Princess Diana was a young twenty when she wed Prince Charles in 1981. Do you think that if she had been older, perhaps 25, would she and Charles have gotten along better?
No, I believe that Diana would have likely had another romantic relationship by then and more experience with dating. Also I believe that she would have quickly realized that she and Charles were simply not compatible in the long term. As a couple, they both had very different interests and little in common so they would have probably not dated for long.
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on July 06, 2019, 01:37:26 AM
Princess Diana was a young twenty when she wed Prince Charles in 1981. Do you think that if she had been older, perhaps 25, would she and Charles have gotten along better?
No I don't. They were practically different generations in outlook anyway, and a Charles who married in his late thirties would have been even more fixed in his ways. Diana might have had a boyfriend or three by twenty five and I think she would have been married anyway by that age. The Spencer women had a tendency to marry young.
And even if she wasn't I think Diana would have had the life experience by then to know that she and Charles had nothing in common and that Charles had a long term mistress anyway, hardly pointers to a happy union.
If a slightly older Diana had a few boyfriends in her past, wouldn't the Queen have eliminated her as Princess material?
^ Not if Diana hadn't lived with them and they had kept their mouths shut. After all Diana's sister Sarah had had boyfriends, so had Anna Wallace and others. It was only considered desirable that Charles's bride not have a past after Davina's ex spilled the beans.
Quote from: Curryong on July 06, 2019, 05:36:56 AM
^ Not if Diana hadn't lived with them and they had kept their mouths shut. After all Diana's sister Sarah had had boyfriends, so had Anna Wallace and others. It was only considered desirable that Charles's bride not have a past after Davina's ex spilled the beans.
I don't think so. I think it was expected that any of Charles' girlfirends who were serious contenders for marriage should be virgins or at least had ultra discreet love lives.. and if they had had a boyfriend or 2 whom they had had a sexual relationship with, that these men should NOT TALK. But times were changing in the 70s and people were more tempted by "talking to the press". So in going for a young girl who had had no serious boyfriends, Charles was playing safe...
I don't think Di would have been single all that long.. she would have married earlry as she had no career interests and longed for the security of marriage and a family...but I think she would have "kept herself tidy"..
Charles' prospects prior to DIana turned him down. Amanda turned Charles down when he proposed. Anna would not tolerate Camilla and walked away from the relationship.
Quote from: sandy on July 06, 2019, 03:00:04 PM
Charles' prospects prior to DIana turned him down. Amanda turned Charles down when he proposed. Anna would not tolerate Camilla and walked away from the relationship.
Amanda wasn't interested in being Princess of Wales. Anna was never IMO proposed to by him. I think he was in love with her but it was just an affair. So, if Charles had no other prospects but Diana it seems odd that she wasn't aware of his affair with Camila and turend him down too
He was besotted with Anna according to all accounts. One writer said he wanted her back and tried to persuade her to start seeing him again. There was no proposal but he seemed serious about her. She ditched him. He did not sneak around with Anna, she was a contender and seen by the media as Charles' girlfriend not just an "affair."
He proposed to Amanda (some say twice) and she turned him down. Without her grandfather urging her to marry him, she had no use for a marriage with Charles.
Diana was much younger than Charles and not in his "set" until they started dating. He presented Camilla to her as a safe married friend a married woman with a husband and young children hosting Diana for weekends. Camilla showed her hand to Amanda by being very attentive to CHarles at that party where Amanda walked out on Charles.
I've never heard of "Amanda walking out on Charles". I thought that while he liked her and she liked him, she had no interest in a public life particularly after Mountbatten's death and she and Charles just were not very much attracted to each other.. but he was willing to consider marrying her because he had reached an age wehre he felt he ought to get married. He asked her, and she said no. No mention of Camilla, as far as I know.
As for Anna, I think that Charles was infatuated but he was not careful of her reputation.. as he was reputedly almost caught making out iwht her - so I think if he had considered proposing to her, he would have treated her carefully as he did with Diana.. and ensured that there was nothing "improper" that might become public...
I meant Anna not Amanda. Amanda quietly said no to his proposals and that was that. CHarles did say he was attracted to Amanda and in a letter that became public wrote to Mountbatten about how Amanda was "disturbingly beautiful." I think Charles would have gone through a marriage with Amanda but apparently she did not care enough for him to commit to a marriage.
Anna stormed out of the party and was heard saying nobody treats me like that not even you.
I tink he found her reasonably attractive or he would hardly have made a proposal.. but all the same I think he was pretty lukewarm. And Amanda wanted a private life.. not to be PRincess Of Wales.. so she said no.
QuoteI don't think Di would have been single all that long.. she would have married earlry as she had no career interests and longed for the security of marriage and a family...but I think she would have "kept herself tidy"..
No I could see Diana being married before she was thirty to someone who would provide her with the security and family that she longed for in her life.
