the other side would not respond emotionally or even with cold efficiency. Diana was surprised by the brutality and finality of her estrangement from Charles. She described him as being beastly for retaliating against her. Once you take on the "fighting route", you should also be prepared for the results.

I vehemently disagree with her portrayal of her marriage as the worst thing that happened to her. She was raised to a very privileged position and at first the BRF was doing their best to let her in. She had people at her beck and call. The public was wild about her. She was set for life and was destined to be a great anchor in the British Establishment like the QM.

On a personal level Charles was nowhere as dismissive as he was later in the marriage. He was certainly not sleeping with Camilla in the beginning.  All these she threw away at the altar of Camilla. It was Camilla do or die.

For the most part, all that came to Camilla was  delivered on a platter. Diana was doing all the handy work of destroying the marriage even when Camilla was a way. Diana's suspicions were driving her crazy and she was becoming impossible to live with let alone reason with.

All Camilla had to do was watch and let her self-destruct, which Diana duly did.  In her desire to retaliate, Diana actually forgot who brought her to her position and why she was there. She was not the queen's child and should always have remembered that. Never ever push the monarch too far or you will get burnt.

There is something pathetically sad about Diana watching Camilla's 50th birthday and complaining to her therapist "the old hurt is coming back. I am so needy". The necklace Camilla was wearing was like "a dagger to my heart". Diana saw before her eyes what she had lost. Charles was not the ogre she had sold to the world.

In fact it could be argued that he was the only man that could have made her happy. Certainly he was the only one who was able to live with her for over 3 years. The rest were falling away at an alarming rate, partly because of her personalty and position. All this which had once been hers, she had handed to the mistress with her OTT reactions. She was the left consoling herself with the likes of Dodi.

Sylvia and Sophia took another route which has kept them safe, at least in public. They do not complain about their lot because they understand the deal and their situation. You behave and remain queen with all that it entails. The price you accept is that your husband is not going to always be a "proper husband" to you.

Everyone would be surprised and even outraged if Syliva and Sophia's husbands forcibly divorced them or removed their titles.  With Diana it was a natural consequence of her reactions. Diana (and some of her supporters) complained about the strength of the punishment she got for speaking out but in my view it was all to be expected once she went down the fighting route. Neither Charles nor the queen was going to sit back and let her do damage to them without a response.

I don't believe in the idea of fighting for fighting's sake. You fight with a purpose, not just lashing out to hurt anybody that is nearby. Diana clearly stated that she wanted the marriage to work...but then did things that were guaranteed to ensure that marriage would never work. That is my definition of aimless lashing out for its own sake and nothing more.

What "brutality." The "brutality" was Charles being more and more contemptuous of her. She said "my life is torture." She moved on and she got a large settlement, and was still the mother of a future King. Camilla could not have taken that from her, since she was not chosen to have royal heirs, by Charles.

Charles indicated early on that he preferred Camilla, he admitted he preferred the mistress when he married Diana. That would cause pain to Diana like his flaunting the C and C cufflinks his mistress gave him

How do you know how Sylvia and Sophia really feel? I doubt they are thrilled to pieces about their lives. And it is known how they are treated by their respective spouses.

Why don't you accuse Charles of "wrecking the marriage." In effect he brought in the toxicity of marrying Diana for expediency's sake and preferring the other woman.

Diana DID want the marriage work and thought CHarles an honorable man who would stop the involvement with the mistress, and he did not.
Double post auto-merged: November 04, 2017, 10:28:25 AM

It was an unequal relationship. Diana stood to lose more than Charles if the relationship ended after 1983. The decision that faced her was whether to work on the marriage or to leave. Working on the marriage includes ensuring that the home does not become a scene for continuous reprimands, rows and tearful recriminations.

If you can't do that, you accept an amicable separation with your unofficial household at KP and him at Highgrove.   Diana instead the worst middle way: fight Charles in the home and not leave.  Go after him and try to expose him at every opportunity. Try to be in his face as much as possible and invite yourself to places where he is going to be. Leak nasty stories about him and his family to the media as well as using the children as bait. Meanwhile ham it up in the press as the wronged wife of the century.

As a consequence of Diana's decision to pursue this strategy, their relationship became worse and worse by the day. Morton and Panorama were typical of this strategy: doing everything to annoy Charles and poison the well of their relationship but simultaneously also insisting that you do not want a divorce. Many woman who are reluctantly divorced do this so Diana is not unique. They create chaos, disharmony and resentment in the home but still insist that they want their husband back.

Others rather paradoxically call it "fighting for their marriage".

I say: no dear, that is not fighting for your marriage or fighting for your man. It is actually fighting your husband and you will most certainly lose him in the process.

Or the scene of a husband telling the staff to lie to his wife about his whereabouts.

It appears to be forgotten that Charles pals leaked stories to the press about Diana before the Morton book. The ever vigilant Mrs Parker Bowles would give her side to the Sun Editor for 10 years.