Duch_Luver_4ever Digest #1

[Curryong]

That wasn't the question I asked though. I asked whether, in modern history, any British King AND his consort were known adulterers and were BOTH crowned as monarch and queen consort. There aren't any.

I don't think any royals chase opinion polls. The reputable ones like YouGov are commissioned by various public bodies. However, unless we ask every single individual adult British citizen their views on the monarchy then opinion polls are all we've got to go on.

Yes, Charles's Princes Trust is wonderful and well managed. SBS praises it and the fact that Charles is a hard worker. However, your contention is that popularity doesn't matter to the POW and he doesn't take note of it.

My contention is that on the contrary, public perception of individual royals and the popularity that brings crowds to engagements is important and Charles recognises this.

Bedell  Smith simply points out, as others have, Charles's unease about the Cambridges and Harry's popular appeal with the public, both in Britain and in the Commonwealth. It's the same unease that we saw when he was with the charismatic Diana.

[amabel]

I'm a history buff. Can you point to any crowned kings, queens and their consorts in modern British history who were BOTH adulterers, (and both divorced) and the world knew it.

King George VI/Elizabeth, George V/ Mary, Edward VII/ Alexandra, all of whom were crowned monarch and consort in the Abbey. Victoria's Albert wasn't crowned as a consort nor was Philip. However neither Victoria nor Albert were unfaithful to each other. If there is a question mark over Philip there is certainly no evidence the Queen has ever been unfaithful.

How far back do we go? William IV and Queen Adelaide? No. George IV was an adulterer but wouldn't allow his estranged wife Caroline to be crowned with him. King George III and Charlotte. Any evidence of adultery there? No? George II and Caroline of Ansbach, Adulterers? No! I think I'll stop there. If you can tell me of any kings, queens AND their consorts after Henry VIII, I'd like to know.


It's

but you can't compare the 19th C to now.. back then it was acceptable for men to have mistresses and generally speaking NOT for women to have lovers, outside marriage. Of course in the 18th and 19th C's at least there was often a bit of leeway for upper class women to take lovers once they had produced a few heirs for their husbands- but because of the greater significance of the throne, that leeway wasn't there for royal wives.  Now the world is different.  Divorce was rare until the 20th C.  now its commonplace.
and if it was OK for royal men to be crowned king when they were known adulterers or divorced..are you saying "its worse because CAMILLA is also an "adulteress" and will be crowned Queen??
and as I've said (sorry, I m having trouble with seeing soem posts so I don't know if you have answered it, if Charles and Diana had gotten to the throne, together, they would BOTH be adulterers being crowned king and Queen..
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 10:17:54 AM

That wasn't the question I asked though. I asked whether, in modern history, any British King AND his consort were known adulterers and were BOTH crowned as monarch and queen consort. There aren't any.

I don't think any royals chase opinion polls. The reputable ones like YouGov are commissioned by various public bodies. However, unless we ask every single individual adult British citizen their views on the monarchy then opinion polls are all we've got to go on.

Yes, Charles's Princes Trust is wonderful and well managed. SBS praises it and the fact that Charles is a hard worker. However, your contention is that popularity doesn't matter to the POW and he doesn't take note of it.

My

I think that he certainly takes note of it, he'd be an idiot not to.  They would all be idiots not to.  however in the end, unless he gets drastically unlucky or does something really dumb, he's POW and he's on track to be King.  Opinion polls don't govern the succession. 
I haven't read the book, not inclined to think Hightly of Bedell Smith, but she was certainly quite vicious about Diana.. so I wonder why her perceptions of Charles are likely to be accurate? Is he really jealous of Harry or the Cambridges? Or does he accept that they are young and "pretty" (well Kate is) and likely to outsihine an older man like him in the Press's attentions? 
I thnk he probably has accepted that as man of 69 the younger ones are going to have more spotlight than him.  And I am very sure that he's aware thtat HIS work has been a lot more solid and worthwhile than the rather aimless  ways of his sons and daughter in law...
if He DID die tomorrow, he would have a body of work he could be proud of.. Not so sure that Will and Kate could say the same if they were older. They will have to bump up their work rate as time goe on but I think they'll always do the minimum..

[royalanthropologist]

The thread is hotting up nicely and I love it. I am even missing some posts :hehe:

I would hope that Charles has grown up a lot since the days of feeling jealous about the wife. I know that the press like to create mischief but as a mature person, you simply ignore their click bait. I hear Charles never reads the newspapers in order to insulate himself from their vitriol.

William and Kate sometimes worry me a little bit. It is always about "being normal" and the occasional duties. That strikes me as self-indulgence. William's parents were bickering but nobody can accuse them of being lazy. It is staggering to consider the amount of work that they both did in the 1980s and 1990s. By contrast their children seem to want to sit back and enjoy.

[sandy]

Of course Charles is aware of what the media says. He is not some monk sequestered from the outside world. He works with the Media and hired a PR guru Mark Bolland to help promote Camilla. The royals get all the papers delivered. This is a known fact. I think you heard wrong. Charles is well aware of the criticism and does damage control.

I'm a history buff. Can you point to any crowned kings, queens and their consorts in modern British history who were BOTH adulterers, (and both divorced) and the world knew it.

