Diana, Charles and Camilla - love drama part 5

cinrit · June 10, 2011, 08:39:48 PM

Quote from: Trudie on June 10, 2011, 08:21:53 PM
I hadn't realized that Charles and Camilla were dead and therefore cannot defend themselves.

I didn't say they were dead. I said they're not here to defend themselves, and unless they're members here using aliases as user names, they're not. That was my point. Or, more to the point, why would any of them ... even Diana, if she were alive ... feel that they had to defend themselves against anything that was written about them by people they don't know on forums they don't know exist?

Cindy

Trudie · June 10, 2011, 08:55:16 PM

And my point is we would never know if they were here using aliases or not. It has been said that Camilla is an eBay user. I also cannot believe they do not know the forum exists. On another forum I used to post at at the time of the Inquest I posted something that was picked up and read on Sky News the Admin emailed me to alert me to the fact, that forum is now closed but the point is I also believe this forum in the past had been mentioned in the media.

cinrit · June 10, 2011, 10:50:02 PM

Most people do use the Internet for one thing or another these days, including Royalty. Even the Queen is said to get on occasionally. Also, I have never, in 15 years, belonged to any forum or discussion list where a few people weren't convinced that the focus of the forum or list was a member in disguise. :mask7:

But ... can we please end this tit for tat and get back on topic ... I'm sure Harry is fine. Parents embarrass their children all the time, but no parent deliberately does so. Harry and William both, like most people, have probably been embarrassed by both their parents at times. Not a big deal. They seem to be pretty well-adjusted young men. :)

Cindy

Trudie · June 11, 2011, 12:46:17 AM

^ OK to get back on Topic which is obviously one you are enjoying do you have any idea why this person started this rant full of obvious by the edits vile rant on Harry's deceased mother and granting absolution to his father who made the same mistakes?. I wonder how well a similar rant/tantrum against his father and stepmother complete with same vile comments leveled at Diana would go down?. It is well known I am not a great fan of either one for the hurt and humiliation they caused Diana but even I have more class then to start a petty and IMO stupid rant like this especially when it comes to the questioning of paternity of a young man who lost his mother?. Has any one asked for a paternity test on Laura Parker Bowles she does not seem to resemble either parent unlike her brother and Charles did resume an affair with Camilla in the mid to late 70's . Gee don't one just love coincidences. :laugh10:

sandy · June 11, 2011, 12:46:52 AM

Quote from: Harryforlife25 on June 10, 2011, 07:11:33 AM
Quote from: chavita on June 10, 2011, 12:40:36 AM
I would understand all the Hewitt dilemma if NOBODY in Harry's family had red hair... Which is not the case.

You have to understand that not everyone likes the monarchy and not everyone liked Diana and want to trash her memory so the fact that red hair run in both sides of Charles and Diana's family won't matter to them they see an opportunity to both create problems for the monarchy while name calling Diana SHE gave them that opportunity :no:.

I think CHarles gave them lots of opportunities to create problems for the monarchy. The man was no saint. WHy didn't CHarles take the "high road" and ditch Camlla and the cozy arrangement he had with her and the compliant husband who looked the other way? Had he done this maybe he could have worked on his marriage. If Charles didn't do this, then when Diana died he should have made her memory non-negotiable and told his friends and pals not to trash Diana. Apparently CHarles and his spinners thought it necessary to trash the late ex wife to try to "rehabilitate" himself and Camilla. I don't think Charles should have put out this spin for his children's sake. It should be remembered that in trashing Diana and making innuendos about her, I think it's hurting her children. I also can't imagine WIlliam liking the little innuendos and rumors about Harry. The object of thisi is to "get at" Diana but she's not around anymore so her sons take the brunt of this IMO anyway.

Kara · June 11, 2011, 06:15:36 AM

Harryforlife25, I can see that you are genuinely upset and aggrieved on Harry's behalf over Diana's Panorma interview. :hug: I understand that it seems unfair to you that Harry may have lingering difficulties because of this interview either privately (in the form of relationships) or publically (in the form of questioning his paternity) or both. But please take a deep breath and consider certain facts. :chill:
1. Diana loved her sons (this isn't even questionable)
2. Diana's sons are aware that they were loved (also, unquestionable)
3. MOST MPORTANTLY, Diana did not forsee her own death at such an early age. I am sure that she did not intend to cast doubt on the paternity of Harry.
No one spoke especially openly about it until after she died (including Hewitt). At the worst, she admitted to having an affair with a man she claimed to
love. You can be sure that both her children were aware that their parents had a non-functioning marriage. My point is Diana expected to be alive and
answerable to her sons for the affect her behavior had on them. Sadly, she is not here to help Harry (and William) understand the decisions she made;
however, that does not make it her fault that others use her untimely death as an excuse to persecute Harry about his father. Further, she did state at
the time of the interview and in the Andrew Morton book that she did not begin a relationship with Hewitt until after Harry's birth. She had every reason
to believe that she would be here to refute any claims to the contrary thereby protecting her son. Although, I honestly doubt that she thought there would
be a question as to who Harry's father was.

Anyways, just something to think about. :hug:

sandy · June 11, 2011, 02:27:15 PM

Diana and Charles BOTH said they strayed in 1986. SOme sources say Charles went back to Camilla as early as 1983. However BOTH admitted their affairs and clearly both indicated the marriage broke down in 1986. SO that means the marriage didn't break down before Harry's conception and birth. So I don't get why Diana's confession cast any cdoubt whatsoever on the paternity issue. Plus Hewitt said it was `1986 as well before he sold out for the almight dollar and lied about the story. So why isn't Hewitt roasted for hurting Harry? He too seems to be spared the "rant" which seems to be limited to only Diana. I think objectively speaking Diana DID NOT say she had an affair with Hewitt pre Harry and in Hewitt did not say this. He had to say he admitted this "under hypnosis." There is no valid proof that he was even hypnotized. I think the man was cowardly enough not to confess this while sober so to collect his paycheck, pretended to be hypnotized and lied brazenly. Also those sympathetic to Charles cannot help but mention the innuendos.

cinrit · June 11, 2011, 03:23:49 PM

We could easily have a rant about James Hewitt. I'm sure more than a few (including me) would have a few words to say about him. But you'd have to open a discussion about him to get it started. And for the record ... I'm sympathetic to both Charles and Diana, though I know some don't want to believe that. I just don't think either of them should be constantly criticized for things that they both did. :blank:

Cindy

Kate · June 11, 2011, 03:54:21 PM

It very easy, IMO... They both made the mistakes, but who made the first move and then why did Diana do as he did?

amabel · June 11, 2011, 05:23:08 PM

Quote from: cinrit on June 11, 2011, 03:23:49 PM
We could easily have a rant about James Hewitt. I'm sure more than a few (including me) would have a few words to say about him. But you'd have to open a discussion about him to get it started. And for the record ... I'm sympathetic to both Charles and Diana, though I know some don't want to believe that. I just don't think either of them should be constantly criticized for things that they both did. :blank:

Cindy

what would be the point of attacking Hewitt? He's what he is... he just is a slimy and worthless person. I think he sunk ot a new low in stating that he was Harry's father... but really hes best ignored.

cinrit · June 11, 2011, 05:29:56 PM

^^ Personally, I don't see the point of attacking Hewitt, which is why I won't be the one to start a thread if there is to be one. :censored2: I only mentioned it because it was suggested.

Cindy

amabel · June 11, 2011, 05:38:27 PM

Quote from: cinrit on June 11, 2011, 05:29:56 PM
^^ Personally, I don't see the point of attacking Hewitt, which is why I won't be the one to start a thread if there is to be one. :censored2: I only mentioned it because it was suggested.

Cindy

well I suppose one could say that Diana could have avoided giving credence to his story by not speaking about their affair. He had already said he was her lover by the time of Panorama, and she could have just refused to speak of him or denied it... I suppose she didn't foresee Hewitt going farther and saying that he was actually the father of one of her children... but by admitting the affair, it was giving him some ammo. Or she could have NOT done Panorama. but it is easy to be wise after the event....I suppose that unfortunately once things had started to become public, more and more became public. and I think that Diana reckoned that as there were rumours out there that she'd had an affair with O Hoare and with Will carling, and James Gilby, admitting one relationship would distract attention from the others.. and that she could probably admit to ONE lover and still retain public sympathy...

SophieChloe · June 11, 2011, 07:12:02 PM

Quote from: amabel on June 11, 2011, 05:23:08 PM
what would be the point of attacking Hewitt? He's what he is... he just is a slimy and worthless person. I think he sunk ot a new low in stating that he was Harry's father... but really hes best ignored.

Amabel - I agree with you - Hewitt - Stewitt - he is a disgusting creature. Having said that he did give Diana some attention when her own husband was elsewhere - but by god he has dined out on it since.

sandy · June 11, 2011, 07:30:26 PM

Hewitt never full out said he was Harry' s father. He clearly said in interviews and to Pasternack that he became intimate with Diana in 1986. Later when he went under "hypnosis", he changed the time of hisi involvement with Diana. At no point did he say full out "I am Harry's father." This never happened.

DIana gave credence to the affair (that started n 1986) not that Hewitt was Harry's father. Charles didi not have to "name Camilla" either. So if Diana is criticized for naming Hewitt then Charles should be similarly criticized fo giving credence to the Morton book. UP until then, CHarles' friends said Diana imagined it and C and C were "just good frends."

cinrit · June 11, 2011, 07:58:12 PM

Quote from: sandy on June 11, 2011, 07:30:26 PM
Hewitt never full out said he was Harry' s father. He clearly said in interviews and to Pasternack that he became intimate with Diana in 1986. Later when he went under "hypnosis", he changed the time of hisi involvement with Diana. At no point did he say full out "I am Harry's father." This never happened.

And why would he have wanted to change the date? :hmm:

Cindy

sandy · June 11, 2011, 08:12:52 PM

FOr $$$$ to give the people something "new." I guess he felt the need for more $$$ so he made up stories "under hypnosis." Hewitt is slime and he is hanging on to some letters he hopes to get $$$ for. He needs a real job. Even getting a job in McDonald's better than earning money by lying. THe man even posed in a bathtub and talked dirty for $$$$.

amabel · June 11, 2011, 08:51:23 PM

Quote from: cinrit on June 11, 2011, 07:58:12 PM
Quote from: sandy on June 11, 2011, 07:30:26 PM
Hewitt never full out said he was Harry' s father. He clearly said in interviews and to Pasternack that he became intimate with Diana in 1986. Later when he went under "hypnosis", he changed the time of hisi involvement with Diana. At no point did he say full out "I am Harry's father." This never happened.

And why would he have wanted to change the date? :hmm:

Cindy

because he's a nasty piece of work. He had milked the basic story for as much as he could and he had to drag out some more stuff, to make money and get attention. He must have realised that he was damaging Di's reputation by saying that she had told him that Manakee was her lover, and by implying that he was Dis' lover before Harry was born, thereby insinuating that she hadn't got the common sense to wait till she had finished her family before taking a lover...

cinrit · June 11, 2011, 09:27:17 PM

^^ Exactly. No one would care enough about Hewitt changing the date to pay $$$ unless there was a salacious reason for his changing the date. :)

Cindy

sandy · June 11, 2011, 11:25:09 PM

It's National Enquirer fodder. And of course he waits until Diana is dead to go under 'hypnosis". Shame o him.

amabel · June 12, 2011, 05:14:05 AM

Quote from: Mike on June 09, 2011, 03:37:19 AM
Harryforlife25, Diana exercised poor judgment in doing the Panorama interview, she often didn't realize the long term ramifications of her actions, but (how many times must I say this) if her husband had been faithful, there would have been no James Hewitt or anybody else and no Panorama. She and Charles may well have divorced at one point for other reasons, but the drama we're so familiar with would not have happened.

Mike sorry I dont mena to be rude, but you keep saying this and there's no definite way of knowing. If Charles and Diana were unhappy together, why shouldn't they have found other lovers? Charles probably started to fool around first, men tend ot cheat more than women... but I don't see why it is OK for Diana to take a lover because her marriage was unhappy but not OK for him. if she had started an affair firts and he had then take up with Camilla again, would it be the case that "Charles wouldn't have cheated if DI hadn't started to step out first". or" C wouldn't have gone public about his affair if it hadn't been for Di cheating on him first"... I don't think anyone would say that. the fact was that both of them were unhappy, they were incompatible.. it seems that their sex life wasn't good and they had Little in common.. so given that divorce was considered impossible.. I think it would be hard to ask them, still boht young people, to remain celibate for life because their married life had failed.
I don't think you can say that Diana and Charles might have divorced on other grounds. I am not sure if the Queen would have allowed it, without the public scandal situation. She MIGHT have done so, given time, if Di and C had stuck things out for many years, and society had changed ot the point where people were not likely to riot in the streets because the P and Pss of Wales had divorced.. but I think it would have needed a lot of pressure from C and Di to get her to agree and I think she'd have insisted on them keeping up a front for some time....perhaps till the boys were over 18 at least....

Mike · June 12, 2011, 02:21:53 PM

Yes, amabel, there's no way of knowing for certain what might have happened. It's just from all my reading there is nothing to suggest Diana would have strayed if she felt happy and secure in her relationship with her husband and this was impossible with Camilla lurking in the shadows. If she was happy and secure, why would she stray?

It's easy to say this with 20/20 hindsight, but I just wish Diana had had the backbone to refuse to wed Charles after she found out about Camilla. On the other hand, if she had called off the wedding, I can imagine The Firm and perhaps the media, the public and her own family condemning her for overreacting to an "an innocent friend" of the Prince of Wales. Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place.

All this IMHO, of course.

sandy · June 12, 2011, 03:30:56 PM

Quote from: amabel on June 12, 2011, 05:14:05 AM
Quote from: Mike on June 09, 2011, 03:37:19 AM
Harryforlife25, Diana exercised poor judgment in doing the Panorama interview, she often didn't realize the long term ramifications of her actions, but (how many times must I say this) if her husband had been faithful, there would have been no James Hewitt or anybody else and no Panorama. She and Charles may well have divorced at one point for other reasons, but the drama we're so familiar with would not have happened.

Mike sorry I dont mena to be rude, but you keep saying this and there's no definite way of knowing. If Charles and Diana were unhappy together, why shouldn't they have found other lovers? Charles probably started to fool around first, men tend ot cheat more than women... but I don't see why it is OK for Diana to take a lover because her marriage was unhappy but not OK for him. if she had started an affair firts and he had then take up with Camilla again, would it be the case that "Charles wouldn't have cheated if DI hadn't started to step out first". or" C wouldn't have gone public about his affair if it hadn't been for Di cheating on him first"... I don't think anyone would say that. the fact was that both of them were unhappy, they were incompatible.. it seems that their sex life wasn't good and they had Little in common.. so given that divorce was considered impossible.. I think it would be hard to ask them, still boht young people, to remain celibate for life because their married life had failed.
I don't think you can say that Diana and Charles might have divorced on other grounds. I am not sure if the Queen would have allowed it, without the public scandal situation. She MIGHT have done so, given time, if Di and C had stuck things out for many years, and society had changed ot the point where people were not likely to riot in the streets because the P and Pss of Wales had divorced.. but I think it would have needed a lot of pressure from C and Di to get her to agree and I think she'd have insisted on them keeping up a front for some time....perhaps till the boys were over 18 at least....

Mountbatten's idea for Charels was him to get sexual experience and "teach" the younger wife (preferably Mountbatten's granddaughter Amanda). The idea was not for Charles to cling to the mistress because he didn't have the time to be patient with a young inexperienced bride. I don't think Charles wanted to be bothered to perhaps gently instruct his young bride.

Charles didn't bring a great moral compass to the marriage. He slept with married women before Diana came ont he scene. And apparently thought it "OK."

cinrit · June 12, 2011, 05:06:27 PM

Quote from: sandy on June 12, 2011, 03:30:56 PM
Mountbatten's idea for Charels was him to get sexual experience and "teach" the younger wife (preferably Mountbatten's granddaughter Amanda). The idea was not for Charles to cling to the mistress because he didn't have the time to be patient with a young inexperienced bride. I don't think Charles wanted to be bothered to perhaps gently instruct his young bride.

According to Sarah Bradford, Charles needed some instruction, as well.

Cindy

sandy · June 12, 2011, 07:29:09 PM

Charles wanted an Experienced Woman. He was said not to want to do the "work" to put it gently. Or so I read. Diana did indicate somthing of the sort in the Settelen tapes.

Trudie · June 12, 2011, 07:36:21 PM

Quote from: cinrit on June 12, 2011, 05:06:27 PM
Quote from: sandy on June 12, 2011, 03:30:56 PM
Mountbatten's idea for Charels was him to get sexual experience and "teach" the younger wife (preferably Mountbatten's granddaughter Amanda). The idea was not for Charles to cling to the mistress because he didn't have the time to be patient with a young inexperienced bride. I don't think Charles wanted to be bothered to perhaps gently instruct his young bride.

According to Sarah Bradford, Charles needed some instruction, as well.

Cindy

According to other biographers "Action Man" in the early '70s acquired his knowledge from Camilla and his first girlfriend Lucia Santa Cruz. It was quoted that Camilla told him to pretend she was a rocking horse.