The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2201  
Old 03-25-2017, 07:10 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,670
Of course Diana had friends but with the decision to marry Charles and take on the role of Princess of Wales, she found out soon after she became engaged that her freedom to just go "off with the girls" wasn't really on the cards for her.
With the ensuing marriage and responsibilities, I don't think she was in close contact with her friends from her single days overly much and, like Charles, those contacts became a thing of the past during the early years of the marriage. When thinking about close friends of Diana, one that easily does come to mind is Rosa Monkton. When Rosa and her husband lost their second child during pregnancy, Diana offered a burial spot in her garden at KP for a discreet and private internment. Diana and Rosa remained very close friends until Diana's death.

Diana, and the baby buried in her garden | Daily Mail Online

I don't think Diana ever did decide to "get out" of the marriage. I sincerely believed that what she wanted the most was a reconciliation with Charles and to move forward from there but as the problems persisted, the chances of that ever happening became more and more a remote chance. She was between a rock and hard place when it came to walking away from that marriage and it wasn't until the Queen advised that a divorce should be sought after as soon as possible after the Panorama interview that Diana knew it was totally over.

Diana was very headstrong when she made her mind up to something and that didn't serve her very well in her adult life IMO.
__________________

__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #2202  
Old 03-25-2017, 07:35 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,917
Just a bit of a timeline here viz Charles/Diana and Anna Wallace, for my own satisfaction!

Anna Wallace married Johnnie Hesketh at the Guards Chapel in London in December 1980. (Diana turned up to watch pushing a child in a stroller, according to Sally Bedell Smith in her biography of Diana, Page 108.)

According to the book 'Diana Her True Story' et al' Diana met Charles again in the summer of 1980, having met him earlier in a field during a shoot in Sarah's company when she was 16. This time they had a long conversation while enjoying a barbecue. The occasion was a house party at Petworth and it was the summer of 1980. (July?)

This was the occasion at which Diana expressed her sympathies to Charles on Lord Mountbatten's death, and she later stated he 'sort of' leaped on her in response! After the house party at Petworth came an invitation to stay with a party on Britannia for Cowes Week. I think Cowes Week is at the end of the Season, summer.

Diana stated that it was July when she saw Charles at Petworth. She never mentioned going to a polo ball and seeing a lip-locked Charles and Camilla.

According to Sarah Bradford's biography of Diana, Anna Wallace publicly quarrelled with Charles at the end of a party held in June at Windsor Castle for the Queen Mother's 80th birthday (August 1980) Charles had spent the evening with Camiiia and others and Anna left the party.

She also publicly quarrelled with him at a polo ball held at Stowell Park, the home of Lord and Lady Vestey, that summer. Anna was furious that Charles was dancing with Camilla in his arms almost all evening. To Charles's astonishment Anna hissed 'Nobody treats me like this! Even you!' And she left. End of Wallace/Charles romance, which apparently he regretted, though not so much that he could keep away from Camilla.

However, in none of these biographies have I found any evidence of Diana having been present.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2203  
Old 03-25-2017, 08:09 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,373
Diana knew the BRF though...as a child she used to go over to play with the younger Royals.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2204  
Old 03-25-2017, 08:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,917
It's debatable though as to how much knowledge Diana would have gained about the BRF from a few play dates with Andrew and Edward in the 1960s, arranged through their parents.

I have read that neither Diana nor Charles S liked having to go to Sandringham for the said playtimes because of the formal atmosphere there, (and probably being told to mind their Ps and Qs a thousand times, before they went.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2205  
Old 03-25-2017, 08:43 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,373
Oh I think she would of known a little about the BRF just due to her station in life and the schools she attended.

She would of known a bit more about the lifestyle of the upper classes that circle around the BRF than someone like Kate would of for example. I say this because some folks seem to think she was unfamiliar with the BRF as far as how they lived etc.



LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2206  
Old 03-25-2017, 10:24 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,917
Presumably some of those who witnessed the goings on at the Cirencester Polo Club Ball in 1980 were upper class. Though not so tolerant as APB, it seems.

Anna Wallace wasn't present but it was at this ball (the last of the season) that Charles, who shared a table with the Parker Bowles that evening, was on the dance floor French kissing Camilla the whole night, according to Jane Ward, Assistant Manager of the Guards Polo Club. This was in front of Andrew Parker Bowles and friends of his.