King George VI/Elizabeth, George V/ Mary, Edward VII/ Alexandra, all of whom were crowned monarch and consort in the Abbey. Victoria's Albert wasn't crowned as a consort nor was Philip. However neither Victoria nor Albert were unfaithful to each other. If there is a question mark over Philip there is certainly no evidence the Queen has ever been unfaithful.

How far back do we go? William IV and Queen Adelaide? No. George IV was an adulterer but wouldn't allow his estranged wife Caroline to be crowned with him. King George III and Charlotte. Any evidence of adultery there? No? George II and Caroline of Ansbach, Adulterers? No! I think I'll stop there. If you can tell me of any kings, queens AND their consorts after Henry VIII, I'd like to know.


It's

but you can't compare the 19th C to now.. back then it was acceptable for men to have mistresses and generally speaking NOT for women to have lovers, outside marriage. Of course in the 18th and 19th C's at least there was often a bit of leeway for upper class women to take lovers once they had produced a few heirs for their husbands- but because of the greater significance of the throne, that leeway wasn't there for royal wives.  Now the world is different.  Divorce was rare until the 20th C.  now its commonplace.
and if it was OK for royal men to be crowned king when they were known adulterers or divorced..are you saying "its worse because CAMILLA is also an "adulteress" and will be crowned Queen??
and as I've said (sorry, I m having trouble with seeing soem posts so I don't know if you have answered it, if Charles and Diana had gotten to the throne, together, they would BOTH be adulterers being crowned king and Queen..
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 10:17:54 AM

That wasn't the question I asked though. I asked whether, in modern history, any British King AND his consort were known adulterers and were BOTH crowned as monarch and queen consort. There aren't any.

I don't think any royals chase opinion polls. The reputable ones like YouGov are commissioned by various public bodies. However, unless we ask every single individual adult British citizen their views on the monarchy then opinion polls are all we've got to go on.

Yes, Charles's Princes Trust is wonderful and well managed. SBS praises it and the fact that Charles is a hard worker. However, your contention is that popularity doesn't matter to the POW and he doesn't take note of it.

My

I think that he certainly takes note of it, he'd be an idiot not to.  They would all be idiots not to.  however in the end, unless he gets drastically unlucky or does something really dumb, he's POW and he's on track to be King.  Opinion polls don't govern the succession. 
I haven't read the book, not inclined to think Hightly of Bedell Smith, but she was certainly quite vicious about Diana.. so I wonder why her perceptions of Charles are likely to be accurate? Is he really jealous of Harry or the Cambridges? Or does he accept that they are young and "pretty" (well Kate is) and likely to outsihine an older man like him in the Press's attentions? 
I thnk he probably has accepted that as man of 69 the younger ones are going to have more spotlight than him.  And I am very sure that he's aware thtat HIS work has been a lot more solid and worthwhile than the rather aimless  ways of his sons and daughter in law...
if He DID die tomorrow, he would have a body of work he could be proud of.. Not so sure that Will and Kate could say the same if they were older. They will have to bump up their work rate as time goe on but I think they'll always do the minimum..

It's all what ifs. Had Charles not had his extramarital affair, Diana most likely would not have had hers, neither would have been adulterers in the marriage. Camilla was the other woman, not Diana. Diana and Charles were married.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 11:11:40 AM

Undoubtedly Diana is far more popular than either Charles or Camilla will ever be @Curryong. If that was her intention then she succeeded brilliantly. Their lives are forever tainted by the events of 1981 to 1997. I am sure there are many, many people who have less than zero respect for Charles and Camilla. The opinion polls are certainly nothing compared to what Diana enjoyed at some point in her life.

But for what purpose? What was the cost to achieve that situation? Who is benefiting or losing out? Do Charles and Camilla rest uneasy because they are not popular? Is anyone seeing them stressed in any way when they do their public or private functions? Did it prevent them from getting married or staying married? What is the value of all the public love in the world if your personal life is in a mess? Do people live their lives and guide their policies based on opinion polls alone?

Now for that great adulterers who have designs on the British throne. I hope people do remember that the list of monarchs is littered with adulterers and sinners of all sorts. Even Diana herself was a self-confessed adulterer and was also involved with a married man. So you see, it boils down to a cycle of recriminations. "Charles and Camilla are bad; Diana was good". That may be true but that did not bring Diana an ounce of happiness.

Camilla started off as a reviled housewife of a minor aristocrat, vilified by the press for her adultery and role in destroying the fairy tale marriage. Within a space of less than 20 years, she is now the Princess of Wales with a realistic prospect of becoming Queen consort. That is some elevation and one that has never been achieved by anyone in history save for perhaps Anne Boleyn. 

For my part, I would have said goodbye to the marriage at the earliest opportunity if I was unhappy with the man and situation. Diana chose to stay and even in the end wanted to remain despite the fact that her husband/his family wanted a divorce. Charles was not very active in the divorce until his mother insisted but he had left Diana in 1986 and never returned to her bed as far as we know. I can think of few clearer ways of telling someone you want out than ceasing intimate relationships with them. That was the time to arrange an amicable divorce instead of engaging in the war of the walesses.

Elevation? Camilla?  The way she got where she is today is hardly admirable.  Charles had to try to whitewash the sordidness and it took them 8 years to marry after Diana's death. She still is controversial.

Diana could not arrange an "amicable" divorce she was supposed to put up and shut up or would possibly lose custody of the children if she walked away from the marriage. Charles left Diana before 1986.

