The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2021  
Old 09-08-2016, 06:51 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,007
You must be about my age then, Denville. This is pretty much what I remember from those eras as well. [QUOTE=Denville;1922145]

I'm really an old fossil, as I've been previously told by at least one other poster on these Diana forms.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2022  
Old 09-08-2016, 10:32 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
I stand corrected! Kanga was an earlier target.
I don't know what you mean by a target, she wasn't IMO really considered as a serious rival by Diana..
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2023  
Old 09-08-2016, 10:49 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
[QUOTE=Mermaid1962;1922388]You must be about my age then, Denville. This is pretty much what I remember from those eras as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post

I'm really an old fossil, as I've been previously told by at least one other poster on these Diana forms.
I don't think wer're Fossils Mermaid. I am going to be "perpetually middle aged"!
However it is a long time ago and there have been huge social changes since the 1970s.. its foolish IMO to judge Charles for going along iwht the standards of that time.. just as it is foolish to judge Victorians for what they thought in THEIR time..

I don't say I agreed with it, at the time, I was young and "radical minded", and felt that all this double standard was very unfair. but I did come from a conservative Catholic background, and so perhaps I can remember what things were like better. I'm sure that the rest of the "older" royal family, people of the age of Philip and the queen (much less the Q Mother or Mountbatten) would have felt that it was Ok for Charles to gain pre marital experience, but certainly Not ok for his wife to be gossiped about in the papers, or seen as a flighty young woman who had had other lovers.
Ordinary people were starting to live together in the 70s, but I think it was considered "Just about OK" as a pre marital thing, (Of course people had casual affairs and one night stands as they have always done - and the PIll meant that contraception was increasingly safe and easy and foolproof) and I think that generally speaking, it was becoming acceptable for a couple to live together prior to marriage, but usually they didn't have children. By the 80s, sex was getting "free-er" in the time before AIDS came along, and it was increasingly acceptable to have children outside marriage.. and for gay people to be more open abut their sexuality...
But someone like Charles couldn't openly live with a woman, or marry a divorcee or a woman with a chequered past..
when Fergie married Andrew there was some chit chat in the press about her pre marital love affairs and it was said that the RF had felt "well she's marrying the second son and nowadays, most girls of her age are bound to have had a few boyfriends that they lived with.. ".
That's the way things usually go with the RF, usually a minor member "does something unconventional" first, then it moves into the younger members of the main family..
At first only cousins got divorced, then Margaret and Anne's marriages broke up and they divorced. Then the divorce situation happened with Andrew and Charles..
When Edward and Sophie became a couple, the queen allowed them to live together, and Will and Kate were also living together before their marriage but that was not the case for Charles and his serious girlfriends...
And I'd say that the RF held to the old idea that it was OK for a woman to have affairs after her marriage and the production of the "heir and spare".. because marriage gave her status and protection and it was safe for a Prince to carry on such a relationship, discreetly because her being married would mean she was already safely "taken". and in olden days I'm sure the more naïve of the public would be like "Oh Prince So and So can't be doing anyting naughty with Mrs X, she's a married woman"...
Reply With Quote
  #2024  
Old 09-09-2016, 01:44 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,222
No baby boomer will ever be old! Sixty is the new thirty for us, and seventy is only middle age creeping up!

As someone who did live with my future husband in those times, I can remember a few raised eyebrows. However, not every girl in those days went to bed with their boyfriends and I'm sure there were still some suitable aristocratic girls out there in the late 1970s who were in their early twenties without 'pasts' who could have become Prss of Wales, without choosing a rather troubled and extremely naive nineteen year old.
Reply With Quote
  #2025  
Old 09-09-2016, 02:24 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Omaha, United States
Posts: 1,692
To me, the prospect of Charles marrying a young beautiful girl who was a virgin and without the label of having a "past" was the fairy tale dream of the romantic public and the press. I remember my co-workers at the hospital who were in their Fifties and early Sixties, terribly old to me at the time, but which age I now have arrived at ;-), thought this was also a "role model" for the younger generation. Here was a young woman "waiting until marriage" and this is the ground for the long and happy marriage. In the US women's magazines there was also this implication although very tacit.
When the story came out at the time, incorrectly as we all know, of a young blonde woman leaving the Prince's train early in the morning and it was implied that the woman was Diana, my co-workers were a little shocked yet they seemed to accept the story because "it was fairly close to the wedding" (their words). The press seemed to treat it as a "wink-wink" "nudge-nudge", "maybe the future bride isn't as innocent as we portrayed her", but it all rather blew over quickly while the Palace issued a denial.
The groom with his sowing his wild oats before marriage while the bride had to be innocent and virginal was a carry over from past times especially for the eldest and Heir to the Throne in this case. It was delusion, but that was thinking then for Charles and Diana.
Reply With Quote
  #2026  
Old 09-09-2016, 02:24 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
No baby boomer will ever be old! Sixty is the new thirty for us, and seventy is only middle age creeping up!

As someone who did live with my future husband in those times, I can remember a few raised eyebrows. However, not every girl in those days went to bed with their boyfriends and I'm sure there were still some suitable aristocratic girls out there in the late 1970s who were in their early twenties without 'pasts' who could have become Prss of Wales, without choosing a rather troubled and extremely naive nineteen year old.
well Exaclty. If there was tutt-tutting, for ordidnary people tehre woudl certianly be tut-tutting if Charles had tried it.
I'd say that most upper class girls did have a sex life by the time they were inot their 20s. So the closer they were to charles' age, the more likely they were to be ineligbile. and Charles was attracted to Diana. I think she was so sweet and pretty, that he certianly didn't go inot the marriage in a cold blooded spirit. He was fond of her, he didn't know she was troubled. how should he? She came across as a charming sweet inexperienced but grounded young girl. (in the sense that she didnt' seem to hae any airs and graces, was easy going and pleasant, had a nice litlte job and a quiet circle of friends...)
He was harldy to know how messed up she was emotionally, i think that only came out when she was engaged... and married.
Reply With Quote
  #2027  
Old 09-10-2016, 02:32 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
[QUOTE=Mermaid1962;1922388]You must be about my age then, Denville. This is pretty much what I remember from those eras as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post

I'm really an old fossil, as I've been previously told by at least one other poster on these Diana forms.
I meant to say Mermaiid, that I guess I'll just say i was a kid in hte 70s!
Reply With Quote
  #2028  
Old 09-10-2016, 02:41 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrianna View Post
Toworkers were a little shocked yet they seemed to accept the story because "it was fairly close to the wedding" (their words). The press seemed to treat it as a "wink-wink" "nudge-nudge", "maybe the future bride isn't as innocent as we portrayed her", but it all rather blew over quickly while the Palace issued a denial.
The groom with his sowing his wild oats before marriage while the bride had to be innocent and virginal was a carry over from past times especially for the eldest and Heir to the Throne in this case. It was delusion, but that was thinking then for Charles and Diana.
Not sure what you mean by a delusion? But that was the way most upper class and middle class (and probalby most couples) married prior to the later 20th C. Generally unless it was a very strictly religious culture, (where BOTH sexes were meant to remain virginal till marriage), it was OK for the man to have experience but not for the woman. And marriages probalby worked out Ok.. for the most part. Upper class girls were usually allowed a bit of freedom when they had been married and produced some children..

But I think that it was a bad idea for the Diana/Charles marriage in that she was SO young, and inexperienced in general. She didn't seem to have had any serious boyfriends, had little experience of the world, and she hadn't made up for that lack of experience by doing well educationally.
She could have been a virgin - as was considered necessary, and still been a more savvy and educated young woman than she was...
There have been biggish age gaps like 12 years between other modern royal men and their wives, but usually the woman wasn't as young as 19 or 20 and usually seems to have had an education. (For Example Q Mathilde of Belgium is several years younger than Philippe but she was about 26 not 20 when they married).

And another problem I think that was that Diana was not all that willing to learn. Not exactly that, but she was stubborn in her resistance to being "told what to do". She did learn in her own way, but she didnt want to read books, because I think she feared her ignorance or lack of abilty to learn well being exposed. She got cross and resistant when C's aides tried to educate her, and shied away when Charles himself wanted her to share his reading... She did learn her job but she would have probably saved herself some stress at the beginning, had she already been better informed, or had she been willing to do what the aides suggested...
Reply With Quote
  #2029  
Old 09-10-2016, 03:41 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,007
It's more that my beliefs about marriage and sex are seen as "fossilized", although I certainly don't believe in different sexual standards for men and women. I just don't comment on Charles' and Diana's extramarital relationships because I'm usually accused of being too old-fashioned. No one needs that. BTW my birth year is part of my username.


[QUOTE=Denville;1922796]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
You must be about my age then, Denville. This is pretty much what I remember from those eras as well.
I meant to say Mermaiid, that I guess I'll just say i was a kid in hte 70s!
Reply With Quote
  #2030  
Old 09-10-2016, 05:48 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
But it's not really their extra marital affairs that are at issue here? Its the fact of Charles being expected to marry a virgin.. which WAS the case in the 1970s, and IMO its not fair to blame him for going along with it and believing that if he fell for a girl who had a lively past, he woud have a hard time getting permssion to marry her..and the papers would problaby zestfully go on about it.
I think he knew he had to marry a virgin which basicaly meant looking at girls who were several years younger than him.. and his preference IMO was a for an experienced woman who was his own age or a bit older, becuase he was rather shy and awkward.. and I dont think he really wanted a shy young thing. I think that Diana was "bouncy" enough, on her good days to convince him that she was not a shy little mouse that he would have to look after...but modest and young enough to please the public and his family..
And she was very pretty and sweet and seemed to be really fond of him.. so I think taht all those factors made him feel "well I know I can't marry someone of 30 witht a past, and so if I have to pick a young girl, Diana is almost perfect..."
so while he wasn't exaclty in love with her, he was fond of her, and charmed by her and "willing to fall in love"...
But I think that over the time of thte courtship and perhaps after they got engaged, he began to get a bit nervous and wondered if she was really as down to earth and cheery as she had originally seemed..and perhaps he began to feel that he was "pushing himself" to be in love... and so he had doubts..]
But what coudl he do? He could not IMO stand out against the fact that he was now over 30 and it was time to get married.. and that the public liked Diana and if he ditched her, he had to start all over again...
I think it is unfair to blame him for being fooled by Di's seeming to be a perfect bride who shared his interests.. or for going along wit the convention of the time that his wife could not have a past and that he coudl not "live with a girl" to get to know her...
Reply With Quote
  #2031  
Old 09-10-2016, 05:52 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,669
Is it actually anywhere written in stone that Charles' bride had to be virginal? I've heard that it was assumed that was the case and the press sure did a number suggesting a pure, white, virginal and untouched Shy Di of 19.

Is it really written somewhere or are we assuming this was the way it was. Curious minds want to know.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #2032  
Old 09-10-2016, 07:12 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,007
I think that it was just social convention, not something that was in a rule book for picking future princesses.
Reply With Quote
  #2033  
Old 09-10-2016, 07:14 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Is it actually anywhere written in stone that Charles' bride had to be virginal? I've heard that it was assumed that was the case and the press sure did a number suggesting a pure, white, virginal and untouched Shy Di of 19.