Quote from: TLLK on July 07, 2019, 03:56:08 PM
No I could see Diana being married before she was thirty to someone who would provide her with the security and family that she longed for in her life.
I woud say well before she was 30... I'd say early 20s
Quote from: amabel on July 07, 2019, 03:03:20 PM
I tink he found her reasonably attractive or he would hardly have made a proposal.. but all the same I think he was pretty lukewarm. And Amanda wanted a private life.. not to be PRincess Of Wales.. so she said no.
CHarles was grief stricken about his "honorary"grandfather and great uncle Probably emotions ruled and he wanted to posthumously follow his great Uncle's wishes by proposing to Amanda. Amanda loved her grandfather but certainly would not marry Charles even though her grandfather wanted her to. THat said. I think had Mountbatten lived, Amanda just might have been persuaded.
Quote from: amabel on July 07, 2019, 04:03:40 PM
I woud say well before she was 30... I'd say early 20s
Yes early twenties makes more sense. Diana was unlikely to have a high paying job that would be taking up her time, so she'd likely want to marry early.
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on July 06, 2019, 01:37:26 AM
Princess Diana was a young twenty when she wed Prince Charles in 1981. Do you think that if she had been older, perhaps 25, would she and Charles have gotten along better?
No. from the men she got involved after charles says me she was attracted to a very different type of men than charles is. at 25, she will not anymore having fantasies about prince charles imo... i think men like charles will turn her off.
Do you think that Diana would have married the heir to an aristocratic title?
I don't think so. Her age was only one of the factors that caused the failure of their relationship and marriage.
Unfortunately, I think it was because Charles could not commit 100 percent to Diana and admitted later he preferred his mistress.
Quote from: sandy on July 09, 2019, 02:53:44 PM
Unfortunately, I think it was because Charles could not commit 100 percent to Diana and admitted later he preferred his mistress.
If there had been no mistress, could the marriage of Charles and an older Diana have worked?
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on July 09, 2019, 03:48:51 AM
I don't think so. Her age was only one of the factors that caused the failure of their relationship and marriage.
why wold htat mean she woudnt marry the heir to a title? Those were the sort of men she was likely to meet.. chaps who were doing a spell "in the city" or the army.. and some of them would be expecting in a few years to go back to the family estate and help to run it. Why would diana not go for a man like that with wealth, a title and his own estate.... unless it was the issue of country living and her not liking it much.. and if she married a man who was heir to an estate he might want to live mainly in the country
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on July 10, 2019, 01:11:10 AM
If there had been no mistress, could the marriage of Charles and an older Diana have worked?
I think they could have worked things out. Camilla's presence IMO was poisonous more so than if Charles after a few years decided to have one night stands and cheat. Camilla was in the marriage from the get go and was going nowhere.
But if Diana was older, surely she would not have been na?ve enough to marry Charles.. or might have already married someone else if she had been out dating for a few years...
If she turned him down, Charles would have to look further on the list of eligible women, and they probably would get younger and younger as the years went by
I do wonder if by the end of her life, if she ever regretted saying yes to PC.
Quote from: oak_and_cedar on July 11, 2019, 04:11:28 AM
I do wonder if by the end of her life, if she ever regretted saying yes to PC.
I'm sure she did have quite a few regrets. Almost everyone does after a long failed marriage, and Diana had been married, miserably, for most of her adult life. Of course her sons made up for much of it, but she had really gone through a lot in those sixteen years.
Quote from: sandy on July 10, 2019, 11:19:25 PM
If she turned him down, Charles would have to look further on the list of eligible women, and they probably would get younger and younger as the years went by
very probably...
If Prince Charles had married a lady in her mid thirties, there would have been only so many years for her to have children.
Quote from: sandy on July 10, 2019, 11:19:25 PM
If she turned him down, Charles would have to look further on the list of eligible women, and they probably would get younger and younger as the years went by
That's what I think, too. The real issue was that virgin requirement. Poor Diana even had to go through a doctor's examination, if I remember correctly!
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on July 14, 2019, 01:54:33 PM
That's what I think, too. The real issue was that virgin requirement. Poor Diana even had to go through a doctor's examination, if I remember correctly!
no she didn't
Her Uncle went to the media and said she did.
Quote from: sandy on July 14, 2019, 05:34:50 PM
Her Uncle went to the media and said she did.
Really?
Quote from: amabel on July 14, 2019, 08:32:54 PM
Really?
Perhaps they had fake news back in 1981. I remember reading it in People Magazine and thought it was extremely archaic and awful. It was many years ago, and my memory is not always the best, but that's what I remember.
It didn't happen. Her uncle said that she "had never had a lover"..but nobody has ever said that she had a doctor's test
I recall he did mention she got the exam. HOw else would it be known she had no lover. I also read a few biographies where it was said she was bothered by having to get the medical exam. It makes sense since CHarles wanted heirs and if Diana had been sterile there may have been a cancellation of the wedding or she would be talked into dropping out.
There is no way you can be sure someone is "sterile".. and which is it? A test to see if she was a virgin or to see if she was fertile?
There is a way. Suppose there were issues with her ovaries. It probably was to see if she was virginal and to see if she could be any problems with her reproductive system.
And when did this happen? It wouldn't make much sense unless it was before Charles proposed..and it would look a little bit odd if the RF ordered her to have a test of her hymen and her reproductive system.. while she and C were dating...
I'm just the messenger. Her Uncle said there was an examination I have no idea when it happened. Some bios of Diana say she was not happy at having to get this exam.
Quote from: sandy on July 14, 2019, 08:50:00 PM
I recall he did mention she got the exam. HOw else would it be known she had no lover. I also read a few biographies where it was said she was bothered by having to get the medical exam. It makes sense since CHarles wanted heirs and if Diana had been sterile there may have been a cancellation of the wedding or she would be talked into dropping out.
TBH I believe that Diana just had a routine gynelogical exam. If she had a regular cycle and no related issues is endometriosis or hormonal problems, there would be no reason to check for fertility. After all Diana's immediate maternal female relatives: Frances, Sarah and Jane had all had conceived and had children. I believe that Diana's uncle was just speculating when he made his remarks.
Frances got tested by various doctors after she did not produce a son who survived. At the insistence of John S. who should have known he determined the sex of the children. I think the royals might have heard about that. I recall the remarks and he did not speculate he stated it as fact. I think there is a video clip someplace. This was mentioned in some of her biographies.
Double post auto-merged: July 14, 2019, 10:47:11 PM
I found this article. Dr. Pinker examined her.
Will Kate Middleton Have to Prove She's a Virgin? | E! News (https://www.eonline.com/news/235464/will-kate-middleton-have-to-prove-she-s-a-virgin)
Frances certainly didn't have any issues with fertility as evidenced by the fact that she successfully conceived and carried at least five babies to term even though one died shortly after birth. Sadly though she had to see a specialist which hopefully confirmed to the Spencer family a fact which had been known for a very long time, that males determine gender. Frances like all of her surviving children did not have fertility problems.
Knowing these family facts, there really would be no reason to question Diana's ability to conceive and carry a child to term unless Diana had experienced some previous issues is: irregular cycles or other problems.
If months/years went by with the Wales not having a pregnancy, then I could see both requiring a visit to the specialist (s).
No she didn't. But the story might have been skewed.
Diana was said to have had a history but no past.
Charles also would have to be examined if time went by with no baby.
@sandy-Would you please clarify what you mean in your statement about Diana? I am not sure what you mean by "she had a history but no past," is this regarding her medical history?
Regarding the Wales, yes as I acknowledged in my post, both would need a visit to a specialist.
Who was Diana's uncle?
Quote from: TLLK on July 14, 2019, 10:12:58 PM
TBH I believe that Diana just had a routine gynelogical exam. If she had a regular cycle and no related issues is endometriosis or hormonal problems, there would be no reason to check for fertility. After all Diana's immediate maternal female relatives: Frances, Sarah and Jane had all had conceived and had children. I believe that Diana's uncle was just speculating when he made his remarks.
I've just read the portion of Tina Brown's Diana Chronicles in which Lord Fermoy, Diana's uncle, gave an interview to James Whittaker which appeared in the Daily Star. He doesn't say anything about a medical examination, just takes a shot over a few of Charles's ex girlfriends about the purity issue, and states 'I can assure you that Diana has never had a lover'. (That was about six days before the incident when a tabloid asserted that Diana had visited the Royal train Charles was on in the middle of the night, so the purity issue came to the front after that and the Spencers and Diana reacted.)
However, there is no mention of a fertility or medical examination to test for virginity. There doesn't seem to have been any mention of Diana being tested for such an examination in the Press of the time either. I believe, like TLLK, that Diana had a routine gynaecological examination.
It may be one of those things, not uncommon in the Charles/Diana saga, that has become skewed over the years. Perhaps, under all the stress Diana's menstrual cycle became temporarily unusual, her periods sparse or something, but that's just speculation.
As amabel has posted, when did this medical examination supposedly take place? It would be extraordinarily insulting before the engagement and afterwards what would have happened if Diana had been proved to have something wrong with her reproductive system? A swift scuttling away by Charles and BP? After all, this was supposed to be a love match! The media would have been trying to find out the reason why and the fallout would have been huge.
@LouisFerdinand - Lord Fermoy was her maternal uncle.
Quote from: TLLK on July 14, 2019, 10:12:58 PM
TBH I believe that Diana just had a routine gynelogical exam. If she had a regular cycle and no related issues is endometriosis or hormonal problems, there would be no reason to check for fertility. After all Diana's immediate maternal female relatives: Frances, Sarah and Jane had all had conceived and had children. I believe that Diana's uncle was just speculating when he made his remarks.
I think most people thought that it was rather louche of him to allude to Dianas virginal status.. but it was generally accepted that she was a young lady of no experience with men... which was what made her eligble to be C's bride. however I can't imagine the RF asking Di to have either a virginity test OR any kind of exam to see if she was fertile. There is no test - all you can do is check if there are any problems.. and unless the problems are major anyway, its not a given that one will have no children...I think it is highly unlikely that the RF would be so intrusive as to suggest that Di had any kind of tests when she was courting Charles..and what would be the point of them once she and he were committed to marriage?
Once they were engaged, it was highly unlikely that anything would be allowed to break off the marriage plans.
Diana was young and helathy and her mother had had 4 healthy children.. so I can't imagine that they anticpated any serious problems.. If she and C HAD proved unable to have children.. well - that would be bad luck.. which happens at times but it would not have invalidated their marriage.. so if it had happened they would have just had to live iwht it ...
Double post auto-merged: July 15, 2019, 07:40:41 AM
Quote from: TLLK on July 15, 2019, 12:41:47 AM
@sandy-Would you please clarify what you mean in your statement about Diana? I am not sure what you mean by "she had a history but no past," is this regarding her medical history?
Regarding the Wales, yes as I acknowledged in my post, both would need a visit to a specialist.
I think this was said of Diana that she had a history (ie a life before Charles) but no past ie no sexual past which might cause embarrassment... That was part of her appeal.. She was pretty and had had a few boyfriends.. but no serious ones and no one was likely to say that she had had any lovers..
Double post auto-merged: July 15, 2019, 08:04:10 AM
Quote from: Curryong on July 15, 2019, 02:52:26 AM
I've just read the portion of Tina Brown's Diana Chronicles in which Lord Fermoy, Diana's uncle, gave an interview to James Whittaker which appeared in the Daily Star. He doesn't say anything about a medical examination, just takes a shot over a few of Charles's ex girlfriends about the purity issue, and states 'I can assure you that Diana has never had a lover'. (That was about six days before the incident when a tabloid asserted that Diana had visited the Royal train Charles was on in the middle of the night, so the purity issue came to the front after that and the Spencers and Diana reacted.)
However, there is no mention of a fertility or medical examination to test for virginity. There doesn't seem to have been any mention of Diana being tested for such an examination in the Press of the time either. I believe, like TLLK, that Diana had a routine gynaecological examination.
It may be one of those things, not uncommon in the Charles/Diana saga, that has become skewed over the years. Perhaps, under all the stress Diana's menstrual cycle became temporarily unusual, her periods sparse or something, but that's just speculation.
As amabel has posted, when did this medical examination supposedly take place? It would be extraordinarily insulting before the engagement and afterwards what would have happened if Diana had been proved to have something wrong with her reproductive system? A swift scuttling away by Charles and BP? After all, this was supposed to be a love match! The media would have been trying to find out the reason why and the fallout would have been huge.
I can't imagine why they would do even a "routine" medical.. What would be the point? As you say, if they had discovered that Diana had some major problems that would make it less likely that she would have children.. they could harldy break off the engagement on thtat issue. it would be bound to leak out and would look very bad..
It was generally held that Diana had had no serious boyfriends and no lovers... She was a perfect bride in that sense. So there was no need for Lord Fermoy to say anything but he was a bit odd, I think.. and Im sure the Spencers were embarrassed at his sounding off...The Royal Train thing came up and the Palace defended Diana's honour... so clearly she was being seen as "pure" and so in the running to be C's wife.... and they were clearly treating her as a likely future bride and protecting her repuatation...
Quote from: TLLK on July 15, 2019, 12:41:47 AM
@sandy-Would you please clarify what you mean in your statement about Diana? I am not sure what you mean by "she had a history but no past," is this regarding her medical history?
Regarding the Wales, yes as I acknowledged in my post, both would need a visit to a specialist.
Nothing to do with medical. That was the "mantra" that she was "inexperienced." Maybe because one of Charles girlfriends (Davina Sheffield) exes came and said they lived together. They wanted the public to be "sure" there would be no exes showing up with Diana
Quote from: sandy on July 15, 2019, 01:08:46 PM
Nothing to do with medical. That was the "mantra" that she was "inexperienced." Maybe because one of Charles girlfriends (Davina Sheffield) exes came and said they lived together. They wanted the public to be "sure" there would be no exes showing up with Diana
so there was no "medical" exam re fertility? It was a virginity test?
I am just the messenger here and reporting what I read. there are sources that said a test was done.
Quote from: TLLK on July 14, 2019, 10:12:58 PM
TBH I believe that Diana just had a routine gynelogical exam. If she had a regular cycle and no related issues is endometriosis or hormonal problems, there would be no reason to check for fertility. After all Diana's immediate maternal female relatives: Frances, Sarah and Jane had all had conceived and had children. I believe that Diana's uncle was just speculating when he made his remarks.
IMO this story is just a gossip that decades later some believe to be true. iirc many years ago this story was denied. i think diana denied this story to someone or the spencers denied.
Her uncle just commented she was a virgin.
Quote from: sandy on July 15, 2019, 03:13:43 PM
I am just the messenger here and reporting what I read. there are sources that said a test was done.
but which? was it a test to see if she could have children or one to see if she was a virgin? Because I see no sign that her uncle reported that she had had any tests done. He said something like "lady Diana, I can assure you.. has never had a lover..."
@amabel -I believe that either a family member or Diana's own GP likely suggested that she see an OB/GYN to discuss family planning and therefore she had a pelvic exam which is a routine part of an initial exam. Her uncle Lord Fermoy probably heard about it through the family and that was the basis of his remarks. Also I agree it was unnecessary for him to say anything about it but he likely believed he was defending his niece.
Quote from: TLLK on July 15, 2019, 05:08:59 PM
@amabel -I believe that either a family member or Diana's own GP likely suggested that she see an OB/GYN to discuss family planning and therefore she had a pelvic exam which is a routine part of an initial exam. Her uncle Lord Fermoy probably heard about it through the family and that was the basis of his remarks. Also I agree it was unnecessary for him to say anything about it but he likely believed he was defending his niece.
I doubt it? Why would Diana be discussing family planning when she was notoriously a virgin who was being courted by the POW? I don't think that Charles was likely to jump the gun with her..so it would look pretty odd if anything got out that she was going on the pill. Tthe thing is that her virginal status, her youth and inexperience were being discussed as points in her favour while there was all this "will he wont he propose" stuff..
Her uncle would of course be aware of the gossip in the papers and public. and I think that he probably did think that he was defending his nieces honour by saying that she was still a virgin. He never said anything about tests of any kind.. just that he could assure the world that his niece had never had a lover...
When the story broke a little later about the Royal Train and there was a hint that Di might have been meeting Chas on the train - the Palace sprung to defend her as well...
Quote from: TLLK on July 15, 2019, 05:08:59 PM
@amabel -I believe that either a family member or Diana's own GP likely suggested that she see an OB/GYN to discuss family planning and therefore she had a pelvic exam which is a routine part of an initial exam. Her uncle Lord Fermoy probably heard about it through the family and that was the basis of his remarks. Also I agree it was unnecessary for him to say anything about it but he likely believed he was defending his niece.
i doubt that. i think he like everyone else in her family and friends circle knew she never had a boyfriend... and that was that. the medical exam report havent anything to do with which her uncle told reporters.
There was no medicial exam.
There may or may not have been. I would not say it didn't. she would be the mother of a future monarch and she went into the care of the Royal's physician, Dr. Pinker.
@amabel -We'll have to agree to disagree because a young woman who is about to be married is exactly the person who should be seeking advice on family planning even if she is a virgin IMO. Obviously we know that the Wales were not using it because William arrived before their first wedding anniversary. Or what they did use was inefficient.
Quote from: TLLK on July 16, 2019, 03:43:12 AM
@amabel -We'll have to agree to disagree because a young woman who is about to be married is exactly the person who should be seeking advice on family planning even if she is a virgin IMO. Obviously we know that the Wales were not using it because William arrived before their first wedding anniversary. Or what they did use was inefficient.
But she wasnt' engaged at the time.. She was still courting Charles and he had not proposed.. THe Royal Train story was in November and they didn't get engaged till I think February. I'd imagine that she did use birth control for a short time when she got married.. but she conceived William eary in the marriage...
her uncle was a bit of an oddball and It was generally felt that while he probably meant no harm he wasn't being very appropriate in assuring the world that "she had never had a lover"...
Im sure she was not seeing a gynaecologist at that stage to go on birth control.. because it would harldy fit in with her image as an innocent virgin..
Double post auto-merged: July 16, 2019, 06:58:50 AM
Quote from: sandy on July 15, 2019, 11:52:02 PM
There may or may not have been. I would not say it didn't. she would be the mother of a future monarch and she went into the care of the Royal's physician, Dr. Pinker.
when she was married, he became her obstetrician and delivered Willaim? that's not the same as a girl who was not married.. being made to have a virginity exam by a family who were not even related to her in any way at the time
But the thing is, when was this gynaecological examination undertaken? I can't find any reference to any medical examination before Diana's marriage in Bradford, Brown or Bedell Smith, btw, and her uncle doesn't mention any examination in his interview, which took place before the engagement anyway.
It's conceivable I suppose that during the engagement Charles and Diana became intimate and she might have needed an examination and/or 'the pill', but in that case who got to know about it and put it in the public arena, if they did because as I say, I can't track any record of any gynaecological examination in any bios I have? Plenty of words about virgin brides and how important it was supposed to be, but nothing about any exams.
Quote from: Curryong on July 16, 2019, 07:43:03 AM
But the thing is, when was this gynaecological examination undertaken? I can't find any reference to any medical examination before Diana's marriage in Bradford, Brown or Bedell Smith, btw, and her uncle doesn't mention any examination in his interview, which took place before the engagement anyway.
It's conceivable I suppose that during the engagement Charles and Diana became intimate and she might have needed an examination and/or 'the pill', but in that case who got to know about it and put it in the public arena, if they did because as I say, I can't track any record of any gynaecological examination in any bios I have? Plenty of words about virgin brides and how important it was supposed to be, but nothing about any exams.
There's nothing about it because it didn't happen. Di's uncle did not mention tests for ether virginity or fertility. He just said that she had never had a lover which was problably quite true. The RF were not going to do anything so intrusive.. It was generally believed that one of Di's attractions was that she HAD a very limited romantic history and had never had a lover.. and they hardly were likely to "test her for fertility".
If She and Charles did becom lovers during tehir engagement I'd say she would have gone on the pill.. but I don't believe they became intimate till they got married
Diana told Morton that even though she was at BP she did not see Charles that much and he was on a royal tour for part of the engagement time. I doubt they were intimate.
Double post auto-merged: July 16, 2019, 01:02:26 PM
Quote from: amabel on July 16, 2019, 06:57:13 AM
But she wasnt' engaged at the time.. She was still courting Charles and he had not proposed.. THe Royal Train story was in November and they didn't get engaged till I think February. I'd imagine that she did use birth control for a short time when she got married.. but she conceived William eary in the marriage...
her uncle was a bit of an oddball and It was generally felt that while he probably meant no harm he wasn't being very appropriate in assuring the world that "she had never had a lover"...
Im sure she was not seeing a gynaecologist at that stage to go on birth control.. because it would harldy fit in with her image as an innocent virgin..
Double post auto-merged: July 16, 2019, 06:58:50 AM
when she was married, he became her obstetrician and delivered Willaim? that's not the same as a girl who was not married.. being made to have a virginity exam by a family who were not even related to her in any way at the time
Diana would not have slept with Charles on the royal train. She was at a party at the time. They were not engaged and she was even worried he would not propose at all. If she slept with him she'd be his mistress and perhaps he would think of her as not wife material and move on.
It was most likely Camilla on the train, according to various sources.
If Diana had married a titled gentleman of the aristocracy, do you think they would have attended Royal Ascot?
Yes, probably, though I don't know what the emphasis on Diana marrying someone titled is about. Neither of her sisters did.
I don't know that Diana had any boyfriends who were titled or in line for a titel
Quote from: Curryong on July 20, 2019, 01:36:16 AM
Yes, probably, though I don't know what the emphasis on Diana marrying someone titled is about. Neither of her sisters did.
her brother-in-laws are men who are part of that social aristo circle
Quote from: dianab on July 20, 2019, 04:47:16 PM
her brother-in-laws are men who are part of that social aristo circle
Her brothers in law did not have titles at the time they married S and Jane. Robin Fellowes was given a life peerage at the end of his service ot the queen.. but niehter Jane nor Sarah married titled men.. and I don't believe that Diana dated anyone with a title
Sarah was serious about a man with a title the Duke of Westminster and they dated but he dropped her. Apparently she was aiming for a love match with a man with a title.
Quote from: sandy on July 20, 2019, 10:22:41 PM
Sarah was serious about a man with a title the Duke of Westminster and they dated but he dropped her. Apparently she was aiming for a love match with a man with a title.
Or perhaps she was in love With Gerald Westminster and wanted to marry him..either way, she ended up married to a gentleman farmer.. with no title. Jane Spencer married RObin Fellowes who did not have a title.
If Diana had been older, she may have married an aristocratic man. However, he may not necessarily have been the eldest son. He could be the second, third, or the fourth son.
Well, she probably would have. Most people in those days and even now marry the sort of people they grew up with and socialise with later as adults. Both Diana's sisters married into country gentry families. Same thing. It would have been a bit unusual for Diana to have married the local car mechanic or postman.
If Diana had married the postman, she would have gotten her mail on time. :nod: :nod: :nod:
Yes she would indeed, LF, that is very true! :lol:
Regarding the difference in their ages, I am of the opinion that emotionally speaking, they were closer in age. For a few reasons he remained emotionally young. So, I think their issues were really that they had so little in common, and neither was equipped for a 50 - 50 give and take relationship.
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on August 07, 2019, 02:08:44 PM
Regarding the difference in their ages, I am of the opinion that emotionally speaking, they were closer in age. For a few reasons he remained emotionally young. So, I think their issues were really that they had so little in common, and neither was equipped for a 50 - 50 give and take relationship.
and Charles was interested in the past, and liked Older people..whereas Diana was not into the history of the RF or old ideas... She was very young for her age.. more like a teenager of 15 or 16 in many ways than a girl of 20./.
That's why Charles selected her, no chance of past experience.
If you mean it was a plus point that she was a virgin yes. However her "youngness" wasn't. He was someone who always enjoyed older people's company and was interested n the past. Diaana wasn't. She was very young for her age, didn't know much about the past or the history of her new family and didn't really want to learn...