I doubt Diana would have moved on had Charles really worked on the marriage and stopped seeing or contacting Camilla from the get go.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 11:14:54 AM

@amabel. I am in total agreement with your last post. Diana did not know what she wanted from the situation, certainly not on a long term basis. There were regrets and "what might have been" but that ship had sailed long, long time ago.

Even the

I don't believe she was "sold snake oil".  As I understand it most of charles' wealth was tied up in various things and a lot of his income comes from the duchy of Cornwall  so he had to borrow from the queen to pay Diana her £17m.  She did well but in the end of course her money came back to her sons. 
I think she got a pretty good settlement financially and in terms of being allowed to keep up a public role...
but there was indeed a certain loss of friendship from the upper class courtiers ciricle as she had alienated many of them by criticising the RF and Charles and outing his affair. and the RF were also cool, naturally.  I think the queen still tried ot stay friendly with her out of a desire not to give the public and press something to talk about and for the boys' sake.. but Diana was still uneasy and didn't feel comfortable when invited for Xmas etc. So she was lonely, and I think she had not quite realised that losing her position as future queen would make life so difficult.  I think she had hoped that it would set her free to make a new life and find a new partner and she was free- but it wasn't easy.  She was now  mixing with celebrities, and "super rich people" like the Fayeds, who were largely out for what they could  get from friendship or romance with her.
So IMO she had made a big mistake in publicising Cs affair and outing the problems in the marriage and setting out along the road to divorce.  She would have bene better to have stayed in her marriage.

If you read Morton, Diana did not out any affair. Camilla was referred throughout the book as Charles "friend." NOt mistress, not lover. People could read between the lines. Charles friends commented and said it was only platonic friendship with C and C. No affair. Diana never told MOrton Charles and Camilla were lovers. Ever.

It took Charles blundering interview in 1994 to force the PB divorce. Charles named Camilla and only Charles spelled out the relationship. The PBs kept up the facade of marriage after the Morton book but they could no longer do so after Charles confessed all in 1994.

[Curryong]

As you know, Harry is a favourite of mine and the Cambridges aren't, for lots of reasons. None of the trio do enough Royal duties at all, although they will have to step it up soon as Prince Philip in particular isn't going to last forever. The two princes  are doing more this year than last, thank heavens and it looks as if the transition to being Royal full time is on, and certainly not before time.

However, in my view it is ridiculous to take the position that Charles is so highminded that he doesn't care about his own popularity or that of his wife, when biographies have given examples of him minding and of his sniping, for instance about a very successful tour by his son and daughter in law followed by his and Camilla's less successful one. SBS quoted some of the things he has said, she's interviewed people on his staff, and it's clear he does mind about the younger royals' popular appeal overshadowing him. 

Amabel, yes, if Diana had lived she and Charles would both have been adulterers, which is not good at all, ever. However, Camilla interfered in the marriage of the heir to the throne, not slept with a rather silly army major or louche art dealer. Charles's adultery could have had constitutional complications. As you know, his fitness for the throne was briefly discussed because of his affair with Camilla.

Amabel, If you object to historical couples, (though there were several on my list whose marriages were 20th century ones) then take a look at foreign couples who are King and Queen now, or Queen regnant and consort. Can you point to any on the thrones of Norway, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands etc in which both individuals ascended the throne as monarch and consort and BOTH were/are known as having been consistently unfaithful to their marital partners? It's only the throne of the U.K. where that is so, and as a result that throne is demeaned, IMO.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 11:28:25 AM

As you know, Harry is a favourite of mine and the Cambridges aren't, for lots of reasons. None of the trio do enough Royal duties at all, although they will have to step it up soon as Prince Philip in particular isn't going to last forever. The two princes  are doing more this year than last, thank heavens and it looks as if the transition to being Royal full time is on, and certainly not before time.

However, in my view it is ridiculous to take the position that Charles is so highminded that he doesn't care about his own popularity or that of his wife, when biographies have given examples of him minding and of his sniping, for instance about a very successful tour by his son and daughter in law followed by his and Camilla's less successful one. SBS quoted some of the things he has said, she's interviewed people on his staff, and it's clear he does mind about the younger royals' popular appeal overshadowing him. 

Amabel, yes, if Diana had lived she and Charles would both have been adulterers, which is not good at all, ever. However, Camilla interfered in the marriage of the heir to the throne, not slept with a rather silly army major or louche art dealer. Charles's adultery could have had constitutional complications. As you know, his fitness for the throne was briefly discussed because of his affair with Camilla.

Amabel, If you object to historical couples, (though there were several on my list whose marriages were 20th century ones) then take a look at foreign couples who are King and Queen now, or Queen regnant and consort. Can you point to any on the thrones of Norway, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands etc in which both individuals ascended the throne as monarch and consort and BOTH were/are known as having been consistently unfaithful to their marital partners? It's only the throne of the U.K. where that will be so, and as a result that throne is demeaned IMO.

[royalanthropologist]

@amabel. Whereas I agree that the royals take notice of public opinion; that is a very different proposition from sitting around and scanning the papers to find out whether some journalist is writing a nasty article about you.  If they followed public opinion, it would be a very disorganized establishment indeed. I have always though it was a terrible mistake to open up to the media and cooperate with it on any level. The QM had it just about right. Look good and say absolutely nothing or as they say "Never Complain, Never Explain". That is how you deal with the media.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 12:09:46 PM

The idea of a "moral monarchy" is a very recent addition @Curryong . Originally royalty was about the exercise of executive power. Queen Victoria started the image of a moral family which ought to be an example. Of course like many things, not everything went according to plan. Her eldest son had many, many mistresses.