Is it really written somewhere or are we assuming this was the way it was. Curious minds want to know.
What does written in stone mean? Of course there is not a law or a rule book, but as I've said and one or 2 seem to agree with me, at the time, yes it was generally felt that the future Queen had to have no past. There is no written constitution in the UK and there is no law saying "the Princess of Wales has to be a virgin on her marriage..."
But there are lots of things in the UK and other societies that aren't "written down" but they are conventions that a majority of people adhere to, at least in theory or give lip service to.
I can remember the 1970s, so can Mermaid and others. As I've said at tedious (I'm sure) length, ordinary people were only just beginning to live together then. Safe reliable contraception had come in with the 60s and that meant that for the first time, young women could engage in "easy guilt free sex".. without the fear of pregnancy...So when Charles started dating around the late 60s, for the first time a Prince of Wales was dating "nice girls" who were now free to have premarital relationships... Prior to that, nice girls DIDNT do this, so had Charles been around dating in say the 1940s, his upper crust girlfrends would have been almost certainly virgins.
Conservative people still disapproved of the trend for young people to go on holidays together and sleep together or to live together in trial marriages..and generaly royals are behind the times with social trends.
People were behaving more freely, but for Charles, he was still stuck in the 50s.. in that it was seen as allowable for him to have his fun but no one wanted the future Queens exes being persuaded to talk to the press about her past, or for Charles to set up house with his latest girlfriend...
I dot think I'm that old but I can remember a time when it was felt that a woman having a sex life meant she was promiscuous, whereas a man was "just being a man".
In fact in around the early 90s when Edward got together with Sophie, the queen allowed them to lvie together in Buck Palace, and there were conservative religious commentators who disapproved...
Reply With Quote
  #2034  
Old 09-10-2016, 07:37 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,669
Gotcha and what you've said makes a lot of sense but I do think that by the time the 70s rolled around, after the major societal changes of the 60s, dating which included intimate relationships were more the norm than not. Maybe it wasn't that way in the upper circles in the UK but all I have to go on is what I experienced myself during that era.

What it boils down to really is that Diana was the perfect Princess Bride on paper and at first, it seemed to both of them to be a solid, grand idea to go ahead with the marriage. I would wager my last corn flake that had they lived together for a year before marriage, the wedding would never have happened. I advised all of my kids to live with their intended before thinking about marriage. It worked.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #2035  
Old 09-10-2016, 08:19 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
I think that its not really that simple. People live together, nowadays, spend years courting or sharing a house and a life and is the divorce rate any lower? No.
Of course it helps to know your intended well, but I tink esp if one party wants to get married very badly, they will try their damnedest and make sure that the marriage takes place.. even if it ends in divorce some time later.

The thing is, we're not talking about upper class circles in the UK.
From what I know, they did often live together as well, by the later 70s...
but Charles was not just upper class. He was the future King,. he was a public figure. So he was held to a differnet standard. Have you heard the phrase that the "royal family are ourselves but behaving better?"
I can't recall who said it, but that's what the idea was, that the RF were people who in return for thteir privileges had to at least TRY to adhere to a higher standard of behavior.
So divorce for the POW or King was out.. though there was no legal ban on it. The only King who got a divorce was George I and he never remarried so he didn't break the rule really...
So Chalres knew that his marriage was supposed to last.. that he was not allowed to get a divorce..and that he could not just marry anyone, she had to be suitable in terms of breeding, upbringing and hopefully fertility.
Had he been just Charles Earl of X, he could have married the girl in the corner shop, even if he just liked her for her looks.. and if the marriage went pear shaped he could get a divorce.. or he could have lived with her outside marriage. But Charles POW in return for his privileges, had to stick to certain standards that were beginning to be seen as old fashioned.
It was the same with Ed VIII and Mrs Simpson. There was no legal bar to his marrying a divorced woman. The only legal prohibition was on his marrying a Roman Catholic. And it wasn't unknown at the time for upper class people and even middle class ones to get divorced, though it wasn't that common. but Edw as King was expected to go by the stricter standards of the C of E.. that he could not marry a woman with "2 husbands living" and that if he married a "suitable bride", he could not get a divorce.
Reply With Quote
  #2036  
Old 09-10-2016, 08:51 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Oh my, I have socks older than some of you. It was the year of my 75th birthday. But with that being said, the standards were there. She had to be a pristine, aristocratic and no baggage bride. She also had to be fertile. There was an exam for that. Their real problem was that she wanted a marriage and all that went with it, he was fine with that to a point. He had a mistress, lots of princes had mistresses. The problem was he truly loved his. And all the other stuff is collateral damage. No, woman wants to be married to a man who loves someone else. Yes, she could have been Queen Alexandra and ignored everything, but she was immature and insecure.
Reply With Quote
  #2037  
Old 09-10-2016, 09:12 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Oh my, I have socks older than some of you. It was the year of my 75th birthday. But with that being said, the standards were there. She had to be a pristine, aristocratic and no baggage bride. She also had to be fertile. There was an exam for that. Their real problem was that she wanted a marriage and all that went with it, he was fine with that to a point. insecure.
THere isn't an exam for fertility. All that tests can do is see that you have the appropriate parts and that they work OK.. but it does not guarantee that you will have children.
Of course they hoped she would be fertile, that's one reason they wanted a young wife.. but if she hadn't been, if she and C had married for 10 years and had no children.. that just would have to be lived with.
And the problem was not that he had a mistress.. It was a part of it, but only a part. The main problem was that Diana wasn't what she appeared to be. She was volatile, nervous, over sensitive and also very stubborn.
I think that Charles could have fallen in love with Diana, maybe not in the same way that he loved Camila, but it would have been OK.. However the problem was that within a few months of the marriage, she was miserable, sick and depressed and it was obvious that she was not coping with married life or with being a Princess.
She abruptly gave up seeming to enjoy the things she'd enjoyed, it had seemed before her marriage. She was losing weight, bulimic and while she still was able to dazzle the public, she was very difficult in private. She feared all the public attention, but in a way she responded to it.. it gave her something that she realised was special... and that she could use to make people happy and she got something back from them. But she was still afraid of the press and the whole hoopla.
Charles tried to cope with her, but he realised that she was very depressed and unwell.. but I'm sure the more jealous she got, the more she pushed him to think longingly of Camilla...
Reply With Quote
  #2038  
Old 09-11-2016, 06:27 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by lala22 View Post
Diana was a wonderful Princess of Wales, irreplaceable and precious, however there's no way I'll ever believe she really loved Prince Charles.

Ever hear of the saying, 'You protest too much my dear'? Well, Prince Charles protested his lack of love too much and Diana insisted on her undying love too much, and there may have more truth in the reverse than anyone suspects.

If Charles was not Prince of Wales, would Diana have ever been interested in him? In real life, has anyone ever seen anyone like Diana marrying a common man like Charles, with the exception of Julia Roberts and Lyle Lovitt of course? Charles is really too geeky and prissy to inspire such undying passion.

So I believe Diana was in love with the idea of marrying the Prince of Wales, she was in love with the idea of being the Princess of Wales, she was in love with the idea of the Prince of Wales being in love with her, she was in love with the idea of being the queen of hearts, cherished and beloved by all. And she deserved all of that, but not because she had a deep and profound love for Charles.
You believe! That's all that is really!
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #2039  
Old 09-11-2016, 06:29 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 245
Here we go again!

I thought these two split up years ago?!

Are they only getting divorced now?

Princess Diana's rock selling family home to fund divorce | Celebrity News | Showbiz & TV | Daily Express
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #2040  
Old 09-11-2016, 06:34 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
You believe! That's all that is really!
so someone "geeky" can't inspire passion?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales, princess diana


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charles and Diana Picture Thread Josefine Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 434 08-12-2015 06:00 PM
Charles and Diana: Visit to Italy - 1985 jun5 Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 57 09-02-2012 10:35 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece josephine-charlotte kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week pierre casiraghi portugal prince bernhard prince charles princess charlene outfits princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathilde's daytime fashion queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania fashion royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:21 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises