The Divorce Settlement

[LouisFerdinand]

When Prince Charles and Princess Diana divorced, was Charles forced to pay her $22.5 million settlement out of his own pocket?

[Trudie]

I think it was  17 Million and yes he did he had to borrow some money from the Queen. He was lucky it wasn't more considering what Diana had put up with in that marriage, She deserved every penny and more IMO.

[TLLK]

When Prince Charles and Princess Diana divorced, was Charles forced to pay her $22.5 million settlement out of his own pocket?

As @Trudie explained above, he did need to pay her this amount which I believe came mostly from the Duchy of Cornwall and with some from the Queen. The terms also dictated how she was to be styled after the divorce.  When Diana was killed in the Paris car crash, her sons were to inherit their parts of her estate when they were thirty years of age.

Diana 'took Charles to cleaners' in divorce, says his banker - Telegraph-From 2004 with input from Charles' banker.
Diana accepts Charles's divorce terms | The Independent

Diana loses HRH title in #17m divorce. Princes at `saddened' mother's side as lawyers make announcement (From HeraldScotland)

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

The number in dollar amounts will vary depending on the exchange rate used, but yes it was in the 17 million pound neighborhood for the lump sum, and if i recall 450,000(ish)/yr to run her office. Charles paid for their medical and schooling costs, and they split custody.

With the exchange rates today her advisors would have had to do some quick work as the pound has taken a beating compared to the dollar, but im sure they'd have taken care of it. Im also sure a few hedge fund managers would have taken a shine to her as well^^.

I'll read the article, but I laugh at the notion that she "took him to the cleaners". Now I know royal divorces arent numerous, so the legal precedents are not as vast as with us commoners, but considering the value of Charles personal holdings and the value of the Duchy, not just financial but real estate, the lifestyle she was accustomed to, both then and future benefits forgone (ie being queen regent) the "pain and suffering" incurred in the marriage and I would argue Charles got off pretty light.

My take on it is the RF traded cash up front for not having to either transfer or liquidating real estate holdings so Diana could have a country place for the boys. The apartment at KP, while it does have some economic value, its designed for that, so its not like they had to acquire a flat for her that wasnt already owned by the RF.

Not to mention the experience a lot of men go through, he didnt have the police come with various legal strategies that divorce lawyers routinely use, such as have restraining orders against the husband, sexual assault claims, beating claims, Charles didnt get kicked out of his house, etc. that the MGTOW community can tell you about. Yes, many are real and deserved, but many are used at least in North America as a bargaining strategy as the family court is heavily slanted against men.

But ill give it a read. Ok so I read it, while it makes it sound like Charles was wiped out, it was only because often upper class families use trusts and such to "tie up" money, and things like the Duchy and such. If he was Charles Smith, hed have been forced to sell whatever was required to pay. I doubt if Charles walked up and down the halls of family court/divorce court during that time, hed have had much sympathy for his financial situation.

The RF was desperate to sell, Diana could take it or leave it as far as buying, to use market-speak, so theres that to consider, idk london solicitors very well, so idk if the RF's were the best or if they were from the "right class" or what, but they should have been able to out lawyer Diana.

I think they wanted her gone more than she wanted to leave, they leapt at the dropping the "HRH" which was a good move financially, but in the end the RF did get some value for it as she regretted giving it up.

While ive tried to keep it on an economic, asset and divorce law footing, there is also the fact that Charles royally(pardon the pun) pi$$ed her off, and hell hath no fury, im sure Diana figured she would exact as heavy a toll economically for every time Charles slept with Camilla or spent time with her that should have gone to her or the boys. So Charles should look at it as deferred payments owed for at least 10 years of sexual services purchased....wait....does that make Diana, Camilla's pimp LOLZ

[royalanthropologist]

My view is this. The divorce settlement was mean (less mean than Sarah's admittedly, but they had her banged to rights with those photos). Diana knew it was mean but she was loathe to admit it. So she put a positive spin on it that it was a good financial settlement almost as if to say: I got it where it hurts. In reality that money is just a fraction of Charles' expenditure in a year. He could have raised 17 million without batting an eyelid.  The borrowing from mummy was just them being mean and squeezing every last penny out of the deal.

They certainly bought Camilla a house that is valued at about the same amount and at that time she was nothing more than a mistress standing on iffy ground vis a vis a royal public role. That house was furnished and kitted up with security to the tune of millions. I understand every single year 2 million is spent on security alone and that Camilla has a police station permanently stationed there.