Although some people may object to an adulterous king and his adulterous queen; there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that prevents either divorcees or adulterers from ascending to the throne. Even the Church of England was established precisely in order to allow an adulterous King to marry his mistress.   Indeed it strikes me as absolutely hypocritical and unreasonable to deny kings the right to divorce wives with whom they no longer get along with when a large section of the population has undergone a divorce. The King or Queen is not a priest and they are not bound by any chastity vows.

Edward VII did not want the responsibility of the throne so he went for the easy way out i.e. abdication. I am of the view that had he struck to his guns and maintained Simpson as a long term mistress; the Church itself would have called for a marriage. Something like that happened to Charles when the arch Bishop actually visited Charles and Camilla before advocating for a regularization of the marriage.

The divorce of Charles and Diana was absolutely necessary. There was really no other workable solution after Panorama. Everyone apart from the absolute romantics realized that this was a terrible marriage that should never have happened in the first place; let alone being allowed to continue. The Queen did the right thing to order a divorce and Charles should have started divorce proceedings as early as 1986 when he practically left the family home.

[Curryong]

I know that the idea that the Royal Family represent the best of the nation and set an example started with Victoria, (although King George III and Queen Charlotte were greatly admired as the devoted parents of a large family.) That prevailed during my childhood and it's not a bad thing to aim for.

I didn't say there was a constitutional objection to an adulterer on the throne. I know it's not unconstitutional. What I wrote was that there could be constitutional implications, and pointed to the later discussions of Charles's fitness for the throne.

You surely have to concede that when Charles comes to the throne he and Camilla will be examples that are rare among their immediate ancestors and  their colleagues on Continental and Scandinavian thrones, being BOTH divorced and BOTH responsible for the ending of each others' marriages. You may feel that this elevates the British throne, or that it doesn't matter. I happen to think that circumstance demeans the throne and it does matter.

Charles and Diana should not have married and if Charles had had a backbone instead of being an eternal waffler then he would have proposed to Camilla in 1973 and none of this subsequent misery would have happened.

[royalanthropologist]

I agree that Charles should never have married Diana and should have instead married Camilla in 1973 when he had a chance. That is his eternal regret; but at the very least he got two children from all those mistakes. It is a pity that Diana never got to experience what it means to have a spouse that loves you and you love them back.

My thinking on adultery is complex. Donald Trump is a multiple adulterer but that does not stop him from being a Head of State. The King of Sweden ditto. The ex King of Spain ditto. It is definitely not desirable but not the worst crime a monarch can commit. It certainly does not stop them from doing their work.

[amabel]

I know that the idea that the Royal Family represent the best of the nation and set an example started with Victoria, (although King George III and Queen Charlotte were greatly admired as the devoted parents of a large family.) That prevailed during my childhood and it's not a bad thing to aim for.

I didn't say there was a constitutional objection to an adulterer on the throne. I know it's not unconstitutional. What I wrote was that there could be constitutional implications, and pointed to the later discussions of Charles's fitness for the throne.

You surely have to concede that when Charles comes to the throne he and Camilla will be examples that are rare among their immediate ancestors and  their colleagues on Continental and Scandinavian thrones, being BOTH divorced and BOTH responsible for the ending of each others' marriages. You may feel that this elevates the British throne, or that it doesn't matter. I happen to think that circumstance demeans the throne and it does matter.

he could not have proposed to Camilla then as she was a woman "wit a past" and so wasn't eligible to be the future Queen. 
if you think it matters, then it matters to you, but I think that most people don't think about it at all.. the world's full of people who have had affairs, caused a braek up of a marriage and then married the lover.. I think that the ide that the "RF are "ourselves behaving better" has gone out... Once the RF began to have divorced people in it, such as Margaret, Anne, etc, well it was only a matter of time before the "dviorce issue" was likely to come to the heir to the throne..
and I Really find it hard to see what Camilla did, that Diana didn't do. 
So if It would I presume have been OK for Diana to be queen with Charles, I can't see why there is a problem with Camilla and Charles being King and QUeen.  the only difference seems to be that (in yor view) Camilla interfered with the "marriage of the heir to the throne" and that that had "constitutional implciations".  Yes there was a lot of discussion but in the end, charles' position as heir wasn't affected by his divorce or his remarriage to a divorcee.
Diana accused Camilla of "interefering in her marriage", but she herself then went on to interfere in the very new marriage of WIll and Julia Carling. She also interfered in the marriage of Oliver and Diane Hoare.  What's the difference?
I think it is stretching it to say that Camilla is somehow more immoral because her lover was the POW... Diane Hoare and Julia Carling are people too, their feelings were hurt when their husbands were involved with a woman who was able to intrigue them because of her beauty and social position.

Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 04:53:02 PM

@amabel. Whereas I agree that the royals take notice of public opinion; that is a very different proposition from sitting around and scanning the papers to find out whether some journalist is writing a nasty article about you.  If they followed public opinion, it would be a very disorganized establishment indeed. I have always though it was a terrible mistake to open up to the media and cooperate with it on any level. The QM had it just about right. Look good and say absolutely nothing or as they say "Never Complain, Never Explain". That is how you deal with the media.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 12:09:46 PM

The idea of a "moral monarchy" is a very recent addition @Curryong . Originally royalty was about the exercise of executive power. Queen Victoria started the image of a moral family which ought to be an example. Of course like many things, not everything went according to plan. Her eldest son had many, many mistresses.

. Even the Church of England was established precisely in order to allow an adulterous King to marry his mistress.   Indeed it strikes me as absolutely hypocritical and unreasonable to deny kings the right to divorce wives with whom they no longer get along with when a large section of the population has The

Not true about the C of E. 
however I agree that in today's world where there is an almost 50% divorce rate in the UK, it seems ridiclulous to force a couple like Charles and Di to stay married.. if they had grown to hate each Other. But Charles could nt have either married Cam in the 70s NOR "asked for a divorce" in 1986. I think the queen would just have said no. by the 1990s I think maybe she was beginning to feel that it was dangerous for the POW and his wife to be on such cool terms and for both of them to be involved in affairs which might blow up in their face.. but even then, she waited till the disaster had happened before she was wiling to sanction a divorce...
I think that Charles would have liked a divorce, back in the later 80s but he accepted that it was not possible and just got on with his life..
I agree tht it would be ridiculous for the RF to be fussing about every little swing in their PR.. Newspapers and the public are fickle and they know that a good rating one day can be followed by a bad one a day or 2 later.. but they do have to take inot account public opinion up to a point.  that does mean being seen to work hard,not fall out of bars and not to have too much of an unorthodox sex life.
I don't believe that Charles likes having PR experts but accepts that hey are necessary, and I'm sure that while he may think it is vulgar to play to the crowds he is not htat bothered by his Sons having a time when they are "seen as rock stars". that time comes nad passes.. he knows that.

[sandy]

I agree that Charles should never have married Diana and should have instead married Camilla in 1973 when he had a chance. That is his eternal regret; but at the very least he got two children from all those mistakes. It is a pity that Diana never got to experience what it means to have a spouse that loves you and you love them back.

My thinking on adultery is complex. Donald Trump is a multiple adulterer but that does not stop him from being a Head of State. The King of Sweden ditto. The ex King of Spain ditto. It is definitely not desirable but not the worst crime a monarch can commit. It certainly does not stop them from doing their work.

All those mistakes? Charles got the heirs with the suitable girl, got to marry the mistress and prior to that sow wild oats and court women who were suitable royal brides. I doubt William and Harry consider themselves "mistakes." It is water under the bridge now because Charles can't undo anything except perhaps get spin doctors to help rewrite history.

I don't think what trump and others did makes what Charles did "OK." Clinton cheated but he did not dump his wife and marry Monica Lewinsky or some of the other women he saw.

Diana got to experience love--from her beloved children and from her friends. I don't think Charles got cheated he always loved himself IMO.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 05:49:41 PM

I know that the idea that the Royal Family represent the best of the nation and set an example started with Victoria, (although King George III and Queen Charlotte were greatly admired as the devoted parents of a large family.) That prevailed during my childhood and it's not a bad thing to aim for.

I didn't say there was a constitutional objection to an adulterer on the throne. I know it's not unconstitutional. What I wrote was that there could be constitutional implications, and pointed to the later discussions of Charles's fitness for the throne.

You surely have to concede that when Charles comes to the throne he and Camilla will be examples that are rare among their immediate ancestors and  their colleagues on Continental and Scandinavian thrones, being BOTH divorced and BOTH responsible for the ending of each others' marriages. You may feel that this elevates the British throne, or that it doesn't matter. I happen to think that circumstance demeans the throne and it does matter.

Charles and Diana should not have married and if Charles had had a backbone instead of being an eternal waffler then he would have proposed to Camilla in 1973 and none of this subsequent misery would have happened.

Charles did not marry her. Maybe he really never wanted to marry her nor saw her as suitable to marry and have his children. But he got it all: the suitable wife, heirs, and then got to marry the mistress. She was the last woman standing.

Once Charles named her as his mistress, I think he was obligated to her after her husband divorced her.

Had Diana tried to get along with the other wife, Camilla would have been up a tree. Charles would have to life the "civilized life" pretending all is rosy but having extracurricular activities.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 05:52:17 PM

@amabel. Whereas I agree that the royals take notice of public opinion; that is a very different proposition from sitting around and scanning the papers to find out whether some journalist is writing a nasty article about you.  If they followed public opinion, it would be a very disorganized establishment indeed. I have always though it was a terrible mistake to open up to the media and cooperate with it on any level. The QM had it just about right. Look good and say absolutely nothing or as they say "Never Complain, Never Explain". That is how you deal with the media.
Double post auto-merged: April 15, 2017, 12:09:46 PM

The idea of a "moral monarchy" is a very recent addition @Curryong . Originally royalty was about the exercise of executive power. Queen Victoria started the image of a moral family which ought to be an example. Of course like many things, not everything went according to plan. Her eldest son had many, many mistresses.

Although some people may object to an adulterous king and his adulterous queen; there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that prevents either divorcees or adulterers from ascending to the throne. Even the Church of England was established precisely in order to allow an adulterous King to marry his mistress.   Indeed it strikes me as absolutely hypocritical and unreasonable to deny kings the right to divorce wives with whom they no longer get along with when a large section of the population has undergone a divorce. The King or Queen is not a priest and they are not bound by any chastity vows.

Edward VII did not want the responsibility of the throne so he went for the easy way out i.e. abdication. I am of the view that had he struck to his guns and maintained Simpson as a long term mistress; the Church itself would have called for a marriage. Something like that happened to Charles when the arch Bishop actually visited Charles and Camilla before advocating for a regularization of the marriage.

The divorce of Charles and Diana was absolutely necessary. There was really no other workable solution after Panorama. Everyone apart from the absolute romantics realized that this was a terrible marriage that should never have happened in the first place; let alone being allowed to continue. The Queen did the right thing to order a divorce and Charles should have started divorce proceedings as early as 1986 when he practically left the family home.

THere was no workable solution after Charles ditched Diana after she had the heir and spare. Diana had she been older when she got engaged could have tossed the engagement ring in Charles' face (after the Fred and Gladys cufflinks episode), packed her things, and left for good.

[royalanthropologist]

@amabel. It now seems so extraordinary that "a woman with a past" was once considered to be unsuitable for marriage. How silly could they have been? No wonder they ended up getting someone who was in no way suited to be a companion to Charles and he in turn was in no way suitable to be a companion to her. Had they appointed a committee of great men and women of the realms; they could not have come up with a worse mismatch than the Charles and Diana marriage.

Those rules caused so much chaos. Meanwhile Charles failed to propose to the love of his life. Indecision is one of the worst qualities in a leader. Even the frowning upon divorce seems so silly in hindsight. What sense does it make to have two people who cannot stand each other live together, against their will? Divorce was the best resolution to that mess. The queen acted at last...very late but at least she stopped all that nonsense of interviews and counter interviews.

[sandy]

It was not that she was "unsuitable for marriage" Charles decided not to pursue her as wife material. Charles never even told her to wait for him.

Charles could not marry someone close to his age in 1981  because chances are the woman was either married or had a past.  HE needed a young, fertile aristo to have his heirs. Diana filled the bill. I don't think Charles even cared if he loved her or not, she would serve his purposes.

Charles IMO did not even think of proposing to Camilla Shand back then.

Divorce was discouraged for an heir to the throne back then. Charles and DIana kept up appearances.

[TLLK]

@Duch_Luver_4ever -Good to see you posting again and sharing your thoughts. It keeps all of us on our toes and our fingers quite busy!
Double post auto-merged: April 16, 2017, 01:27:45 AM

Amabel, If you object to historical couples, (though there were several on my list whose marriages were 20th century ones) then take a look at foreign couples who are King and Queen now, or Queen regnant and consort. Can you point to any on the thrones of Norway, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands etc in which both individuals ascended the throne as monarch and consort and BOTH were/are known as having been consistently unfaithful to their marital partners? It's only the throne of the U.K. where that is so, and as a result that throne is demeaned, IMO.

And the answer is....(drum roll)...Belgium's Albert and Paola!!!!!   :happy17: :windsor1: :Jen:

[royalanthropologist]

Huh huh. Well done @TLLK and they were actually very popular too.  :teehee: :lol:

[Curryong]

Yes, but unfortunately TLLK, I said 'who are King and Queen NOW, (as in April 2017) or Queen Regnant and consort.'
I agree that if Charles and Cam came to the throne next month or next year and Albert and Paola were still reigning in Belgium they could duke it out for the adultery gold cup. What an honour! Even so, Paola wasn't a second wife who had inserted herself into Albert's first marriage with a young wife.

[royalanthropologist]

The point being that adultery is no barrier to inheriting a crown or even being effective in that role once crowned.

I also question the idea that another person can insert themselves into a marriage without the active participation of one or more of the parties. Charles and Diana decided to get married. Their vows to one another and the primary responsibility for that marriage lies with them. Blaming third parties is a bit of scapegoating. I still maintain that Charles made a conscious decision to leave Diana/stay with Camilla. He was not some helpless victim in the face of a seductive temptress.

[Curryong]

No it isn't a barrier to ruling but that doesn't make it right or make the rulers who indulge in it honourable people.

No Charles wasn't a victim. He was a vacillating individual, (and still is) who shilly shallied and waffled and let the woman he wanted go, only to pick up his affair with her while she was still married and after her children were born.

He then, knowing he was getting older and was expected to marry, picked a girl he thought suitable who would fit into his way of life, but whom he was not in love with. He had doubts but chose to regard his father's letter to him asking him to make up his mind as an order.

Charles then married Diana without loving her in the way he should, because he didn't have the guts to ignore the media and tell his father and family 'I don't think we will be happy and I don't feel for her as a should for someone I want to spend my life with.'

He weakly IMO married her, having said a fond farewell to Mrs PB with a present, thus upsetting his new fiancée. The marriage failed, so he then returned to Camilla, the woman who had all the feelings for that he didn't have for Diana, and afterwards wailed to friends 'How could I have got it so wrong!' God save us from wafflers who don't have the courage of their own convictions and lead others into disaster too.

I cannot imagine Philip for instance, under any circumstances whatsoever, behaving as his son did in the run up to his first marriage!

