Charles and Diana


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Exactly my point. Dimbley is an excellent source for Charles' side, not for the entire story. I don't fault Charles for wanting to put something out in the public that showed his side after all that was written by the Diana camp, but I still think that it is unrealistic to think that the Dimbley book presents the whole picture. Charles had a need for good PR too just as Diana did and, at that time especially, a definite need to paint himself as a sympathetic character. It doesn't mean that I think what was written in there was not true, just not the entire story.

No, it isn't the whole story, but I've followed Charles since I was a young girl myself and read all available books about him (Holden, Junor etc.) and the picture all these authors paint of him is very similar to that Dimbleby presents, only Dimbleby had a much better access to private papers, diaries etc. So while I understand a lot of Diana's reactions I think it was her mental problems which at one point made it impossible to reach her.

It's not like Charles and diana started out like most couples, they were not free to create their future life but as the situation was Diana either fit in with Charles' position or not. There was not much he could do and I think as much as he could he did. But Diana was wrong for the position, the wrong "consort" in a world more and more fixed on celebrity cult, she was as needy as he was (and Dimbleby is very open about that, too!) and thus they were doomed. But she could have gone quietly accepting that once their marriage broke down, he was still going to be the Heir to the throne and she his ex-wife. But she had other ideas and thus damaged the monarchy with her wish to prove that it isn't the Blood Royal that counts - which destroys the whole basis of a herediary monarchy.
 
James Whitaker 'Diana v Charles' page 117 'But even now Diana was concerned about the outside influences on her husband-to-be: She had been told that the Prince's two confidants, Australian born Lady Tryon, known by Charles as Kanga (short for Kangaroo), and Camilla Parker-Bowles had 'approved' the marriage. Diana didn't particularly care what Dale Tryon thought but she was concerned about Camilla'
 
James Whitaker 'Diana v Charles' page 117 'But even now Diana was concerned about the outside influences on her husband-to-be: She had been told that the Prince's two confidants, Australian born Lady Tryon, known by Charles as Kanga (short for Kangaroo), and Camilla Parker-Bowles had 'approved' the marriage. Diana didn't particularly care what Dale Tryon thought but she was concerned about Camilla'

Probably a true statement, even though I found the Whitaker-book not to be very reliable. As I have quoted, Dimbleby writes that "his friends warmed to a prospective love match" - that is approval of a sort and Dale and Camilla were close friends during this time. But it still is different from "handpicking a bride" out of sinister or other motives. IMHO, of course.
 
James Whitaker 'Diana v Charles' page 117 'But even now Diana was concerned about the outside influences on her husband-to-be: She had been told that the Prince's two confidants, Australian born Lady Tryon, known by Charles as Kanga (short for Kangaroo), and Camilla Parker-Bowles had 'approved' the marriage. Diana didn't particularly care what Dale Tryon thought but she was concerned about Camilla'
Would that be the Whittaker who knew Charles, Camilla and royal sources so well, he assured everyone that Charles and Camilla would not marry before the death of the Queen? Dempster as you have said yourself was a gossip columnist.

The wording had 'approved' is a world away from 'warmed to the prospect of a love match', I can believe that his friends and hers would have wanted nothing less than a love match for them both.
 
I am sorry but I still have the image of the love tryst in the middle of the hunt.....
What happened to all the people following the hunt on foot? Were they so intent on the disappearing derrieres of horses and riders they didn´t see Charles and Camilla lag behind. Then of course there is Lady ? who always falls off at the first fence, she always comes along late, sometimes gets lost and has to ask the foot followers which way the hunt went.....they shout to her just before some of them rush for their cars, over there Lady ? just go past Charles and Camilla over there....
Sorry, this is too much for me.
You forgot the ponyclubbers who always lag behind because they can't find a gate to go through! :lol: Now you know why I have a giggle everytime it is suggested. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Diana, marriage, and the BRF

But she could have gone quietly accepting that once their marriage broke down, he was still going to be the Heir to the throne and she his ex-wife. But she had other ideas and thus damaged the monarchy with her wish to prove that it isn't the Blood Royal that counts - which destroys the whole basis of a herediary monarchy.
I really don't think Diana has destroyed the monarchy in the long-term. Damaged it yes. And she definitely caused the BRF to change the way they do things in order to appear more approachable and relevant.
I really don't think she intended to do as much harm as she did. Based on her own terrible childhood experience she had a real fear of losing her children (imo and based on books that I have read). Yes, I know that was irrational but fear is fear and can make a person do some crazy things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
competing camps

Exactly my point. Dimbley is an excellent source for Charles' side, not for the entire story. I don't fault Charles for wanting to put something out in the public that showed his side after all that was written by the Diana camp, but I still think that it is unrealistic to think that the Dimbley book presents the whole picture. Charles had a need for good PR too just as Diana did and, at that time especially, a definite need to paint himself as a sympathetic character. It doesn't mean that I think what was written in there was not true, just not the entire story.

Agreed-After 1989 both "camps" seem to have their own axe to grind. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if instead of two competing press offices-Charles and Diana had one office from the beginning. Maybe they would have learned to work as a couple.
 
I am sorry but I still have the image of the love tryst in the middle of the hunt.....
What happened to all the people following the hunt on foot? Were they so intent on the disappearing derrieres of horses and riders they didn´t see Charles and Camilla lag behind. Then of course there is Lady ? who always falls off at the first fence, she always comes along late, sometimes gets lost and has to ask the foot followers which way the hunt went.....they shout to her just before some of them rush for their cars, over there Lady ? just go past Charles and Camilla over there....
Sorry, this is too much for me.
I'm not sure of the original reason for this comment, but the fact remains that Camilla and Charles had a mutual interest and it brought them together during various times throughout their relationship. I hope no one objects to a reference to Morton's book since we've been relying on Dimbleby quite a bit, but it mentions that Camilla invited Diana to lunch after she got engaged and she asked Diana if she intended to hunt after she and Charles were married.
Somehow I don't think Diana the first woman not to appreciate another woman getting too close to her husband.
 
but it mentions that Camilla invited Diana to lunch after she got engaged and she asked Diana if she intended to hunt after she and Charles were married.
I can't see the problem. Charles loved hunting, Diana as his country loving wife to be, would have been expected to accompany him, that is after all what wives do.
 
hunting friends.

I'm not sure of the original reason for this comment, but the fact remains that Camilla and Charles had a mutual interest and it brought them together during various times throughout their relationship. I hope no one objects to a reference to Morton's book since we've been relying on Dimbleby quite a bit, but it mentions that Camilla invited Diana to lunch after she got engaged and she asked Diana if she intended to hunt after she and Charles were married.
Somehow I don't think Diana the first woman not to appreciate another woman getting too close to her husband.

I see your point but who knows who said what. This brings me back to my post on a different thread regarding can men and women be friends? I just don't think so. I have been married 22 years this year and I can remember when I was young and married-I did not want another girl looking at my husband much less be "friends" with him. Age has tempered alot of that irrational jealously but I am still cautious. I can see the perspective of an insecure 19 year old newly married girl/woman.

Doesn't matter if anything was going on-in those early years -nothing but it did matter how Diana felt. Prince Charles should have handled this differently.
 
I can't see the problem. Charles loved hunting, Diana as his country loving wife to be, would have been expected to accompany him, that is after all what wives do.
What Diana was or was not going to do as Charles' wife was none of his former gf's concern. Most women would raise their eyebrows in response to that question, and perhaps even add an "Excuse me?"
 
I see your point but who knows who said what. This brings me back to my post on a different thread regarding can men and women be friends? I just don't think so. I have been married 22 years this year and I can remember when I was young and married-I did not want another girl looking at my husband much less be "friends" with him. Age has tempered alot of that irrational jealously but I am still cautious. I can see the perspective of an insecure 19 year old newly married girl/woman.

Doesn't matter if anything was going on-in those early years -nothing but it did matter how Diana felt. Prince Charles should have handled this differently.
Different women, different reactions. The majority of 'our' friends have been friends since our school days or before, some after of course and I never had a problem with either of my husbands continuing their friendship with female friends, especially those they knew before me. With my current husband, he spent many years married to someone else and with friends they made and I have no qualms about him continuing friendship with them either.

Most people realise the world didn't start for their partner when they came 'on the scene' and accept their friends and expect them to accept theirs.
 
Do you hunt?

Camilla may have been trying to include Diana in the group's activities. Maybe that was not her place (it was her fiance's) but I don't think she was trying to be sinister or 'set up' something.
I don't want to get back into the old C/C/D blame game. When you're talking about a marriage it is the two people who make it work or screw it up.
Charles and Diana did not know each other at all (imo). Nor was either very mature or ready for marriage at the time. If they were Diana would have given Charles his space to pursue outside interests, work, friends, etc without all of the clowning. And Charles would have been more sensitive to Diana's insecurities and helped ease into his life (professional and personal). It was not a good match.
 
What Diana was or was not going to do as Charles' wife was none of his former gf's concern. Most women would raise their eyebrows in response to that question, and perhaps even add an "Excuse me?"
Really, a polite question asking if Diana was going to join Charles and the rest of his friends hunting after they had tied the knot? Had Charles been interested in playing Tennis or Golf the question would have been was she going to join him and for the life of me I can't see anything wrong with the question, here it is called polite conversation.

Diana had apparently given every indication that she loved the country life and all that entailed, so how on earth could Camilla or anyone else have known that Diana was a poor rider and had no intention of straddling a horse to hunt with hounds?
 
Different women, different reactions. The majority of 'our' friends have been friends since our school days or before, some after of course and I never had a problem with either of my husbands continuing their friendship with female friends, especially those they knew before me. With my current husband, he spent many years married to someone else and with friends they made and I have no qualms about him continuing friendship with them either.

Most people realise the world didn't start for their partner when they came 'on the scene' and accept their friends and expect them to accept theirs.

You have obviously been always a secure person:flowers:. Like I said I have changed over the years but I am just remembering what it was like to be young and insecure.
Also, I think it makes a difference that the female friend is an ex- that the man still loves. That is a LOT to deal with. Oh and by love I don't mean romance and sex.
 
You have obviously been always a secure person:flowers:. Like I said I have changed over the years but I am just remembering what it was like to be young and insecure.
Also, I think it makes a difference that the female friend is an ex- that the man still loves. That is a LOT to deal with. Oh and by love I don't mean romance and sex.
I think I was young once, but I find it hard to remember. :lol: I was young when I first married and both of us had been engaged to someone else, who happened to still be blooming good friends, but ***** was with me. You (universal) always retain a soft spot for your ex's (well we seem to) but if we are not with them, then obviously we didn't love them enough. If you expect the worst, accuse people of seeking love elsewhere, it must get to the point where they believe they may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.:flowers:

As I said different women, different levels of confidence, different ways of dealing with things.
 
I think I was young once, but I find it hard to remember. :lol: I was young when I first married and both of us had been engaged to someone else, who happened to still be blooming good friends, but ***** was with me. You (universal) always retain a soft spot for your ex's (well we seem to) but if we are not with them, then obviously we didn't love them enough. If you expect the worst, accuse people of seeking love elsewhere, it must get to the point where they believe they may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.:flowers:

As I said different women, different levels of confidence, different ways of dealing with things.

Oh, what poppycock. All people are different. I was young once, too. I cannot even remember much about my first real "love". But. of course, by your standards, then it wasn't real. If it was real, then you should have mnarried them. My first husband died suddenly, after 28 years of marriage, yes he, to this day is very dear to me, although, I have been remarried for many years. Charles was a selfish, self-centered, person, who knew that he had to fulfill an obligation. He had his bed well covered, but never considered that someone might object. Diana was a petulant, insecure and very young lady. She had unrealistic expectations of what a life with the POW might be like. She floated to the top of popularity, and that was, certainly, not something "they" could deal with. Sorry, all the finger pointing in the world won't change that they were unsuited. He needed someone who would just live their life and let him live his. He was giving them a great deal of assets. That should be enough. She did her duty, produced two sons. She never could accept that she was a brood mare. Not much else for him.
 
...You (universal) always retain a soft spot for your ex's (well we seem to) but if we are not with them, then obviously we didn't love them enough...

Ah yes, but in Charles and Camilla's case it wasn't because they didn't love each other enough. So for them an ongoing friendship was to be a bittersweet reminder of what might have been, at best...and 'temptation' was almost inevitable if either marriage experienced a hiccup.
 
I am sorry but I still have the image of the love tryst in the middle of the hunt.....
What happened to all the people following the hunt on foot? Were they so intent on the disappearing derrieres of horses and riders they didn´t see Charles and Camilla lag behind. Then of course there is Lady ? who always falls off at the first fence, she always comes along late, sometimes gets lost and has to ask the foot followers which way the hunt went.....they shout to her just before some of them rush for their cars, over there Lady ? just go past Charles and Camilla over there....
Sorry, this is too much for me.

Menarue, I am a professional equestrian (feel free to check my past posts which will confirm this) and I feel pretty confident that I've been foxhunting more often than you have. I am not suggesting a yahoo behind the tree as everyone gallops past. How about (since things we now know phone conversations are recorded) an in person fun loosy goosy flirty 6 hours out together getting all hot and bothered making the date, unrecorded and in the field, 'How about next Tuesday at Fatty Soames or the Van Customs and the grrrrrr (cougar sounds)'
 
All people are different. I was young once, too. I cannot even remember much about my first real "love". But. of course, by your standards, then it wasn't real. If it was real, then you should have mnarried them..
I wonder what part of different women, different ways of.... you missed in each of the posts? Just because you don't remember your 'first love', doesn't mean that no man or woman does. Even the difference in language, you speak of the lack of remembrance of your first 'real' love and by that token, if you remember very little of him, it wasn't love real or otherwise, was it!
--- in Charles and Camilla's case it wasn't because they didn't love each other enough. So for them an ongoing friendship was to be a bittersweet reminder of what might have been
Back to this, to me, strange belief that you cannot be friends with a member of the opposite sex. Camilla is still friends with her ex, Anne is friends with her ex husband and her ex boyfriend, so on and so forth. It seems to be a problem for some, but many more have no trouble with it at all.
 
I feel pretty confident that I've been foxhunting more often than you have. I am not suggesting a yahoo behind the tree as everyone gallops past. How about (since things we now know phone conversations are recorded) an in person fun loosy goosy flirty 6 hours out together getting all hot and bothered making the date, unrecorded and in the field, 'How about next Tuesday at Fatty Soames or the Van Customs -
I too have spent a considerable amount of time fox hunting in the past (even now watching through binoculars from a good vantage point on land owned by friends) and perhaps it is the difference in the weather, but I don't recall getting hot and bothered in the British Autumn or Winter. When you are tearing across fields, through hedgerows with dozens of other riders, (hunt surrporters & anti hunt brigade), the chances of flirting are zero to zero. Even if the fox goes to ground, it is rare on the better hunts like the Beaufort to be sat around waiting for them to pick up again or having private conversations. Until the Squidgygate and Camillagate recordings, nobody thought that someone somewhere would record private calls to or from the palace.:future:
 
Originally Posted by Monika
--- in Charles and Camilla's case it wasn't because they didn't love each other enough. So for them an ongoing friendship was to be a bittersweet reminder of what might have been
Skydragon quote: Back to this, to me, strange belief that you cannot be friends with a member of the opposite sex. Camilla is still friends with her ex, Anne is friends with her ex husband and her ex boyfriend, so on and so forth. It seems to be a problem for some, but many more have no trouble with it at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not twist my words. I was addressing your comment that: "You (universal) always retain a soft spot for your ex's (well we seem to) but if we are not with them, then obviously we didn't love them enough." I did not make a general statement about what men and women can or cannot do. I was making the point that Camilla and Charles were not apart because they didn't love each other enough, so under THEIR circumstances an ongoing friendship would have been a bittersweet reminder of what might have been, not to mention temptation if/when they each faced problems in their marriages.
 
They are your words are they not, replying to my post highlighting the universal 'You', I cannot see how your words have been twisted in any way. You cannot state with any certainty that Charles and Camilla at that time 'Loved' each other other than as friends, they may have had a deep and loving friendship, but some of 'us' are able to enjoy that with our ex partners, so why should Charles and Camilla be any different?.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wouldn't it actually be Windsor-Mountbatten rather than Windsor?

I agree, Diana had a unique situation at the mother of the future King and I applaud that her precedence was retained and that she remained a member of the royal family. As I understand it, she and Charles were able to remain friends after the divorce (not to the extent of Sarah and Andrew, to be certain) as evidenced by his reaction to her death and going to get her.
 
If that was friendship who needs enemies!

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: I think that near the end of her life they had gotten along better, but you're right, there is no denying how truly ugly their relationship got. But, I like to think they put that animosity aside for the good of the boys. I think that Charles being so grief stricken speaks to that because if there was truly hate then he would not have gone to France and freaked out about her earring---
 
If that was friendship who needs enemies!

By all accounts, Diana and Charles had put the animosity behind them and were friends again. She also had a good relationship with The Queen and Prince Philip by the time she died.
 
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: I think that near the end of her life they had gotten along better, but you're right, there is no denying how truly ugly their relationship got. But, I like to think they put that animosity aside for the good of the boys. I think that Charles being so grief stricken speaks to that because if there was truly hate then he would not have gone to France and freaked out about her earring---

you're right jcb, anything i've ever read says that they had a friendly relationship towards the end.
 
We are reopening the thread with some posts being moved from the Diana's titles thread. It seems that Charles and Diana had sorted out their friction; let's hope their supporters can do the same for the sake of this thread.

TheTruth
British Forum Moderator
 
Last edited:
Having been an avid "Royal Watcher" all my life, I was truely appalled by the way the Wales separation and subsequent divorce was handled by the press.

To me it always seemed that Andrew and Sarah got a "hurry-up" to divorce and thus served as a litmus test of the concept of royal divorce. In the event, both Andrew and Sarah handled it in exemplary style and never let the press get a wiff of any animosity/jealousy between them. As a matter of record, they have remained extremely close and a loving family unit. When questioned about their post-marriage "Romantic Anniversary Dinners", they always seem to reply "He/she is my best friend". Proof positive that friendship after divorce is possible.

The Wales's, unfortunately, seem to have been manipulated by both the press and those in whom they had placed their trust. Numerous little grey men and a "Rock" or two need shooting. Sometimes it seemed to me that Diana and Charles were only titular leads in the infamous "War of the Wales's", and that everyone else was enjoying the spoils of that war.

Against all odds I seem to remember that Charles and Diana had moved from that passionately angry and wounded stage to another kind of family unit, apart but communicating with each other (sans spoilers), truely sharing their kids lives and were in the process of each beginning to understand the person the other had become.

Without the intervention of a drunken driver, who knows what kind of relationship would have evolved.
 
Back
Top Bottom