According to Jane 'Some (guests) were embarrassed and shocked and upset that the whole thing was so blatant.' It was at this ball that APB made the remarks about his wife and Charles being such good friends.

Yes, quite the little gentleman was Charles on this occasion and Camilla so very discreet and tactful.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2207  
Old 03-26-2017, 12:05 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 571
Jane Ward was also an ex-girlfriend of the Prince. Maybe it happened exactly as she said and maybe she was not an entirely objective source.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2208  
Old 03-26-2017, 01:11 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,917
This account was taken from 'Charles and Camilla' by Giles Brandreth. Brandreth also wrote an admired biography of the Queen and Prince Phiip, whom he knows. He moves in Royal and semi Royal circles and carefully sources and footnotes his work. He's also not unsympathetic to Charles and Camilla. After the book was published either of the Parker Bowles or the Prince could have sued Brandreth, and/or his publishers and/or Jane Ward. The fact that none of them did or threatened to do so speaks volumes about this incident, IMO.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2209  
Old 03-26-2017, 04:04 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
This account was taken from 'Charles and Camilla' by Giles Brandreth.
I went on to Amazon and read some of the reviews, coming across this which I think is a perfect summation:
"This isn't a fast read. Nor is it uncritically admiring of anyone, including Charles and Camilla. On the subject of Charles' ill-starred first marriage, it's nowhere near as comprehensive and gifted as Tina Brown's The Diana Chronicles. But Brandreth leaves us with a portrait of Prince Charles as an intelligent, sensitive, dutiful boy who didn't respond as well as his sturdier sister to the often harsh regimens of his school days. Who grew into a dutiful and complex young man, still oddly diffident with women, and working hard to fulfill the duties of the unique lifelong role he was born into. Although it ended in tears - and worse - he began his first marriage in good faith, retained some affection and concern for Diana long after the marriage died, and was always an involved father."
The key sentence for me is: "Who grew into a dutiful and complex young man, still oddly diffident with women, and working hard to fulfill the duties of the unique lifelong role he was born into." Doesn't that about sum it up?

EDIT: I should have included the reviewer's summation of Camilla. Very charming:
"The portrait of Camilla is less complete, but then she wasn't famous from birth so information is harder to obtain. Brandreth presents her as a naturally happy person who likes to have fun. She's intelligent but not an intellectual, and is devoted to horses, hunting, gardening, and her close-knit family. And, for much of her life, to the Prince of Wales. Camilla grew up in a close and happy family, and her stability, warmth and optimism no doubt play a strong counterpoint to some of Charles' more skittish tendencies. She sounds like a good person to have as a friend: ready to have fun, loyal, and unlikely to make a fuss about a little mud tracked into the house.

"In Camilla, from the beginning, Charles found his soulmate. Brandreth eventually gives us a portrait of a deep and strong relationship that has survived against all odds. Whether you like these two people or not, they clearly belong together. I wonder what would have happened if they could have married each other first."
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #2210  
Old 03-26-2017, 04:41 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 6,949
People picture Diana as this innocent preschool teacher who cleaned her sisters flat, when she wed. And while she was, she wasn't blind.

She grew up the daughter of an Earl. Her sister dated Charles. And her grandmother knew those circles quite well. To think Diana didn't know dust she was getting into is false. Ruth is said to have told her that princes have mistresses, just what they do.

Diana would also know too well the rules and etiquette. It would not na shock as much as a middle class commoner like Kate.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2211  
Old 03-26-2017, 06:51 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
People picture Diana as this innocent preschool teacher who cleaned her sisters flat, when she wed. And while she was, she wasn't blind.

She grew up the daughter of an Earl. Her sister dated Charles. And her grandmother knew those circles quite well. To think Diana didn't know dust she was getting into is false. Ruth is said to have told her that princes have mistresses, just what they do.

Diana would also know too well the rules and etiquette. It would not na shock as much as a middle class commoner like Kate.
I think she didn't know that much about the royal/upper class social cirlces because she wasn't into social life that much. She did go to some parties and balls and met Charles at Althorp when he was dating Sarh but overall I think that she mostly socialised iwht her own little gang of flatmates and friends from school etc and didn't pay too much attenteiton to anything outside her own life. However I am sure she must have heard gossip about charles' on and off affair with Camilla, and that people have affairs.. its nto exactly rocket science. So I cant imagine she was really so unaware of Camilla -. However I think she tended ot just ignore other people's lives if they weren't close to her and just was absorbed in her own little world. And when she dated Charles, she probably knew that he and Cam had been lovers but she managed to blind herself to it and didn't worry that it might mean that Charles had loving feelings for Camilla that might go on after his marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
According to Jane 'Some (guests) were embarrassed and shocked and upset that the whole thing was so blatant.' It was at this ball that APB made the remarks about his wife and Charles being such good friends.