[amabel]

Well I still can't quite see what the issue is. For one thing, there's never going to an EXACT parallel situation, because Royal families and countries are different and royal behaviour is different in different eras.  So of course there would not be likely to be a previous situation where a King married a divorced woman when divorce was very uncommon until the mid-20th C. In the 30s when Edward wanted to marry Mrs Simpson divorce was rare and most English people were church goers, who at least paid some heed to the church... so it was not acceptable for him to marry a divorcee..

And there are situations in other Royal families abroad that are also controversial even if not quite the same.
  Letizia -queen of Spain, a very Catholic country, is a divorcee. ( I believe there as some "tut tutting" over that.)  The future queen of Norway has had a child from a previous relationship, and was apparently involved in a very bohemian "rebelling against society" lifestyle as a young girl that would have debarred her from being considered suitable to marry a future King In bygone days. (Again many people disapproved of her marrying him even now). 

  Yes 30 years ago, Camilla's sexual past or her being divorced would have debarred her from marrying a senior royal like Charles but things have changed.  William and Kate lived together before they got married. Harry is said to be in a serious relationship with a divorced woman. Other royals have married divorced women and Anne is remarried after a divorce.. (And has had affairs during her marriage to Mark P).
As far as I can see the issue that some have with Camilla is that she "insinuated herself" into Charles's marriage. I don't know if she did that...
I belive that Charles, lonely and miserable with a wife who was ill, depressed and totally incompabitel with him, turned to the woman he found most sympathetic and felt comfortable with, for affection, when he knew that his marriage had been a mistake.  I think he always loved Camilla most, but was prepared to try and grow into love with Diana.  But she was too immature, too mentally fragile but I DO think it did not show up till she was married.
Camilla could not "make" Charles turn to her, if he wasn't already eager to do so and I think he was, because he was so depressed by how his marriage had turned out.  But it was his choice.  And it was Diana's choice to turn to a couple of other men who were married and to look to them for comfort or an affair.
And As I've said, I can't see anything that Charles or Cam are accused of, that Diana did not do as well. She blamed Camilla for "being there" when she herself was newly married and making it hard for Charles and her to settle into their married relationship.  But she then went on to get involved in a flirtation with Will Carling who was on the point of marrying Julia C and continued the flirtation (or possibly an affair) after he was married to his new wife. So that seems to me to be pretty much the same behaviour that she and others criticised in Camilla
Di then got into an affair with Oliver Hoare and she didn't care that the affair bothered his wife... who was tolerant of his having affairs as long as she didn't think they were going to impinge on their marriage.  But clearly Diane H did reach a point where she felt the affair WAS dangerous to her marriage.  And Diana continued to chase Hoare with phone calls, wanting him back, and not caring that he did not want to leave his wife and that his wife was upset by the affair.  So again, what's the difference?
I don't think that it is much of a difference that Charles was the future King and Hoare is an art dealer or Carling a rugby player.  Both times Diana got involved in affairs that damaged or split up a couple. If chrles isn't "honourable" because he let himself be pushed into marriage (or did his duty as I think it was),and then had an affair, what about Diana?  Was she honouralbe in getting inot a situation twice where she infetreed in a marriage?

[Curryong]

One huge difference is that Diana stood in front of that altar in Westminster Abbey as a young girl of twenty, totally in love with her fiancé and believing in her wedding vows.

Charles was, by vows, an old 32 (and certainly old enough to know his own mind though apparently not) not in love with his bride (emotionally attached to another woman) and believing he was pressed into the union by his father.

Hoping that you 'will grow to love' someone just isn't good enough for a lifelong commitment, especially in a family where the Prince of Wales was never expected to divorce.

What other man was Diana emotionally connected to on her wedding day? Hoare etc came later.

[amabel]

One huge difference is that Diana stood in front of that altar in Westminster Abbey as a young girl of twenty, totally in love with her fiancé and believing in her wedding vows.

Charles was, by vows, an old 32 (and certainly old enough to know his own mind though apparently not) not in love with his bride (emotionally attached to another woman) and believing he was pressed into the union by his father.

Hoping that you 'will grow to love' someone just isn't good enough for a lifelong commitment, especially in a family where the Prince of Wales was never expected to divorce.

Its possible to make a lifelong commitmet without being desperately in love.. In fact lost of people marry who have lived together, who are passionately In love and the marriages dotn last. Charles was fond of Diana, he knew that he could not marry "just where he chose" like an ordinary man, and he knew that he had reached a time when he really hd to marry. If he waited another few years, and had to have a bride with no past, he was goig to be maybe 15or more years older than her.  I don't think that is a DISASTER but the bigger the age gap, the more problems are likely to arise.
I beliveve that Charles thought that he and Di had a certain amount in common, that she was a sweet girl who seemed to love him and he was fond enugh of her to think the marriage would work out. 
so i dotn quite see what the difference was.  Diana too was having uneasy feelings as we are told.  She was in love with him but she was not longer sure if the marriage was right for her..but she hoped that they DID care enough for each other for the marriage to work

But very soon after the marriage, Diana was yelling that she hated Balmoral and the country things that she had seemed to like, and that she was fed up with being stuck up there in the rain iwht the RF, whom she now found vey hard to cope with.  I think that he was entitled to be bewildered that she no logner seemed to enjoy the lifestyle of "country lfie" that he had thought she liked, which was soemthing that he believed they had in common.
And I think that the RF began to feel when they saw "Diana had changed" that she had put on a show of liking the lifestyle and the country sports and that as soon as the ring was on her finger, she ahd shown her true colours.

[Curryong]

^ This 'Diana loved the countryside before marriage in order to entrap Charles' thing is quite exaggerated IMO. How many dates did she and Charles have in the countryside? It's been calculated that she and Charles only had about twelve dates all up before he proposed.

It's perfectly possible that she did thoroughly enjoy herself among new surroundings in Sandringham and Balmoral without falling head over heels with the country lifestyle for all time. Charles may have assumed, as he did over so many other things, that because she had grown up in the country she loved it as he did. Why did he never ask her why she was living in London? Why assume it all.

I'm not really a country person, though I enjoy horse riding (or did until a few years ago.) People who know me superficially may then make assumptions about me from that. When I was a lot younger I had a friend who enthusiastically took up cricket watching because her boyfriend was a demon cricketer. In reality she hated it. When they married it turned into a joke between them, as they had had eighteen months before their marriage to find these things out about each other. It doesn't mean that the girl concerned was a lying little deceiver, it's simply something that girls and women sometimes do to impress the men in their lives.

The trouble was that there was not a year or 18 months to find out things about each other. During the short engagement Charles was often away. He seemed to want to get it all over and done with so he could return to his polo and his work and his friends and his way of life. An extra year of dating would have made a huge difference, IF they had sat down and really listened to each other.

[amabel]

No I never said that Diana deliberately deceived him.  But she did take part in country activites.  she watched him shooting and fishing.  According to friends she went stalking with him and appeared to enjoy it. IIRC she said at their pre marital interview that the country was something they enjoyed and had in common.
So I think it is possible that the RF did start to believe that when she abruptly changed and seemed to hate it all, she had been fooling Charles during their courtship.

I'd question that they literally only had 12 dates, they were courting for some months, and she spent weekends with him when he was at Highgrove (she was staying in Camilla's hose and he was camping in HG because he was decorating it.) And she visited Balmoral and Sandringham.  So a fair bit of their courtship was spent in country surroundings and if Di had hated it all (which I think she essentially ddi) I don't tink she conveyed that to Charles. Other girlfriends had been taken to Balmoral by him and had not been able to hide their boredom with all the sporty stuff and those relationships had finished.
It was normal for a young upper class girl to spend  a few years in London, once she'd left school, getting a job, but these girls usualy went home to the country at weekends. so it wasn't an indicator that Diana was a real townee, that she was living in London.. besidies part of Charles' life IS in London..and Diana accompanied him to the opera or music events there...

The courtship was relatively short because thats' how things were done then. I believe that Fergie also said that she had not been with Andy that long before they got engaged..
but  the RF operated on the basis that a "gel" who was of a sutiable class to marry a royal, was from a similar landed gentry background, and knew about the RF and its ways and all that was necessary to "court" was for the girl to spend a bit of extra time with the man concerned and see how they got on.
Charles might have appreciated a bit longer, to court her but he had been pressured by Philip to "get on with it" and that if he was serious about Diana -it wasn't right or gentlemanly to keep her dangling and with the Press chasing her.  And I think that Diana was anxious for him to propose, as quickly as possible.  She would not have wanted a longer courtship..
As for wanting to get back to his "normal life and his friends" I believe that C wrote to his friends before he got married to say that he wouldn't have as much time to spend with them as before. 
Besides, I don't think that you've really answered my initnal question.  we seem to have now gone back to C and Di's courtship..  but I questioned why it was "just about OK" for Charles and Diana to ascend the throne as a couple who were unfaithful to each other..but not OK for Charles and Camilla.
If you have, sorry but for some reason my PC doesn't seem to show up all the posts at once.

[Curryong]

^ I have I think, but it was some posts back. It's the one where I begin.. adultery is never right for anyone. I disagree that Charles intended to put himself out for Diana, whatever he may have said. He intended that her life and interests fall in with his and not the other way around. There courtship was very short. Bedell smith found in her researches that they met a dozen times before he proposed.

[royalanthropologist]

I don't get the notion that marriage has to involve undying passionate love. There are many marriages that are based on mutual sympathy, interests and understanding. Eventually a deep spiritual connection may arise. Of course some people marry the loves of their lives but that is not always the case. Diana lived in a world of Barbara Cartland. When reality turned out to be different, she lashed out and threw all the toys out of the pram. The lashing out was cathartic but it did not bring her personal happiness. She still wanted to be married to Charles but the drama had gotten to him to the extent that he wanted out.

Charles' biggest sin in all this is indecision. Had he been decisive and refused to marry Diana regardless of the pressure, the story would be very different. Diana would be a fairly anonymous aristocrat, married to someone of her set. Conversely if the royals had not minded so much about "women with a past"; Charles might have married Camilla. She would have been a wonderful consort to him and we would not have had the heartache and chaos of the 1980s/1990s. It is plain to see that Charles should have married Camilla in the first place. She complements him in every way and he has actually become less morose since he married her.

[Curryong]

^ Yes, there are but would you say that Charles and Diana married on 'the basis of mutual sympathy, interests and understanding'  and any kind of spiritual connection? One was in love, one was hoping for love to grow but was emotionally attached to another.

As well, I do think that the majority of brides, especially young brides, believe and expect that their grooms are in love with them. That's not being Barbara Cartlandish, just a matter of fact.