HM and Ostriching

sandy · October 13, 2010, 02:41:01 PM

I think the Queen did and does know how to be a woman, she was madly in love with Prince Philip and it was a love match. If Kitty Kelly can be believed, Philip would comment to his close friends how Elizabeth enjoyed the physical aspects of their marriage (to put it gently). I think she still loves him deeply and was a romantic young woman.

I think the flaws with the Queen as a mother was being too indulgent with Charles particularly and also blaming the wife (like her mother did) for Charles' flaws. She also didn't seem to "get" that her daughter in law Diana was not from a cookie cutter and unlike the Queen suffered from post partum depression (which the Queen apparently didn't comprehend or relate to) or morning sickness. She I think bent a little too far over backwards with her son Charles--She should have offered him a choice Camilla or the throne and meant it. She also should have paid heed years before Charles first marriage about the complaints from the courtiers about CHarles being with a married woman. I think she was and is a doting mother to Edward and Andrew and has a good relationship with Anne.

Mike · October 13, 2010, 03:23:02 PM

Quote from: sandy on October 13, 2010, 02:41:01 PM
She should have offered him (Charles) a choice Camilla or the throne and meant it. She also should have paid heed years before Charles first marriage about the complaints from the courtiers about Charles being with a married woman.

I, too, have thought the Queen should have given Charles an ultimatum; choose between a wife and a mistress, not both. In your scenario, I'll assume Charles would choose the throne, but I can imagine if forced to choose, he would have nothing but resentment toward Diana and he would have made her life as difficult as possible, within the limits set by the Queen.

IMHO, of course.

-------------

SG, the five part docu-drama on the Queen looks very interesting and I tried to watch it. When they started showing pictures of a young Camilla in part one, I turned it off. I just couldn't stomach it.

Kuei Fei · October 13, 2010, 03:38:28 PM

I have to wonder if HM has a fatalist view of things. As sovereign, she needs to stop being worried about overstepping boundaries and start cutting people out who are too self destructive. I remember a rumor that someone named Marina went completely batty and she was cut off the Christmas card list and I know that as a person, HM can't deny Sarah her children, but as Queen she needs to protect the princesses and should have been doing so sooner. She once told Diana that she wouldn't allow the princes to be taken overseas and told Diana that it wasn't going to happen.

sandy · October 14, 2010, 03:23:32 PM

I don't think Diana would have lived away from her sons in another country so I don't think she wanted it. She did ask the QUeen permission if she took the sons anywhere out of the country, however.

I think the Queen should have had a serious talk with Charles BEFORE he even married anyone and was in adulterous relationships with Camilla and Kanga. Lord Mountbatten (in a letter that surfaced) sharply warned Charles he was going to end up like his Great Uncle. I am wondering if the Queen ever approached Charles that way (I doubt it). Once the Great Uncle passed on I understand Camilla became his new "mentor" which was unfortuante IMO.

RoyalB · October 14, 2010, 05:20:14 PM

sandy, I doubt the Queen even thought such a serious talk with Charles should have been necessary. She probably just expected him to know what he should have done.

Perhaps Charles listened a little too closely to his Uncle. It's a pity he couldn't relate better to either of his parents really, maybe quite a lot could have turned out differently.

I think HM has had great difficulty when it comes to her children and their various problems, be it relationship or otherwise. I think these things cause her a great deal of discomfort and she is not really able to vocalise how she feels to her offspring, probably wishes it were unnecessary. She was brought up a certain way and has been able to live up to what was expected of her. A grand lady indeed. However, it seems to me that things have been very different for her children, Charles especially.

It makes me wonder how all this transfers to the grandchildren. I think PW, for example, gets away with too much and is inclined to be quite wilful and stubborn. No one seems able to step in and lay the "royal" law down a bit.

Hale · October 14, 2010, 10:23:21 PM

The problem with the Queen laying the law down with her family is we don't know how her own private life has evolved. We shan't know that until after she has passed away. There are certainly rumours about PP as you all know. Perhaps the Queen didn't feel right about interfering because a member of her own family might round on her saying people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I did read that Fergie did try to have a heart to heart with the Queen and the Queen responded by looking out of the window and saying, "Oh look at the Corgis." I think the Queen is the type who hope things will just mend themselves and of course they don't always do so.

Also, you have to remember her upbringing. It was of the Edwardian kind and not suited for today.

KF......the Marina you are talking about is Marina Ogilvy, daughter of Princess Alexandria. She showed such promise when young and did so well at school receiving top grades in all her 'A' level subjects.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Angus_Ogilvy_-_Family_Turmoil/id/4794863

QuoteIn 1989, Sir Angus and Princess Alexandra became embroiled in a public row with their daughter, Marina, after she became pregnant by her boyfriend, a freelance photographer, Paul Mowatt. Persuaded by her lover, Marina subsequently appeared in the Today newspaper, publicly criticizing her family and posing for photographs with a crown.

Marina married Paul Mowatt in 1990, with Sir Angus giving the bride away. Apart from her mother, Princess Alexandra, no member of the Royal Family attended. Since then, Marina has divorced Paul Mowatt and is now reconciled with her mother.

At one point Marina was claiming welfare.

Back on topic. I genuinely don't believe the Queen would know how to begin have serious words with any of her children. Her whole life was geared to being Queen and focusing on that role and that role alone.

QuoteI think the Queen did and does know how to be a woman, she was madly in love with Prince Philip and it was a love match.

I for one do not believe that falling in love is the be all and end all of being a woman.

Kuei Fei · October 15, 2010, 04:49:13 PM

Fergie might had tried to have a heart to heart, but at that point, I think Fergie was at a point in her life where she simply couldn't be trusted.

Scarlet Flowers · October 15, 2010, 11:11:19 PM

Hale, was this conversation reputed to be before or after the fiasco with the tycoon?

I see your point, KF. She didn't seem to fit royal standards from the beginning.

Hale · October 16, 2010, 01:11:04 AM

The conversation with the Queen is supposed to have taken place whilst Fergie was still married to Andrew and was having problems.

amabel · October 16, 2010, 07:42:44 AM

Quote from: Kuei Fei on October 15, 2010, 04:49:13 PM
Fergie might had tried to have a heart to heart, but at that point, I think Fergie was at a point in her life where she simply couldn't be trusted.

at what point could she be trusted? what the queen was thinking of, to let Andrew marry her I cant imagine...

Trudie · October 16, 2010, 10:05:51 AM

The problem is both Fergie and Diana both tried to have a heart to heart with the Queen regarding their marriages. It was her lack of advise or a word with her sons that all hell broke loose making 1992 her annus horribilus.

LairdOfLochaber · October 16, 2010, 03:43:10 PM

Propriety and integrity are not the same. For too long, the tendency has been to maintain appearances. A quote I remember from long ago says, "To maintain a sterling reputation, be what you wish to appear." If the wayward members of the RF truly valued Christian principles and were striving to model Jesus in their lives, none of this would be an issue. We are only noble as we take on the attributes of God. If her family's works were good, there'd be no need to "ostrich." No one minds seeing what is good. However, as you say, "don't throw stones whilst living in a glass house." None of us is perfect, which is why we need a Savior. But even Jesus told the Pharisees that their sin remained because they wouldn't admit they had any. Charles has certainly never shown the least remorse for his behavior. Papering over blatant sin does not make it go away.

Scarlet Flowers · October 16, 2010, 04:05:15 PM

:thumbsup:

----------------

Quote from: Kuei Fei on October 06, 2010, 09:37:58 PM
Why does HM not take a firmer hand with the rest of the RF? By that I mean stripping Fergie of her title and kicking her out of Andrew's home? She seems unwlling or unable to simply take more control and start laying down the law with the rest of the RF.

Maybe her decision to let Philip raise the kids extends to situations with her in-laws?

Double post merged. :)

Lady63 · October 16, 2010, 07:07:41 PM

An excellent post, LairdofLochabar.

Regards,
Lady63

amabel · October 23, 2010, 08:12:56 PM

Quote from: Trudie on October 16, 2010, 10:05:51 AM
The problem is both Fergie and Diana both tried to have a heart to heart with the Queen regarding their marriages. It was her lack of advise or a word with her sons that all hell broke loose making 1992 her annus horribilus.

Sorry? I don't see what the queen could have done to save either Marriage. She tried to persuade Andrew not to go for a divorce, but he was furious about Sarah's very indiscreet affair with Wyatt and the queen ultimately agreed with him that it was better to get rid of his wife, even if she was the motehr of her grandchildren. As for Charles, I can't see what good she could have done. He was unhappy with Diana she was unhappy with him and both of them were involved in other relationships. in previous years it might have been possible to keep the failure of the marriage under wraps but given Di's huge popularity which led to enormous press interest in her doings, Hewitt's indiscretion about his affair with Diana and the Camillagate and Gilbey tapes, not to mention Diana's own determination to make the failure of the marriage public, I cant' see what she could have done other than wait for the storm to pass and then order a divorce...

Kuei Fei · October 23, 2010, 10:20:15 PM

Quote from: Trudie on October 16, 2010, 10:05:51 AM
The problem is both Fergie and Diana both tried to have a heart to heart with the Queen regarding their marriages. It was her lack of advise or a word with her sons that all hell broke loose making 1992 her annus horribilus.

At that point, both women's lives were such messes that I don't think HM could possibly do a single stinking thing to save them from themselves or their marriages. I've had to live with chaotic personalities and the best thing to do is to wash your hands of them. HM's biggest problem is that she either didn't or didn't want to see what was coming and give each woman a firmer leash and yank the stupid chain (and I don't mean this literally of course) and yank hard. They both needed discipline, not indulgence.

QuoteMaybe her decision to let Philip raise the kids extends to situations with her in-laws?

If Philip had been in charge, I think that Diana and Sarah would have been entirely stripped of their titles (no courtesy ones at all) and left with no money and no place of their own to live. I also think that tehy would have been banned from the Palace entirely. There is NO WAY that Philip would have been a tenth as decent as HM was to them. He was one of the many urging HM to banish Diana from Court and Court functions.

Mike · October 24, 2010, 02:49:49 AM

Quote from: Kuei Fei on October 23, 2010, 10:20:15 PM
HM's biggest problem is that she either didn't or didn't want to see what was coming and give each woman a firmer leash and yank the stupid chain (and I don't mean this literally of course) and yank hard. They both needed discipline, not indulgence.

The exact same thing can be said about HM and her eldest son. He's the one who needed discipline, not indulgence. I'm not that familiar with Andrew and Sarah.

It was much easier to blame the two women because they only married into the family and were expendable (once Charles' heirs were born). It would have taken a much stiffer backbone to admonish Charles about his actions and HM was not prepared to do that.

All this IMHO, of course.

QuoteIf Philip had been in charge, I think that Diana and Sarah would have been entirely stripped of their titles (no courtesy ones at all) and left with no money and no place of their own to live.

Since the divorce was brought against Diana by the Crown, wasn't she entitled to monetary compensation by law? I wonder what the public' view would have been if Philip had thrown Diana out into the street.

amabel · October 24, 2010, 06:35:05 AM

Mike the divorce was by mutual consent, and Diana was the one who wanted it.. she could have chosen to live within the RF and keep her Private life private. She didn't want that. I don't agree that she sould have been stripped of everything, she was not to blame for the failure of f her marriage... and she was still the mother of a future king.. She was entitled to a reasonable settlement, (she got a very good one)
and if a public role coud be agreed, I think that she should have been allowed that... but her own attitude of hostility was not going to make that easy.... Why should the queen allow someone to represent her, when that person has shown good deal of negative feeling towards the RF?
If Diana had shown willing to remain within the fold of the RF, to keep the divorce if she insisted on having one, discreet and private rather than washing all the dirty linen in public I think that the queen would have ben more friendly towards her having a public role...If she and Charles could have remained firends whether as a married but privately not very close couple or as a divorced couple, I think that it would have suited the queen a good deal better than the War of the Waleses, which left her with no option but ot order a divorce and to be pretty cool to the idea of Diana being still considered part of the RF...
and in relation to your other post, about the queen should have told Charles it was his wife or his mistress? I mean really what was she supposed to do? Keep him locked up? She couldn't "make him choose between his mistress and the throne"... There's nothing to say that an adulterous POW can't become king.. if there were there would have been a lot of abdications in Royal history. it doesn't work that Way. If it were the 30s she would have had public support for the idea that he could not divorce and marry a divorced woman, but not by the 1990s..

and if she had done anything so ill judged was she also going to monitor Diana? by the late 80s the marriage was a hopless cause, the couple had long since "split up" emotionally and i think that it was long since past saving, if it had ever been saveable....

As for Sarah, I think that her mistake was in allowing S to marry into the RF in the first place. Again Sarah was entitled to a reasonable settlement, but she could have been stripped of her royal title and told that if she got into debt she would have to stew in it....

Mike · October 24, 2010, 03:46:49 PM

Quote from: amabel on October 24, 2010, 06:35:05 AM
Mike the divorce was by mutual consent, and Diana was the one who wanted it.. she could have chosen to live within the RF and keep her Private life private.

Amabel, according to Sarah Bradford (page 302) Diana didn't want a divorce, although after Panorama what else could she expect? In the short term, it was a disaster, in the long term a good one (looking back with that wonderful 20/20 hindsight).

QuoteWhy should the queen allow someone to represent her, when that person has shown good deal of negative feeling towards the RF?

From the Queen's point of view, I agree.

QuoteIf Diana had shown willing to remain within the fold of the RF, to keep the divorce if she insisted on having one, discreet and private rather than washing all the dirty linen in public I think that the queen would have ben more friendly towards her having a public role

Perhaps so, but how would she or anyone else in the RF keep the divorce discreet? Regardless of how it was handled behind closed doors, the media would have put it on page one everywhere.

Quote. . . and in relation to your other post, about the queen should have told Charles it was his wife or his mistress? I mean really what was she supposed to do?

Yes, I suppose you're right. Physically there was nothing to stop Charles from doing whatever damn thing he wanted. I wonder if the Queen ever did talk to him about it; probably not. Still, I can't shake the notion the Queen or Philip should or could have done more for their eldest son's marriage-precisely what, I'm not sure.

We on this forum keep going over the same items again and again. I guess there's nothing else to do since probably no new information is forthcoming-as long as Charles and Camilla are alive.

sandy · October 24, 2010, 07:15:25 PM

I thnk Charles was the basic problem--pre Diana long before he married her the Queen should have sat hm down and said he would have too choose between sleeping wth married women and the throne. The one he might have listened to was the Queen Mum--she wanted him married and settled down and perhaps if she had laid down the law to him he might have listened. She oddly enough lent Charles and Camilla safe houses while both were married to others. She also encouraged CHarles to court Lady Diana, while knowing he was involved wth a married woman. WOuld the outcome have been different if she counseled hm to either drop Camilla and marry Diana or not marry anyone since he couldn't be faithful while Camilla was around. IN a way, I think the Queen Mum ostriched as well.

Diana said she didn't want a divorce and as she told Settelen when she confronted Camilla she said "I want my husband."

Kuei Fei · October 24, 2010, 08:56:24 PM

that said, I think HM should be a bit more harsh on the royals who act out. She should never have allowed Sarah to keepy any courtesy title and I hope that HM doesn't let William and Harry get involved with any mroe party girls.

Trudie · October 24, 2010, 10:43:33 PM

amabel I'm sorry but your reply in #42 is contradictory. The divorce was not by mutual consent it was ordered by the Queen. Charles wanted the divorce, Diana didn't. In fact I have seen a copy of the divorce decree that was published and Diana was the defendant. Diana stated over again she did not want a divorce and pointed out to Camilla who told her she had everything what more could she want and Diana replied "MY Husband". Diana had no option but to consent as basically it was a command by HM. Sarah however was another story. The antics with her paramours were not discreet and partying while her children were babies and leaving Beatrice a newborn at the time to spend 6 weeks in Australia was not exactly the image of a mother as a member of the RF. Unlike Diana her husband was faithful but Sarah used her postion for free vacations and designer clothes she was in love it appears with the trappings of being HRH and the RF not Andrew himself.

Kuei Fei · October 25, 2010, 04:10:28 PM

I think they would still be married if Panorama hadn't happened.

BACK ON TOPIC, I just think that HM has to start yanking chains and getting some of the royals in line.

sandy · October 25, 2010, 05:24:13 PM

Charles put a huge coffin nail in the marriage a year before Panorama publicly naming Camilla and saying he never loved Diana. Camilla's husband divorced her and it was all "out there" that he cheated. The marriage IMO would have survived had Charles dropped Camilla..

I think the Queen is keeping tabs on the younger royals. I think she discouraged the vacationing lifestyle of the princes during the recession time and still does. The clubbing and vacationing pics have diminished I notice.

amabel · October 29, 2010, 11:50:16 AM

Quote from: Mike on October 24, 2010, 03:46:49 PM
Amabel, according to Sarah Bradford (page 302) Diana didn't want a divorce, although after Panorama what else could she expect? In the short term, it was a disaster, in the long term a good one (looking back with that wonderful 20/20 hindsight).
From the Queen's point of view, I agree.
Perhaps so, but how would she or anyone else in the RF keep the divorce discreet? Regardless of how it was handled behind closed doors, the media would have put it on page one everywhere.
Yes, I suppose you're right. Physically there was nothing to stop Charles from doing whatever damn thing he wanted. I wonder if the Queen ever did talk to him about it; probably not.

Well Mike, I think that Diana was ambivalent on divorce. But by the Morton book she was outing the problems in her marriage - in a way that had never been done before and and I cant' see any reason for that other than wanting out. I think that she "wanted out" many ways for many years, but she knew that she was not suppose to divorce... and she tried ot make the best of things... but in the end it did all get too much f or her and she decided to do something that would make it impossible for her to stay within the marriage. If she denied involvement with the Morton book, Rather than making it obvious that she Had been behind it, even then I think that the Queen would have tried to keep things going...

but Diana didn't want that. She didn't perhaps know WHAT she wanted. I think that she began to realise that she could have a divorce but it would mean that she had lost the "cloak of royalty" which gave her protection and dignity and that after going out of the RF, she'd end up "just" a celebrity, fodder for the tabloids who would then just lose interest when the public got bored or she started ot lose her looks. She would also possibly lose her public role...

So she wasn't sure what to do, I think. She couldn't really back down on the divorce, once she'd gone so far, but she wanted to wait for Charles to make the first move so that she could say it wasn't her doing...

And yes of course the divorce would have been front page news.. it had constitutional implications -but had Diana NOT gone public, she might have retained some more influence with the queen. She could have said that she WOULD go public over Charles' affair if she didn't get a divorce rather than doing it as she did. She could have avoided the War of the waleses, and just had a divorce on groudns of mutual consent, and no public media war...
To be honest, I don't really see that it was a good move anyway. Yes she got out, she got a good settlement and managed to hold on to some of the status and public role, but still in the end the Windsors were more powerful than she was. Her boys were Windsors, and she would to an extent have to leave them with the RF....
But it does not seem to me that she was all that happy after the separation and divorce, or that her love life was progressing well. Perhaps if she'd had more time she could have found a public role that suited her and a partner that she was happy iwht, but I'm not so sure. Neither Dodi Fayed nor Khan in their differnet ways seemed likely to make her happy.

As for the queen, I don't see what she could have done. I think that she did speak to them, but only late in the game. Anyway Her children are all grown up, they are adults and make their own mistakes and there's nothing that parents can do to stop them.. and I think that she has a problem with "talking about problems".. possibly because of the way she was brought up, possibly because she's deeply imbued with the idea that a constitutional monarch has no real power and as a result, its "best to say nothing".