Yes, quite the little gentleman was Charles on this occasion and Camilla so very discreet and tactful.
Possibly Camilla was indiscreet on this occasion, but she may have reasoned that she was among friends, and that everyone knew of her affair with Charles and there were no cameras or outsiders present. And Andrew PB problaby wasnt' exactly discreet iwht HIS affairs,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Of course Diana had friends but with the decision to marry Charles and take on the role of Princess of Wales, she found out soon after she became engaged that her freedom to just go "off with the girls" wasn't really on the cards for her.

Diana, and the baby buried in her garden | Daily Mail Online

I don't think Diana ever did decide to "get out" of the marriage. I sincerely believed that what she wanted the most was a reconciliation with Charles and to move forward from there but as the problems persisted, the chances of that ever happening became more and more a remote chance. She was between a rock and hard place when it came to walking away from that marriage and it wasn't until the Queen advised that a divorce should be sought after as soon as possible after the Panorama interview that Diana knew it was totally over.

Diana was very headstrong when she made her mind up to something and that didn't serve her very well in her adult life IMO.
I think she veered a lot. I think at times she wanted out, wanted to get out of the whole wretched mess, find a new partner and maybe have another child, and not have to do royal duties, mix with the RF or put up with the increasingly unhappy relationship with Charles. but her children of course tied her into the marriage, and she did IMO always have feelings for Charles and hoped that somehow, maybe some way, they could reconcile.

but her behaviour, in doing Panorama was pretty stupid if she was realistically hoping to get him back. It was hardly a good idea to do something that was going to infuriate the queen, to question his fitness to be king, to be generally unkind about the RF on TV.. She must have known that, as she did the intervew in secret..yet then she acted as if surprised and shocked that the queen finally lost patience and said "Get a divorce".
I think that she DID remian in touch iwht her girlfirends in her early married years but of course she had royal duties, she was not able to just go out for a coffee, and they too were getting married and having babies. So I think hr freindships with them became more problemaitic to keep up. And she did also tend to have rows with people as she became more unhappy, and volatile..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2212  
Old 04-02-2017, 10:55 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
If that is true, she never would have initiated the Morton book for one. What were her motives?. She had it in her power to maintain a respectful public demeanor regardless of what was taking place in her private life. She chose otherwise. Why?



Diana was endlessly parading her sons in front of cameras claiming she was giving them a 'normal' upbringing. (I recall a photo-call at a McDonald's). So much in what Diana did was an appeal to 'the common people'. She presented herself as 'one of them', not one of the BRF, when she effectively sniggered at the lifestyle of The Queen and her extended family op Balmoral, at Sandringham, etc. The message was clear, and potentially absorbed with such completeness by her sons that we see what some deem 'work-shy' royals, unwilling to shoulder royal life. Where did that come from if not from the mother, since the father is so obviously a workaholic, as is the grandmother?



I agree with Iluvbertie. What took place was a function of what the press was engining in with the help of Tony Blair.



Exacerbated by the public's ott and extremely inappropriate demands placed on those two boys. Should never have happened, that long walk in public. Never.



What do you base this belief on? Curious. The evidence of the Panorama Interview would suggest otherwise.
Diana and Charles pretty much agreed on how the children should be raised. They didn't want William and Harry to be two spoiled Princes, who only lived a life behind palace walls. Yes, Diana too them to McDonalds, amusement parks, the circus and many other places. How dare she be a mother to those boys!

Diana was young. She like living in the city and really didn't care for the stuffy world of Balmoral. Although, it's a fact that Diana loved being at Sandringham House. She was born on the estate and loved taking long walks there.

Both Charles and Diana tried to make sure the boys understood that they would have major responsibilities as members of the royal family. William and Harry grew up knowing who they were and how serious royal duty is. They're not spoiled, rude and major screw ups today. That's because they were raised well. Although, they do have some difficulties with the media. That's due to the years of turbulence they're parents had back in the day.