^ And was Charles anxious to learn about Diana's generation and their hopes and aspirations? Why did it all have to be on Diana to mould herself to him and learn from the older people in his circle? Who knows, Charles just may have learned something from the young. It's not always old people who can impart knowledge and wisdom, is it?
And even among people of his own generation, born in the late 1940s who came to adulthood in the Beatles and Carnaby St era, he stuck out like a sore thumb in his clothing, attitude and views. I remember him at university pontificating about hippies and sounding like a sixty year old. There was never anything young about Charles. Several commentators have remarked that he was born middleaged. Not admirable in my view.
what is "not admirable" about it? It is the way he was.. Some people are like that and others are "young" types..
Im sure that Charles has learned from younger People through the Princes Trust but in his personal life, he preferred to mix iwht older people. Diana preferred light hearted types who were interchangeable, "Dianamen"...
When he was a teenager and in his twenties, which old male relative did Prince Charles spend a lot of time with, not including Lord Louis Mountbatten?
As far as I know Mountbatten was the only male relative he was espeicaly close to, as he didn't find his father sympathetic.
Quote from: Curryong on August 08, 2019, 11:38:22 AM
^ And was Charles anxious to learn about Diana's generation and their hopes and aspirations? Why did it all have to be on Diana to mould herself to him and learn from the older people in his circle? Who knows, Charles just may have learned something from the young. It's not always old people who can impart knowledge and wisdom, is it?
And even among people of his own generation, born in the late 1940s who came to adulthood in the Beatles and Carnaby St era, he stuck out like a sore thumb in his clothing, attitude and views. I remember him at university pontificating about hippies and sounding like a sixty year old. There was never anything young about Charles. Several commentators have remarked that he was born middleaged. Not admirable in my view.
That's very interesting - I had not heard that, but it makes me think that at that time he was not really himself at all. He might have been trying to be more "first in line to the throne" than himself. He once was asked what it was like to realize your special role and he described it as a horrid realization that gradually comes over you, or something like that. He was a serious, sensitive person, and may well have been trying to measure up. At any rate, if that's the way he was talking he wouldn't have been relating well to his contemporaries.
Charles seemed to me very Edwardian in outlook, his mentors were his great Uncle Mountbatten and his grandmother the Queen Mum, both of whom grew up in Edwardian times. I used to think Charles "sensitive" but I don't anymore.
^ Yes, I think that's correct. And it still appears in the number of staff or 'servants' he has in his household. The Queen Mum in her widowhood and old age was gaily supporting (or her daughter was) a staff of about thirty at her homes and that did not include people like her Comptroller. Charles might not have that number but his Edwardian lifestyle is apparently something of an irritation to his thrifty by comparison parents.
As for Mountbatten he always had perfect manners with 'the ladies', (though he lived high on the hog due to his heiress wife's money) but his attitude towards women (marry them young and innocent and mould them) is right out of the Edwardian copybook.
What person born circa 1948 and becoming an adult in the 1960s had those sort of views in 1981? I'd say one in 50 million or something. Even in wealthy upperclass households times had moved on. Diana had washed up at dinner parties and at home, laundered her own clothes, shopped for herself.
It was that sort of thing and his elderly mentors (and don't let's forget L van der Post, Charles's philiosophical adviser was a man in his seventies with odd ideas about how women should fit into men's lifestyles) that made Charles look like a dinosaur to his contemporaries and those younger than him. (Charles took a lot of advice from van der Post, a man who, again, was born before WW1.)
And I don't think that being that out of touch with your contemporaries in your youth is a good idea at all. It's led to that sort of Romaticism about the countryside and how people should live and farm that's caused consternation in the agricultural community over the years.
I think I'd rather someone who was old fashioned than someone who was very "young for their age..."
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on August 10, 2019, 01:32:02 AM
That's very interesting - I had not heard that, but it makes me think that at that time he was not really himself at all. He might have been trying to be more "first in line to the throne" than himself. He once was asked what it was like to realize your special role and he described it as a horrid realization that gradually comes over you, or something like that. He was a serious, sensitive person, and may well have been trying to measure up. At any rate, if that's the way he was talking he wouldn't have been relating well to his contemporaries.
disagree. from all the accounts he's quite a edwardian type and didnt relate to people from his generation or normal people out there. he's what he is. a very out-of-touch and outdated man.
Double post auto-merged: August 10, 2019, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: sandy on August 10, 2019, 01:43:00 AM
Charles seemed to me very Edwardian in outlook, his mentors were his great Uncle Mountbatten and his grandmother the Queen Mum, both of whom grew up in Edwardian times. I used to think Charles "sensitive" but I don't anymore.
during his borading school days he spent more time there than with mountbatten and qm and he didnt relate at all to the boys of that generation who appreciated the normal things during 1960/70s.
Did Prince Charles spend a lot of time with his German first cousins? These would be the children of Prince Philip's three sisters.
Charles saw the German cousins regularly in his youth. It's known that in the 1950s, 1960s, Philip took his older children to visit his relatives each year. Presumably he did that in the 1970s and 80s with his younger children as well. Certainly, a couple of years after marrying Diana, Charles moaned to a friend that he wanted to invite 'the German cousins' to his homes but Diana didn't want it, so he was certainly in contact with them then.
Of course many of the cousins were older than Charles and Anne, in some cases a lot older (born in the 1930s) so may have died in recent years. Naturally, with the next generation and the next the ties of kinship loosened a bit. I haven't read anything for years about Philip or any of his offspring going over to Germany to see his relatives, but that doesn't mean none of them do.
I think that Philip's always kept in contact...Didn't know about Charles wanting to invite his cousins and diana not wanting it.. but I presume it is true.. so it seems that there was a relationship..
It is good that Prince Charles keeps in touch with his German cousins. After all they are family also.
We don't know that he does nowadays. He seems to have done years ago... but as has been pointed out, his cousins are a lot older than him and he may not be friendly with THEIR children...
If Diana had been older and married an aristocrat, would the wedding have occurred at Westminster Abbey?
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on September 02, 2019, 01:17:43 AM
If Diana had been older and married an aristocrat, would the wedding have occurred at Westminster Abbey?
we don't know
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on September 02, 2019, 01:17:43 AM
If Diana had been older and married an aristocrat, would the wedding have occurred at Westminster Abbey?
Probably not. But she would have been happier IMO.
If Diana had married an aristocrat I think she would have chosen her local church at Althorp in which to wed. Her grandmother and most of the other Spencers of the last couple of hundred years are there in the vaults. It's the Spencer church. Otherwise, depending on what her future husband did for a living, something like the Guards Chapel or other smart London church.
The only reason that her parents wed at WA was because the Roches did not own an estate, and therefore Frances couldn't marry there. Also the Roches were close to the Royal family. Royal guests were attendees and that demanded a regal setting which Ruth Fermoy was probably anxious to facilitate.
However by the 1980s Johnny was a sick man, he was not close to the Queen, and he lived a quiet life. His former and current wives, Frances and Raine, were known in Society as 'bolters', and he had been involved in Raine's divorce from her first husband. Doubtful grounds for full-on Abbey nuptials for his daughter.
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on September 02, 2019, 01:17:43 AM
If Diana had been older and married an aristocrat, would the wedding have occurred at Westminster Abbey?
Probably not as
@Curryong mentioned, Johnny was rather ill at the time of Diana's wedding. Also by the 1980's it seems that most of the aristocratic set chose to marry at the chapels on their own estates or the nearby village church that their families have sponsored for centuries.
Quote from: TLLK on September 03, 2019, 11:14:04 PM
Probably not as @Curryong mentioned, Johnny was rather ill at the time of Diana's wedding. Also by the 1980's it seems that most of the aristocratic set chose to marry at the chapels on their own estates or the nearby village church that their families have sponsored for centuries.
according to Nancy Mitford older fashioned aristocrats considered it vulgar to have a London wedding.."women were married from their homes"...
Quote from: Curryong on August 10, 2019, 07:45:09 AM
And I don't think that being that out of touch with your contemporaries in your youth is a good idea at all. It's led to that sort of Romaticism about the countryside and how people should live and farm that's caused consternation in the agricultural community over the years.
@Curryong What kind of costernation? I'm very curious and quite interested in knowing..
Quote from: oak_and_cedar on September 04, 2019, 04:05:59 PM
@Curryong What kind of costernation? I'm very curious and quite interested in knowing..
I recommend 'Prince Charles: The Passions and paradoxes of an Improbable Life' by Sally Bedell Smith, for an in depth look at Charles's causes over the years. Architecture, alternative medicine, agriculture. There are chapters on these.
As far as agriculture is concerned, scientists and those who have farmed for years often don't share Charles's enthusiasm with 'sustainable farming'. His own sister, who has led a rural-type lifestyle and often has engagements in the countryside, disagrees with him.
Here are some more,
Prince Charles and Genetically Modified Food (http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/princecharles.html)
and some people do agree with him.
Quote from: Curryong on September 04, 2019, 04:52:28 PM
I recommend 'Prince Charles: The Passions and paradoxes of an Improbable Life' by Sally Bedell Smith, for an in depth look at Charles's causes over the years. Architecture, alternative medicine, agriculture. There are chapters on these.
As far as agriculture is concerned, scientists and those who have farmed for years often don't share Charles's enthusiasm with 'sustainable farming'. His own sister, who has led a rural-type lifestyle and often has engagements in the countryside, disagrees with him.
Here are some more,
Prince Charles and Genetically Modified Food (http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/princecharles.html)
I have that book. Haven't finished it yet, which I now think I will.
@Curryong thank you for the info and the link! :)