Those who say she could claim emotional abuse and adultery fail to remember that by that Bashir interview, Diana had admitted to adultery publicly. This was treason and even raised the horrible prospect of Harry's parentage being questioned. Diana's enemies went as far as suggesting that William was a prince but a prince of the house of Spain, absolutely horrendous stuff for the children. If she claimed that her husband was unfaithful, Diana could potentially open herself to a damaging counter suit which would embarrass her children. She was trapped and she knew it.

Diana lost and she was well aware of it. There would be no more titles (Diana, Princess of Wales is not a title. It is merely a reminder that you were once a princess of wales who is now divorced). Once again Diana tried to put a positive spin on things by stating that she would retain the title. In reality they offered her nothing in terms of title. All divorced wives of peers use their ex-title as if it was a name. The only title Diana retained was Lady Diana Spencer and that was a courtesy one too. As she was well aware Charles and the Queen could very easily extinguish that too if they wished. Titles are the gift of the King or Queen. They can be bestowed or removed without consulting anyone.

When she remarried it would all become all too painfully clear.  She would only be Lady Diana, (Mrs.xxx) or simply Mrs. xxx. The queen had stated that both she and Charles would continue to treat her as a member of the royal family but that was on their terms. They could determine where she traveled, what she did and what she said. Apparently Charles was insistent that never again would Diana be allowed to criticize the royal family in the media. On that clause they were immovable. Her one weapon against them was effectively neutralized forever.  They banned her from ever earning an income. That meant that she could never supplement her meager divorce settlement.

The Kensington Palace clause was designed to ensure that William and Harry would not be reduced to living in a non-royal palace. Indeed Diana would only remain there until Harry was 18. After that she was on her own. In any case the other people living in KP were no so hostile to her that it could not have been a comfortable place. She begged her brother for alternative accommodation but he refused. One time Diana joked that if things continued like they were, she would go to Sandrigham in a car and come back in a coffin. Princess Margaret (her neighbor) now loathed her with a vehemence which only Spencers rival the Windsors in holding a grudge. The queen mother was giving Diana killer looks at family gatherings and she was due for the Wallis Simpson treatment.

That is why some people say that the Panorama interview was the very worst decision that Diana ever made in her life (even worse than accepting Charles's proposal) because it gave the Royal Family the excuse they needed to put the squeeze on her. They spat her out but ensured that she was on a leach. Marrying someone like Dodi was poor compensation for losing her place in the royal family. He could provide money but none of the prestige. Every move  could be and would be watched. If and when that relationships suffered; Charles' people could smugly claim that it was further proof that the girl was mad and unlovable.

No matter how frugal she tried to be (I doubt she would try that); Diana was bound to become poor very quickly. She had this image to protect and was too proud to have it otherwise. She could hardly go down to buying a semi-detached and investing her money wisely. With her lifestyle, 17 million was nothing. Charles runs through more than that every 12 months. One of her reasons could be that she did not want to be reduced to embarrassing her children through her reduced means. Another would be that the gap in wealth and privilege between her former and current life would be so obvious. Already the children were being seduced by the kind of entertainment and seclusion that their father's considerable wealth/influence could muster. 

They really did a professional job in terms of squeezing Diana. Some misogynists have called her a gold digger but the truth is that Diana suffered a horrendous divorce settlement. Her husband's wealth was not even scratched. It could be argued that he has become exponentially richer since her death. Her replacement is kept in a style which Diana could only dream of: separate accommodation, pre-visit acclimatization, incredible jewels, and personal deference. The step kids have a trust fund and I would not be surprised if Andrew Parker Bowles ended up with a title designed to put the Spencers in their place.

What Diana needed was the advice of a level-headed mother.  That she never got. Instead she was saddled with an overwrought emotional wreck whose own end was a tragic lesson in loss. Bashir and Morton were nothing more than vultures who used the story of her tragedy to line their pockets.  Diana should have read about Anne of Cleves  and the magnificent divorce settlement she got from Henry VIII. That is how you leave the royal family with your head and wealth intact.

On a separate issue, I have come up with a theory that every royal consort in the United Kingdom should read about the six wives of Henry VIII and their respective ends. Those wives provide a template/model of what happens to you depending on the circumstances in which you leave the royal household. The monarchy is as brutal as it was 500 years ago when dealing with people who threaten it from within.  Diana was too young and inexperienced to understand what she was dealing with. In the end she paid very dearly. Catherine understands that script and has decided to become a stepford wife in order to avoid a sticky end. The life of a royal consort is very privileged but also precarious.

[Curryong]

^ One tiny detail from your previous long post struck me as incorrect, royalanthropologist. The Queen would not be able to remove Diana's courtesy title as the daughter of a peer. The monarch can, in extremely rare circumstances, remove life peerages granted to single individuals during their reign. However that's not the case with peerages that have been granted by earlier monarchs in previous centuries. Diana's father was the eighth Earl Spencer and held a title which was centuries old. He was dead at the time of his daughter's divorce and her brother Charles was ninth Earl. That could not have been removed under any circumstances either, and Diana would have remained Lady Diana, as an Earl's daughter, even if she had lived to be ninety.

[royalanthropologist]

^ One tiny detail from your previous long post struck me as incorrect, royalanthropologist. The Queen would not be able to remove Diana's courtesy title as the daughter of a peer. The monarch can, in extremely rare circumstances, remove life peerages granted to single individuals during their reign. However that's not the case with peerages that have been granted by earlier monarchs in previous centuries. Diana's father was the eighth Earl Spencer and held a title which was centuries old. He was dead at the time of his daughter's divorce and her brother Charles was ninth Earl. That could not have been removed under any circumstances either, and Diana would have remained Lady Diana, as an Earl's daughter, even if she had lived to be ninety.

I stand corrected thanks and also apologies for the long post. Was rumbling a bit. Maybe I can blame it on Christmas blues :hehe:

[sandy]

My view is this. The divorce settlement was mean (less mean than Sarah's admittedly, but they had her banged to rights with those photos). Diana knew it was mean but she was loathe to admit it. So she put a positive spin on it that it was a good financial settlement almost as if to say: I got it where it hurts. In reality that money is just a fraction of Charles' expenditure in a year. He could have raised 17 million without batting an eyelid.  The borrowing from mummy was just them being mean and squeezing every last penny out of the deal.

They certainly bought Camilla a house that is valued at about the same amount and at that time she was nothing more than a mistress standing on iffy ground vis a vis a royal public role. That house was furnished and kitted up with security to the tune of millions. I understand every single year 2 million is spent on security alone and that Camilla has a police station permanently stationed there.

Those who say she could claim emotional abuse and adultery fail to remember that by that Bashir interview, Diana had admitted to adultery publicly. This was treason and even raised the horrible prospect of Harry's parentage being questioned. Diana's enemies went as far as suggesting that William was a prince but a prince of the house of Spain, absolutely horrendous stuff for the children. If she claimed that her husband was unfaithful, Diana could potentially open herself to a damaging counter suit which would embarrass her children. She was trapped and she knew it.

Diana lost and she was well aware of it. There would be no more titles (Diana, Princess of Wales is not a title. It is merely a reminder that you were once a princess of wales who is now divorced). Once again Diana tried to put a positive spin on things by stating that she would retain the title. In reality they offered her nothing in terms of title. All divorced wives of peers use their ex-title as if it was a name. The only title Diana retained was Lady Diana Spencer and that was a courtesy one too. As she was well aware Charles and the Queen could very easily extinguish that too if they wished. Titles are the gift of the King or Queen. They can be bestowed or removed without consulting anyone.

When she remarried it would all become all too painfully clear.  She would only be Lady Diana, (Mrs.xxx) or simply Mrs. xxx. The queen had stated that both she and Charles would continue to treat her as a member of the royal family but that was on their terms. They could determine where she traveled, what she did and what she said. Apparently Charles was insistent that never again would Diana be allowed to criticize the royal family in the media. On that clause they were immovable. Her one weapon against them was effectively neutralized forever.  They banned her from ever earning an income. That meant that she could never supplement her meager divorce settlement.

The Kensington Palace clause was designed to ensure that William and Harry would not be reduced to living in a non-royal palace. Indeed Diana would only remain there until Harry was 18. After that she was on her own. In any case the other people living in KP were no so hostile to her that it could not have been a comfortable place. She begged her brother for alternative accommodation but he refused. One time Diana joked that if things continued like they were, she would go to Sandrigham in a car and come back in a coffin. Princess Margaret (her neighbor) now loathed her with a vehemence which only Spencers rival the Windsors in holding a grudge. The queen mother was giving Diana killer looks at family gatherings and she was due for the Wallis Simpson treatment.

That is why some people say that the Panorama interview was the very worst decision that Diana ever made in her life (even worse than accepting Charles's proposal) because it gave the Royal Family the excuse they needed to put the squeeze on her. They spat her out but ensured that she was on a leach. Marrying someone like Dodi was poor compensation for losing her place in the royal family. He could provide money but none of the prestige. Every move  could be and would be watched. If and when that relationships suffered; Charles' people could smugly claim that it was further proof that the girl was mad and unlovable.

No matter how frugal she tried to be (I doubt she would try that); Diana was bound to become poor very quickly. She had this image to protect and was too proud to have it otherwise. She could hardly go down to buying a semi-detached and investing her money wisely. With her lifestyle, 17 million was nothing. Charles runs through more than that every 12 months. One of her reasons could be that she did not want to be reduced to embarrassing her children through her reduced means. Another would be that the gap in wealth and privilege between her former and current life would be so obvious. Already the children were being seduced by the kind of entertainment and seclusion that their father's considerable wealth/influence could muster. 

They really did a professional job in terms of squeezing Diana. Some misogynists have called her a gold digger but the truth is that Diana suffered a horrendous divorce settlement. Her husband's wealth was not even scratched. It could be argued that he has become exponentially richer since her death. Her replacement is kept in a style which Diana could only dream of: separate accommodation, pre-visit acclimatization, incredible jewels, and personal deference. The step kids have a trust fund and I would not be surprised if Andrew Parker Bowles ended up with a title designed to put the Spencers in their place.

What Diana needed was the advice of a level-headed mother.  That she never got. Instead she was saddled with an overwrought emotional wreck whose own end was a tragic lesson in loss. Bashir and Morton were nothing more than vultures who used the story of her tragedy to line their pockets.  Diana should have read about Anne of Cleves  and the magnificent divorce settlement she got from Henry VIII. That is how you leave the royal family with your head and wealth intact.

On a separate issue, I have come up with a theory that every royal consort in the United Kingdom should read about the six wives of Henry VIII and their respective ends. Those wives provide a template/model of what happens to you depending on the circumstances in which you leave the royal household. The monarchy is as brutal as it was 500 years ago when dealing with people who threaten it from within.  Diana was too young and inexperienced to understand what she was dealing with. In the end she paid very dearly. Catherine understands that script and has decided to become a stepford wife in order to avoid a sticky end. The life of a royal consort is very privileged but also precarious.

No way was Diana going to be charged with "treason." Charles in effect dumped her after he had the heir and spare. And no, she did not call Harry's paternity into question since Harry was about 2 years old when Diana and Hewitt started the affair in 1986. Charles admitted adultery with his "friend's wife" publicly a year before.

Diana was no gold digger. I think only the ignorant think that since Charles and Charles alone courted her, a 19 year old woman because she met his specifications as wife and mother of children: no past, aristo, fertile and attractive.

I doubt Diana would ever have been destitute.

DIana's "enemies" who suggested Will a son of Spain probably have seen Elvis' ghost and been on a space ship with aliens.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

@royalanthropologist  BRAVO!!! on your long post, no need to apologize for it. Im so glad to hear another like minded voice on this matter compared to the common media opinion of the divorce.

I had neglected to mention the travel restrictions, so thanks for adding that.

As for the cottage on the Althorp estate, she had her mind set on one particular one, and security nixed that for safety concerns, she felt that was a betrayal by both families, if shed been more realistic about it, there might have been a solution.( but knowing what Earl Spencer is like, idk how hard hed have pushed for that, so they were locked in their sibling and family drama)

As for the adultery, im not sure in divorce court if it matters who cheated first in terms of leverage. I suspect it might, for sure it matters in public opinion, thats why theres always been such a debate over the dates of when each strayed. Taking my biases aside, I do have to think that Charles strayed first. He was more used to multiple partners during his bachelor days, their lack of common interests, etc. So idk how the whole suit-counter suit would have gone.

I also agree the Panorama interview was a PR nightmare, I think she felt hurt and lashed out, and wanted to do damage control after the Pasternak book and other tabloid stories (the Hoare calls, dianagate, etc. ) I also think despite what she said, she did want a divorce and was mad at Charles so she used the last part about the top job to force the RF into asking for the divorce, PR wise the best move for her.

As for the treason, to address the previous post, its one of those things that technically a law, in fact Hewitt could have been charged as well, but the public reaction would have been horrendous for the RF to try and prosecute it. As for Harry's paternity, I know Diana fans dont want to hear it, but I know for me, willing to give every benefit of doubt, it wasnt until his face started getting longer like PP, Charles and now Edward has, that one could be sure it was Charles'. When Harry was younger, there were so many times hed have a look that was exactly like hewitts. Even Diana said things in her tapes like "somehow we managed to have Harry" didnt help her cause either.

Also, and forgive me for speaking for you @royalanthropologist  but she didnt say Diana was a gold digger, quite the opposite. They have the same view that I do that she got shafted in the divorce settlement.

I also agree with them about Diana's finances had she never remarried and had to live on her own finances. To her credit she was becoming more thrifty once the divorce went through, paring staff and expenses. Thats one reason why the Fayed offer was so appealing, also we tend to forget while she was there living it up, it was all pretty much on the Fayed's dime, but she kept getting propelled higher and higher in the glitterati, and there would have been tremendous pressure to maintain an ever increasing lifestyle, finance wise.

That would have put her under pressure to marry someone to keep her in the style she was accustomed to, maybe we would have had first lady Diana had she lived.

I agree on your suggestion of reading material and the need for a level headed mother, I've had couple threads on the lack of family support that for having such an advantage of being so close to the RF, it ended up doing little good as far as living in their environment once she married.

I think the reason the press goes on about the settlement is that most ppl think 17 million pounds is all the money in the world, and look at lotteries and lawsuits, ppl always want the up front money, its like the marshmallow test (google it).

Excellent insights, always look forward to your posts!!

[royalanthropologist]

Sandy. I think you got me wrong. I actually agree that Diana was no gold digger. If she had been, I think she could easily have had them for $200 million. The material she had at her disposal could potentially end the monarchy so she could have used it as a bargaining tool. The problem with a trial (particularly involving adultery) is that all the dirty laundry is let out of the bag and what is said cannot be unsaid. I hated that inquest for that reason. It seemed that they were all raping the woman all over again, raking over the most intimate parts of her life.

As for paternity: Thankfully (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it), Harry clearly has his mum's personality and dad's looks. William on the other hand started off with his mum's looks and personality. Now he has done a complete about turn and is his dad in almost every way apart from taking a long term mistress in public. William is becoming Windsorized before our eyes, even the notorious whiny petulance of Charles makes an appearance in William from time to time  :hehe:

Deep down I think Diana was always an aristocrat. She understood her duties and did them as best as she could until she realized that nobody in her immediate environment liked or supported her. If your own husband is jealous of your success, there is really no point in doing much more. Actually when you read the panorama interview carefully, you can see clearly that it is Bashir looking to stray into controversy.  She never actually said that Charles was not suitable to be King. She was prompted and replied that he hated not being able to say controversial things which is true enough. One of the theories is that they actually tricked her into believing she was about to be executed, hence the interview to kind of hide in the public eye. Either way it is heartbreaking for someone to be so alone amidst so much public adulation. We can only imagine those lonely Christmas days, the false hopes of a reconciliation etc. Her last resort should have been mum but mum had her own issues.

Thanks for the support Duch Luver. I think Diana's story is important on so many levels. It is infuriating when she is reduced to trivialities. Virtually everybody in the royal family today (including Camilla) are benefiting from the heavy sacrifices she made and the battles she fought. Now that we see the lazy young ones, we begin to realize what we have lost. 

[SophieChloe]

Sandy. I think you got me wrong. I actually agree that Diana was no gold digger. If she had been, I think she could easily have had them for $200 million. The material she had at her disposal could potentially end the monarchy so she could have used it as a bargaining tool.

I agree with all of your post @royalanthropologist - but the above section made me smile. 

Diana was class - If I were in the same position; I'd have sung like a canary. 

[sandy]

There could be no divorce or any trial, Charles had too much dirty linen to air (with Kanga and Camilla and others) to participate in or take the high road. Camilla always benefitted from the time she became Charles mistress she was in control. I think she still has total contempt for the late Diana and cackles over all the nasty gossip by Junor. Charles too. I think Diana just wanted out and no way would she have asked for 200 million. Diana was prompted to participate with Morton because Charles' pals were spreading stories about her to the media.

[SophieChloe]

^ Yes! @sandy. They attempted to make her sound *nuts*.  She was far from that.  She was smart, caring and one of a kind.   

I'm no Royalist, but I would make a point of going out to grab my magazine with Diana on it. 

I simply Adored her xxx

[TLLK]

I also agree with them about Diana's finances had she never remarried and had to live on her own finances. To her credit she was becoming more thrifty once the divorce went through, paring staff and expenses. Thats one reason why the Fayed offer was so appealing, also we tend to forget while she was there living it up, it was all pretty much on the Fayed's dime, but she kept getting propelled higher and higher in the glitterati, and there would have been tremendous pressure to maintain an ever increasing lifestyle, finance wise.

:goodpost:@royalanthropologist.

I also think that she realized that it would have been very difficult to have a job in the years immediately following the divorce so the financial settlement would have to provide for her  for a number of years while the children were still in school.  Also it would have likely been viewed as "inappropriate" for her to be employed by a British firm due to her relationship with the royal family.   Now a decade or so after might have been a different story, especially if it was outside of the UK and out of the public eye. (No Weight Watchers endorsements  or something similar like Sarah was able to land.) At the time of the divorce she didn't possess the education and skills that would make her a candidate for a well paying position, though I do believe she certainly had the energy and would give her best efforts.  It's possible that she could have been employed in an advisory role for a charitable foundation outside the UK had she lived.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

the quote was from my post @TLLK,  :lol: but yes, I'm very impressed with @royalanthropologist  posts, even though our fav royals are on the opposite side, so to speak, theres a tremendous amount of overlap in our views, and I appreciate her ability to look at both sides with pragmatism and honesty.

As for a potential future job for Diana, while she was short on formal qualifications, I think she would have probably worked as a PR or some other similar type of advisor for a charitable foundation. While her dream was counseling or some one on one type of work, idk if shed have gone back to school to get the degree for it, but the above position she could do right away, and shed be able to put her contacts and people skills to good use.

I know she wanted to do some documentaries like the one in Angola, but longer and each dealing with an issue about one every year or two that would lead into her charity work. With the advent of the web and social media she would have been able to do that a lot cheaper and easier than in 97.

When I get more time ill add some more to the past posts.

[TLLK]

 :blush: Whoops! @Duch_Luver_4ever

Yes I could see how her wide range of contacts would be very beneficial for charitable organizations, though I strongly believe that she would have been discouraged from working in the UK for a few years after the divorce. Still they might have been okay with her doing some quiet volunteer work like the Duchess of Kent did with the suicide hotline.

[royalanthropologist]

Duch luver. I put Camilla as my favorite royal as part of a protest because I believe even ugly ducklings deserve some romance in their lives. She gives all women of a certain age and unfortunate looks some reason for hope in this beauty obsessed world.  :hehe:At the time when they unmasked her in 1992, I could not believe that she was the mistress and not the wife. We thought it was a tabloid fantasy or that Diana was delusional. Surely no man could leave her for Camilla. There was simply nothing to commend her.  It was puzzling, to say the least. However, later on when the abuse of her in the media started veering towards looks and age; the small feminist in me was awakened. I just thought; "they have just been tearing down one young woman apart for the last 15 years and now they are moving on to an older one". Just take it that I like to buck the underdog but I am not immune to seeing all her faults. :xmas21: I think even Camilla herself knows that she has been incredibly lucky to be where she is. I also know that deep down Camilla is a confident woman and that is why Charles is so reliant on her but make no mistake...behind the smile is a will of steel and bold ambition IMO. If someone told me in 1995 that this woman would be married to Charles in 10 years' time, I would have wanted them sectioned...but again the world is full of surprises.

[sandy]

I have no liking for Camilla. She was not the "ugly duckling" and it was not about her looks. She was and is IMO very manipulative and scheming and that's how she got to the top. It was not as if Charles was hit by the fact that although she was plain he appreciated her. That's not it at all. She had contempt for Diana and undermined her every step of the way. Charles never really stopped seeing Camilla the whole time. Camilla IS nervy and of course "confident" since she had the upper hand all the way. Once Charles outed her as his mistress, he became obligated to her and soon after he hired Mark Bolland to "rehabilitate her image."  Considering all the years of work she put into her goal of going for the gold, I'm not that surprised at what happened. It was not about age and looks, it was about conniving and scheming by Camilla. Camilla got plenty of "romance" in her life that was why Mountbatten told Charles she was "mistress material" and Charles back then apparently believed it. I think Luck and Goodness had nothing to do with Camilla getting where she is today. I believe in women's rights and I think Camilla is more of an embarrassment than a pioneer. She had no respect for the wife, trashed her and did nothing but become mistress of a powerful man who she could manipulate.
Double post auto-merged: December 30, 2016, 01:23:31 AM

:blush: Whoops! @Duch_Luver_4ever

Yes I could see how her wide range of contacts would be very beneficial for charitable organizations, though I strongly believe that she would have been discouraged from working in the UK for a few years after the divorce. Still they might have been okay with her doing some quiet volunteer work like the Duchess of Kent did with the suicide hotline.

Diana was talking to Tony Blair about a possible role for herself.  After JFK's death and later Onassis' Jackie O was resilient and carved out a role for herself. I think Diana would have done the same with her life.

[TLLK]

Duch luver. I put Camilla as my favorite royal as part of a protest because I believe even ugly ducklings deserve some romance in their lives. She gives all women of a certain age and unfortunate looks some reason for hope in this beauty obsessed world.  :hehe:At the time when they unmasked her in 1992, I could not believe that she was the mistress and not the wife. We thought it was a tabloid fantasy or that Diana was delusional. Surely no man could leave her for Camilla. There was simply nothing to commend her.

I believe it was for this reason that Diana was convinced at one brief moment during the War of the Wales that Charles was having an affair with Tiggy Legge-Bourke rather than Camilla.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Just getting home so more to come, thats an interesting subject @TLLK because Diana named Tiggy in her letter saying if anything was to happen to her it would be a car accident so Charles could marry Tiggy and that Camilla was a decoy, which now sounds preposterous, however if you go back to early summer 1997 there was a car accident before Diana's, and that was Camilla.

She left the scene, and the reason she gave???? She said she feared that it was an assassination attempt!! Oh, how I laughed at the time seeing that in the paper, but then I wasnt laughing after Aug 31st of that year. In November that yr Lady Tryon died of blood poisoning not long after she claimed she was pushed from a window while getting treated for getting off pain meds she had for cancer treatment.

That beats any actuarial table I know of for 3 lovers/former lovers to die/almost die in less than 6 months....you might feel its tinfoil hat land, but if his name was Charles Smith, he'd have some 'splainin to do.

[royalanthropologist]

I think there was some PR lady that was getting a crush on Charles recently and Camilla nipped that one in the bud very quickly. Twiggy, I am not sure. There might have been something but who knows. At the time the strategy in the palace was to leak ludicrous stories to Diana so that her reactions to them would make her appear mad. Twiggy could have been one of those. Plus I have never really understood why three of Charles' romantic interests suffered potentially fatal accidents within a space of half a year. Had he been a woman, they might have labelled him a black widow.

[sandy]

Duch luver. I put Camilla as my favorite royal as part of a protest because I believe even ugly ducklings deserve some romance in their lives. She gives all women of a certain age and unfortunate looks some reason for hope in this beauty obsessed world.  :hehe:At the time when they unmasked her in 1992, I could not believe that she was the mistress and not the wife. We thought it was a tabloid fantasy or that Diana was delusional. Surely no man could leave her for Camilla. There was simply nothing to commend her.

I believe it was for this reason that Diana was convinced at one brief moment during the War of the Wales that Charles was having an affair with Tiggy Legge-Bourke rather than Camilla.

Diana knew Charles was with other women as well. She knew about Kanga's experiences with Charles. Charles also was out in public with TIggy getting touchy feely with her. Diana knew Charles ditched women (including herself and Kanga) and it might have been wishful thinking that Camilla lost her influence with Charles.

Camilla was never an ugly duckling, she was very popular with men from her years as a debutante.  Her exes attest to this. It was not about "looks" with Camilla. Ever. She was and is a manipulator which is how she got where she is today.

IT is also a fact that Charles admitted he preferred Camilla and he did not "love" Diana. He wanted heirs from her. Plain and simple. Camilla even helped him pick out Diana so she would not "make waves."

Even if Charles has extracurricular activities with other women, Camilla got what she wanted: the perks, people bowing to her and getting almost all of what Diana her.

I read biographies of Charles, Diana and Camilla and never did any of the authors consign Camilla to being "ugly duckling." Andrew Parker Bowles was considered a "catch" and Camilla was avid to marry him and she did.

[royalanthropologist]

A lot of the criticism of CPB focused on her looks and her breaking up of the marriage. I  for one refused to believe that she is the devil incarnate or that she is the only person who was responsible for the C&D marriage and its fall out. For example I find it offensive that some people think Charles can get his crown but she is not to be given a title despite being married to him and to all intents a co-conspirator in that saga.

Some would have us believe that Camilla selected Diana and then proceeded to kick her out when she would not play ball. I think that is a very simplistic analysis of events. Yes Diana was 19 but she was not some country girl who had no knowledge about royal life or Charles' proclivities. As for Charles he is a grown man, not some toy that Camilla could bend to her will. The entire establishment knew what was happening. Even the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury at the time later confessed that he knew it was an arranged marriage. They were all in on the game. Diana just thought that her youth, beauty, status as an official wife and charm would get rid of her rival. In the end when she saw that it was not going to work out she lashed out at her husband. The press then decided that Camilla has to be the evil witch.

I think none of the characters are perfect....indeed none of us are. To say that it is Camilla and Camilla alone to blame does not sit right with me. That is why I stand up for her (despite receiving lots of negative feedback for it). LOL

[Trudie]

My take on the marriage is yes it was arranged but on Charles side. Diana was a immature naive 19 year old who believed in the romance writings of her step grandmother Barbara Cartland. That said Charles was running out of options to marry a protestant virgin Diana was perfect. Camilla IMO did manipulate the marriage to ensure Charles would always come back to her though Charles always had a self entitlement to have mistresses as per Mountbatten's instructions. Charles was and continues to be a very weak man he needs to have his ego stroked and no one to tell him no all the things Diana didn't do she treated him as a man not heir to the throne. Camilla wasn't alone in destroying the marriage their mutual friends of the Highgrove set were not happy to have their influence diminished by Diana and knew Camilla would not interfere as she enjoyed their pursuits as well.

To those who say Camilla is not fit to wear the crown I agree but neither does Charles both of them committed adultery and broke up each others marriages. The Duke of Windsor who was not married lost his crown as the woman he loved was divorced and he caused the breakup of her marriage to Simpson. None of the players in the Charles and Diana marriage were perfect however Charles and his friends were hardly discreet about the marriage leaking to the press about how difficult Diana could be or why. Post natal depression she's mad, morning sickness whats wrong with her? sorry but I place more of the blame on Charles then I do Diana.

[sandy]

A lot of the criticism of CPB focused on her looks and her breaking up of the marriage. I  for one refused to believe that she is the devil incarnate or that she is the only person who was responsible for the C&D marriage and its fall out. For example I find it offensive that some people think Charles can get his crown but she is not to be given a title despite being married to him and to all intents a co-conspirator in that saga.

Some would have us believe that Camilla selected Diana and then proceeded to kick her out when she would not play ball. I think that is a very simplistic analysis of events. Yes Diana was 19 but she was not some country girl who had no knowledge about royal life or Charles' proclivities. As for Charles he is a grown man, not some toy that Camilla could bend to her will. The entire establishment knew what was happening. Even the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury at the time later confessed that he knew it was an arranged marriage. They were all in on the game. Diana just thought that her youth, beauty, status as an official wife and charm would get rid of her rival. In the end when she saw that it was not going to work out she lashed out at her husband. The press then decided that Camilla has to be the evil witch.

I think none of the characters are perfect....indeed none of us are. To say that it is Camilla and Camilla alone to blame does not sit right with me. That is why I stand up for her (despite receiving lots of negative feedback for it). LOL

Camilla did not age well due to smoking and drinking and the good life. That's how she got the wrinkles prematurely. She also apparently did not use sunscreen when she country pursuits like the hunts. As a deb she was not unattractive not gorgeous but she was witty and men were drawn to her She was rated as the second most popular debutante way back when something an ugly duckling would never get. So when Charles met her she was not "ugly" by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, it is possible for women to manipulate men and Charles great uncle was in the thrall of Wallis Simpson and gave up the throne for her. Charles was wishy washy plus he had a huge sense of entitlement and wanted to have it all, the suitable, wife, the heirs and the mistress catering to his every need and whims. If Camilla had not been manipulative she would have backed off and sent Charles back to his wife when he showed up and stopped taking his calls or calling him up. I think she was going for the gold.

No it is not simplistic to think Camilla was offended that Diana would not play ball and cooperate. After all Andrew Parker Bowles played along and turned a blind eye to his wife's affair with the POW, all very civilized.

Diana was not in Charles' generation. She was about the age of Charles much younger brother, Andrew. Charles was 12 years older and I doubt Diana was privy to Charles life as she grew up.  She also was 19 when Charles courted her and was naive enough to think he courted her because he loved her and would be exclusive with her.

The Archbishop if he "knew" was doing a very bad thing. Diana thought Charles loved her and in an "arranged marriage" both parties are more or less obligated and contracts are signed. Charles courted Diana the old fashioned way and both could drop out of the relationship if they chose to do so. Saying Diana "knew it all" and went into it anyway, is an old argument to try to whitewash Charles' bad behavior. Diana was not a masochist. She fell for Charles and trusted him.

No, Camilla was not alone to blame, Charles shared the blame. And I think it reprehensible of him bringing in a girl barely out of her teens into the sordidness. He was not going to give up Camilla and Diana was no Andrew Parker Bowles who would put up with it.

As I said before, if Charles had put his cards on the table and been honest, Diana could have been given a chance to drop out before he proposed. Charles even tried to pass off his mistress as the "safe married friend" who would be mentor to Diana.

I agree with Trudie that Charles' friends were also to blame. They leaked nasty stories about Diana and later, put up Camilla and Charles in "safe houses" and were nice to Diana's face.  Camilla herself went to the Sun Editor for ten years to give "her side" of the story. I don't think she is a nice woman. I would not say she is a "devil" but I think a "Camilla" type would be every new bride's worst nightmare.