The 1995 interview was done at the time when both Charles and Diana was at a bad point in their marriage. They put each other through a lot of pain and hurt. It's was beyond stupid for her to do the interview, but I think that was due to hurt people hurt people. She wasn't trying to destroy the monarchy, but hit her husband below the belt. She latter regretted doing the interview.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #2213  
Old 04-02-2017, 11:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,112
Anyone who thinks that William and Harry are doing a good job as royals should take off their rose coloured glasses and have another look.

They have both had major mistakes in their lives - e.g. William's recent skiing holiday where he publicly made a fool of himself with a woman who wasn't his wife. He has no idea about appropriate behaviour. He never looks like he wants to be on royal engagements - nor does Kate. Harry does that a bit better.

They are all three of them lazy. They do virtually nothing. William has the excuse of a very part-time job while Kate has the excuse of a part-time mother (nanny and other staff do most of the work) but Harry has no excuse for not doing as many engagements as his uncles or even his aunt as he hasn't had a job for nearly 2 years.

IF William and Harry aren't rude etc that is down to those who raised them - their boarding schools, not their parents. They spent less than 12 weeks a year with their parents - about 6 weeks a year with each one after the age of 8 as they spent the rest of the time at boarding school largely being raised by the other boys there (if you have ever been to boarding school you will understand that the greatest influence on you are the other students - not the teachers and certainly not your parents who are always in 'holiday mode' with you due to seeing so little of you)

As for Diana taking the boys to places - great - but she also made sure that the press were there to show off 'how great a mum am I - look how I am taking the boys to normal places' but ... Charles also took them to places e.g. painting balling (source is a comment one of them made to a member of the public many years later) but without the press there to show him as a loving father (wouldn't have sold anyway but he was much more interested in spending time with the boys privately while Diana used them as props to sell herself - part of her manipulation of the press and the public).

The Morton book - who knows why Diana was involved in that and then lied about it (just one of the many lies she told to the press and public). What did she hope to achieve? If she hoped to have Charles return to her that was never going to happen after than. I was surprised that she wasn't sent packing the day after that book came out - any other man would have turfed her out immediately and without a penny either.

But to the Diana fanatics it is the 'truth' and they refuse to even consider Charles' version of events.

The Panorama interview was doubly cruel - saying Charles wasn't up to the job of being King was bad enough along with saying she wanted to be Queen of People's Hearts (both treasonous in themselves) but doing it on The Queen and Philip's wedding anniversary shows how cruel she really was.

She committed treason and admitted it. That is why the Queen ordered the divorce. Previous wives who committed treason were executed and lost custody of the children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2214  
Old 04-03-2017, 12:02 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,295
Dman, you have taken this (my) response from another thread so the context is lost. Not sure I agree with a poster doing this to someone else's text, but....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Diana and Charles pretty much agreed on how the children should be raised. They didn't want William and Harry to be two spoiled Princes, who only lived a life behind palace walls. Yes, Diana took them to McDonalds, amusement parks, the circus and many other places. How dare she be a mother to those boys!
As often happens, two divergent points are being conflated here: Diana and Charles agreeing that the two boys would not be spoiled is one thing. Subjecting the boys to photo-ops while engaged in 'normal' activities is quite another. The latter is an issue of placing the boys front-and-center in front of the cameras and crowds for (Diana's) parental PR purposes. Charles never did such. His activities with his sons were always out-of-sight of the cameras, except for the photo-ops on family skiing holidays, etc. a la the norm of other European royal families.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Diana was young. She liked living in the city
I don't get the pairing of these two factoids. One can be 'young' and still appreciate, and even like, country living, as well as city living. The one does not preclude the other. In fact, Diana did the two (city and country) when she lived at Highgrove on the weekends and commuted to London during the week. Or have I got that wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
and really didn't care for the stuffy world of Balmoral.
So 'the country' you mean is Balmoral. That you know she did not care for life at Balmoral, and that she thought it was 'stuffy', is an indication that Diana was doing a lot of talking about the BRF. She was disrespecting the lifestyle not simply of her in-laws in a difficult marriage, but of The Queen and her family (what is the dividing line between institution and family in this instance?). My point (from the other thread) is that Diana was bringing the BRF down (and potentially the institution) with her incessant tittle-tattle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Although, it's a fact that Diana loved being at Sandringham House. She was born on the estate and loved taking long walks there.
Ah so. Didn't know that, so she did like 'the country'. She didn't like the BRF, and maybe Charles?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Both Charles and Diana tried to make sure the boys understood that they would have major responsibilities as members of the royal family. William and Harry grew up knowing who they were and how serious royal duty is.
I assume this is your rebuttal to my statement that the sons are perceived (by some) as work-shy royals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
They're not spoiled, rude and major screw ups today.
That's your opinion. What these men really are will be forever an unknown since the BRF really does maintain silence (if only Diana had been so inclined).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
That's because they were raised well.
We can assume good intentions. What these men absorbed as children, and how it shaped them, only they know. 'Raised well' is always relative. It depends on context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Although, they do have some difficulties with the media. That's due to the years of turbulence they're parents had back in the day.
For sure, but I'd put a lot of it (as well) to the photo-ops Diana subjected her sons to while she was showing off her parenting style. (As well as the searing experience of the very public funeral where they were forced to be watched by multitudes). As a parent of young children I cannot fathom what Diana thought she was doing placing those two children so much in front of the camera. I assume it was the times back then and a lack of understanding regarding what was healthy. In that, Diana was just of her times, though I do note that Charles did not so engage the media.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
The 1995 interview was done at the time when both Charles and Diana was at a bad point in their marriage. They put each other through a lot of pain and hurt. It was beyond stupid for her to do the interview, but I think that was due to hurt people hurt people. She wasn't trying to destroy the monarchy, but hit her husband below the belt.
Diana did the interview because of James Hewitt going public regarding their affair, and because of the police threatening legal action against Diana for stalking a married man. The rest was just smoke-and-mirrors, distraction onto Charles rather than herself. She'd done the same with the Morton book. Prior to the Morton book she knew her affairs were going to be coming to light in the press, she was becoming an issue around then in the newspapers, so she deflected attention onto the 'stuffy' BRF and the crowning claim, her victim-hood. How else to 'explain away' her infidelities? make it Charles' fault. Panorama was more of the same slight-of-hand deflection away from her 'sins'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
She later regretted doing the interview.
Quite so. It cost her the marriage (her social standing) and becoming Queen. Pretty dire consequences for her. I feel so very sorry for her. I can never come to this part of her story without pain for her. She lost everything that really mattered to her. I cringe when I think of what she went through in those ensuing years.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #2215  
Old 04-03-2017, 12:16 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,935
As the Morton book resulted in their separation, so too did the Panorama Interview result in an expedited divorce. In both cases, especially the royal order for them to divorce, I don't believe it was the result Diana expected and I think she was shocked at the reality of becoming divorced, not just from her husband, but the she, just like many other divorcee's sharing custody, would be excluded from large parts of her children's lives.

There would be public appearances made that she had no say about and was certainly not part of. Worse, someone else would be preparing her sons for their lives as royal adolescents and adults. While she was not cut off from her children, she was cut off from their lifestyle. To know that she did that to herself in that it was an unexpected consequence, must have both hurt and confused her.

When all is said and done and, (cliche) and awful lot has been said and done, the innate love was still there. We see that in Charles reaction to Diana's death with staggering depth of his personal grief. It took everyone by surprise. The was the Mr cold and cruel of the tabloids obviously grieving over the death of his ex-wife, a situation many found hard to believe in the face of the evil campaign waged by the media. It was there for all to see and those who bothered to look saw a grief-stricken man who, just like a normal person, grieved.

There was not a hero or heroines much less a villain or villainess, just an ordinary couple who made a mess of their lives in the full glare of the international media.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2216  
Old 04-03-2017, 12:42 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Morton book - who knows why Diana was involved in that and then lied about it (just one of the many lies she told to the press and public). What did she hope to achieve? If she hoped to have Charles return to her that was never going to happen after that.
Exactly so. By that point, though, I think Diana's connection to 'reality' was tenuous. The adulation of the crowds had turned her head completely. She saw herself as a power unto herself. The Morton book was pure self preservation at any cost (to others).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I was surprised that she wasn't sent packing the day after that book came out - any other man would have turfed her out immediately and without a penny either.
Have to agree. Was it because it had to be the Queen who gave permission and she wouldn't? I know it's been written that Charles was lobbying the Queen for a divorce pretty consistently up until she finally agreed after the Panorama interview.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
But to the Diana fanatics it is the 'truth' and they refuse to even consider Charles' version of events.
Yes, never seeing what she did as reprehensible. With never a consideration as to why Diana needed to get the onus onto Charles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Panorama interview was doubly cruel - saying Charles wasn't up to the job of being King was bad enough along with saying she wanted to be Queen of People's Hearts (both treasonous in themselves) but doing it on The Queen and Philip's wedding anniversary shows how cruel she really was.
One gets the impression she felt she was untouchable. Her reality was her adoring fans. A bubble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
She committed treason and admitted it. That is why the Queen ordered the divorce. Previous wives who committed treason were executed and lost custody of the children.
She went too far. Saddest story.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #2217  
Old 04-03-2017, 03:46 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Dman, you have taken this (my) response from another thread so the context is lost. Not sure I agree with a poster doing this to someone else's text, but....



As often happens, two divergent points are being conflated here: Diana and Charles agreeing that the two boys would not be spoiled is one thing. Subjecting the boys to photo-ops while engaged in 'normal' activities is quite another. The latter is an issue of placing the boys front-and-center in front of the cameras and crowds for (Diana's) parental PR purposes. Charles never did such. His activities with his sons were always out-of-sight of the cameras, except for the photo-ops on family skiing holidays, etc. a la the norm of other European royal families.



I don't get the pairing of these two factoids. One can be 'young' and still appreciate, and even like, country living, as well as city living. The one does not preclude the other. In fact, Diana did the two (city and country) when she lived at Highgrove on the weekends and commuted to London during the week. Or have I got that wrong?



So 'the country' you mean is Balmoral. That you know she did not care for life at Balmoral, and that she thought it was 'stuffy', is an indication that Diana was doing a lot of talking about the BRF. She was disrespecting the lifestyle not simply of her in-laws in a difficult marriage, but of The Queen and her family (what is the dividing line between institution and family in this instance?). My point (from the other thread) is that Diana was bringing the BRF down (and potentially the institution) with her incessant tittle-tattle.



Ah so. Didn't know that, so she did like 'the country'. She didn't like the BRF, and maybe Charles?



I assume this is your rebuttal to my statement that the sons are perceived (by some) as work-shy royals.



That's your opinion. What these men really are will be forever an unknown since the BRF really does maintain silence (if only Diana had been so inclined).



We can assume good intentions. What these men absorbed as children, and how it shaped them, only they know. 'Raised well' is always relative. It depends on context.



For sure, but I'd put a lot of it (as well) to the photo-ops Diana subjected her sons to while she was showing off her parenting style. (As well as the searing experience of the very public funeral where they were forced to be watched by multitudes). As a parent of young children I cannot fathom what Diana thought she was doing placing those two children so much in front of the camera. I assume it was the times back then and a lack of understanding regarding what was healthy. In that, Diana was just of her times, though I do note that Charles did not so engage the media.



Diana did the interview because of James Hewitt going public regarding their affair, and because of the police threatening legal action against Diana for stalking a married man. The rest was just smoke-and-mirrors, distraction onto Charles rather than herself. She'd done the same with the Morton book. Prior to the Morton book she knew her affairs were going to be coming to light in the press, she was becoming an issue around then in the newspapers, so she deflected attention onto the 'stuffy' BRF and the crowning claim, her victim-hood. How else to 'explain away' her infidelities? make it Charles' fault. Panorama was more of the same slight-of-hand deflection away from her 'sins'.



Quite so. It cost her the marriage (her social standing) and becoming Queen. Pretty dire consequences for her. I feel so very sorry for her. I can never come to this part of her story without pain for her. She lost everything that really mattered to her. I cringe when I think of what she went through in those ensuing years.
Lady Nimue, Charles didn't mind Diana taking the boys to McDonalds and to amusement parks. He wanted his sons to have a different life than he had, so did Diana. Diana wasn't trying to make herself look like the better parent.

Diana did admire and respect The Queen. Yes, she did love Charles. The royals are pretty much like the rest of us. Pretty much all families have their ups and downs. It's just that the Windsors ups and downs were fodder for the media to play up and make money off of. The media pretty much see the royals as actors in a soap. They don't see them as human beings. With feelings.

It's okay for a member of the family to not like a house and family activities. The royal family don't drag you by the ears and try to make you love horses, kilts, hunting and such. There was nothing wrong with Diana not liking being at Balmoral. That was in no way disrespecting the royals and their country activities. It's not for everybody.


Yes, I do think William and Harry were raised well. Sure, they have had some problems with coming to terms with their future destiny. I think with age, maturity and time, they have grown into some fine young men and they're embarking on a new life as senior royals.

People should be grateful that they're not some rotten playboy Princes, with a different woman on their arms every week. They could've been into drugs, partying all day and have kids in the side. That didn't happen, so let's count some blessings.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #2218  
Old 04-03-2017, 04:22 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,112
I have no problem with Diana not liking country life in general or Balmoral in particular. I do have a problem with her lying to Charles and saying she did like it - until she had the rings on her fingers and then told him on the honeymoon.

I have no problem with Diana taking the kids to places like McDonalds. I do have a problem with her contacting the press beforehand to ensure that they were there to take photos of her being the perfect mother. That is in fact evidence of the opposite - using them as props for her own PR purposes rather than just take them - as Charles did - for the fun of being with them.

Yes their boarding schools have done a good job with raising them - to be men who don't work or have any understanding of the concept of work (typical of many of those who go to Eton which teaches its boys that they are the elite of society and should be its rulers). It is a pity they were never taught the concept of 'servant leadership' where the idea is that to be leaders a person has to serve those they lead. William is very much still a playboy.

These men aren't that young anymore either. They are in their 30s (to truly young people - teenagers - they are 'over-the-hill' as they are in their 30s and balding as well - hardly attractive or examples of hard working people) They aren't role models to the next generation which they should be.

I would say both Diana and Charles failed as parents - one used them as PR props while the other was too involved in his own personal issues to spend much time with them. Even during the six weeks a year they spent with their father they spent more of it with their nanny.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2219  
Old 04-03-2017, 04:50 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I have no problem with Diana not liking country life in general or Balmoral in particular. I do have a problem with her lying to Charles and saying she did like it - until she had the rings on her fingers and then told him on the honeymoon.

I have no problem with Diana taking the kids to places like McDonalds. I do have a problem with her contacting the press beforehand to ensure that they were there to take photos of her being the perfect mother. That is in fact evidence of the opposite - using them as props for her own PR purposes rather than just take them - as Charles did - for the fun of being with them.

Yes their boarding schools have done a good job with raising them - to be men who don't work or have any understanding of the concept of work (typical of many of those who go to Eton which teaches its boys that they are the elite of society and should be its rulers). It is a pity they were never taught the concept of 'servant leadership' where the idea is that to be leaders a person has to serve those they lead. William is very much still a playboy.

These men aren't that young anymore either. They are in their 30s (to truly young people - teenagers - they are 'over-the-hill' as they are in their 30s and balding as well - hardly attractive or examples of hard working people) They aren't role models to the next generation which they should be.

I would say both Diana and Charles failed as parents - one used them as PR props while the other was too involved in his own personal issues to spend much time with them. Even during the six weeks a year they spent with their father they spent more of it with their nanny.
Diana was raised in the country. I'm sure there was some aspects she liked about Balmoral. Let's be honest though, after hearing all those bagpipes going on and on, I'm sure there comes a point where one start thinking about stuffing those pipes down the pipers throats. There's only so many shoots one can take too. One can go crazy upon seeing so much tartan as well.

I've seen no evidence that William is a playboy. I've seen evidence that he's a big dorky type of guy.

Every couple tell a lie to each other when they're perusing a relationship. That's how life goes. I'm sure Charles told her some lies too.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #2220  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:29 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Yes their boarding schools have done a good job with raising them - to be men who don't work or have any understanding of the concept of work (typical of many of those who go to Eton which teaches its boys that they are the elite of society and should be its rulers).
That is a pretty damning indictment not just of W&H, but of Eton as well.

Putting W&H aside, I presume you have closely observed a reasonable cross section of Eton boys to arrive at that conclusion. Do you hold that view of most elite boarding schools in the UK (Winchester, Harrow.....) or is it specific to Eton?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
William is very much still a playboy.
Really? What makes you arrive at that conclusion?
__________________

__________________
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) 444 06-17-2017 04:02 AM
Charles and Diana: Visit to Italy - 1985 jun5 Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 57 09-02-2012 10:35 PM




Popular Tags
birthday british royal history carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria crown princess victoria hats current events denmark duchess of brabant duchess of cambridge earl of snowdon family general news grand duke henri hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín jewels king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein lord snowdon love monarchy monarchy versus republic news official visit paris prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen silvia question soderberg spanish royal family state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria zog



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:32 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises