The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2601  
Old 07-27-2017, 09:19 PM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
what on earth girl of 17 or 18 doesn't want to be independent and live away from her family???
So am expecting you totally agree with my post!?!
__________________

__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #2602  
Old 07-27-2017, 10:04 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
Yes, you're probably right. The Queen seems to be a reasonable woman.
I don't think the Queen set any parameters on who her children were to marry. According to the Dimbleby bio she refused to give her opinion to Charles on whether he should or shouldn't marry Diana. I think in fact that was one time when mother and son could have had a good long and serious talk. Charles could have expressed his doubts about whether it would work, his feelings for Camilla etc and the Queen could have offered her advice.

However, fond though they were of each other, they didn't seem to have that kind of relationship. Communication via notes seems to have been quite usual.

The Queen's 'ostritching' over possibly contentious subjects that might cause family conflict didn't help. She apparently inherited that characteristic from her mother, who incidentally, wasn't too happy about Charles and a possible Mountbatten connection (Amanda Knatchbull) and probably welcomed another candidate (the granddaughter of an old friend, Lady Roche.) Even so, the QM doesn't seem to have been particularly proactive about pushing Diana forward either.

Charles seems to have been left all at sea as far as his family was concerned when it came to the decision to marry Diana, apart from Prince Philip's letter telling him not to take too long in making up his mind, a communication Charles seems to have interpreted as an ultimatum.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2603  
Old 07-27-2017, 10:14 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,373
I think Charles could of gotten away with marrying a woman with a past as long as she had been very discreet and the other party wasn't the type to go public.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2604  
Old 07-28-2017, 02:50 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I don't think the Queen set any parameters on who her children were to marry. According to the Dimbleby bio she refused to give her opinion to Charles on whether he should or shouldn't marry Diana. I .
She didn't have to set parameters, I don't think she would have minded at the time if Charles had married a well to do middle class girl, like Kate...
if the girl had "no past" was intelligent enough to fit in with the RF etc. But Charles knew the rules about that he had to marry someone who was a Protestant, who had no sexual past and was not in any way contentious.. (like say the daughter of a controversial businessman or politican or whatever).
But the queen presumably took the stand that Charles was a grown man, it was up to hm, to choose his own wife and she wasn't going to get involved in telling him whom he should marry.. he knew the restrictions and so long as he kept within them it was his business ot find a woman he could get on with and have a good marriage with.
I'm sure that if Charles had sat her down and said that he was unsure, that he ahd feelings still for Camilla etc.. the queen would have said fairly enough "well you can't marry Camilla, and you wil have to give her up when you're married because we don't want any scandal.. so its up to you to decide if you love or are fond of Miss X enough to make a marriage with her.."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2605  
Old 07-28-2017, 08:28 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,925
Please note that a number of posts discussing Camilla, her first marriage and consequential responses have been deleted. It should be known by now that the Charles/Diana/Camilla subject as a whole has been discussed over and over again with nothing new to add. In the past such discussions have ended in in-thread arguments, people taking sides etc etc. Accordingly such discussions are not encouraged and will continue to be deleted.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #2606  
Old 07-28-2017, 08:40 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It is entirely possible that Charles was expected to marry an aristocrat. However, neither Anne, nor Andrew, nor Edward ( the latter much later though) married aristocrats, nor did incidentally the Duke of Gloucester, but all those marriages were approved by the Queen. I have no reason to believe that the Queen would have objected to Charles marrying a commoner if the bride were suitable and Charles insisted on it.
He did marry a commoner. That mould was broken with the QM, although of course no one knew that at the time.

The fact of course is that Charles did not actually have to marry - by 1980 the Succession Line was already quite secure in that the Queen had three other children, Anne was already married with a three year old son and another grandchild on the way. Two very eligible and younger brothers waited in the wings.

It was expected that he would and probably found odd if he didn't. A number of scandals had hit the House of Windsor, the abdication of the Queen's Uncle and a lot more recently the divorce of her sister. All eyes and speculation were on the PoW and his imminent choice of bride.

We all know that by then Charles had realised his mistake in letting Camilla go without a fight (probably one he wouldn't have won back then, given her feelings for APB). Being Charles he possibly even thought he shouldn't need to have to put up a fight in the first place, being PoW he was the one to be fought after!

The available GFs of his twenties had evaporated by the time his thirties (his own opinion on the age to settle down) had kicked in. Worse still any proposals made were rejected.

He had met Diana in person some years previously over a country weekend (where else and whilst sitting on a bale of hay; they may have met previously as he had dated her sister, but this was our first introduction). The then 16 year old caught his attention, but it was going to be another three years before he considered the 19 year old as someone with possible marriage prospects.

The rest as the saying goes is history.
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #2607  
Old 07-28-2017, 08:59 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
He did marry a commoner. That mould was broken with the QM, although of course no one knew that at the time.
I meant "commoner" in the continental European sense. Yes, Diana was technically a commoner in the British sense since she wasn't a peeress in her own right with a seat in the House of Lords. However, as a daughter of an earl entitled to an honorific prefix, she would be considered a member of the nobility by continental standards and, in that sense, not a commoner.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2608  
Old 07-28-2017, 10:36 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I meant "commoner" in the continental European sense. Yes, Diana was technically a commoner in the British sense since she wasn't a peeress in her own right with a seat in the House of Lords. However, as a daughter of an earl entitled to an honorific prefix, she would be considered a member of the nobility by continental standards and, in that sense, not a commoner.
I''m probably mis-quoting here ..... "She walked in [to Saint Paul's] a commoner and walked out HRH The Princess of Wales" .....

Quite right! I am thinking in terms of the English Royal Family.

But I don't believe being a Peeress or having a Seat in the House of Lords elevates a member of the Aristoracy from commoner to royalty?

I do understand it may be different on the Continent and wording can have different meaning.
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #2609  
Old 07-28-2017, 11:59 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
I''m probably mis-quoting here ..... "She walked in [to Saint Paul's] a commoner and walked out HRH The Princess of Wales" .....

Quite right! I am thinking in terms of the English Royal Family.

But I don't believe being a Peeress or having a Seat in the House of Lords elevates a member of the Aristoracy from commoner to royalty?

I do understand it may be different on the Continent and wording can have different meaning.
No, I am thinking of three separate classes of people: royalty (only kings/queens and princes/princesses or equivalent); nobility (a.k.a. aristocracy); and all the rest, whom I am generically calling "commoners". What I meant is that Diana belonged to the second class, rather than the third.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2610  
Old 07-28-2017, 06:17 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I think Charles could of gotten away with marrying a woman with a past as long as she had been very discreet and the other party wasn't the type to go public.


LaRae
Unfortunately there is really no way to judge that. Some people you think you can trust turn on you to make a quick buck by selling their story to a tabloid. And it's sad because the woman's possible marriage future is in the hands of an ex. I have never read the story that was printed by Davina's ex but was it really so bad that Charles had to break it off?

Thank you for shutting down the Camilla posts, it's unfortunate we the posters couldn't stop bringing her up ourselves.

Imo if you have "lady" in front of your name you're not a real commoner. The real commoner CPs and Queens were Sonja, Silvia, Mary, Camilla and a commoner Crown Prince was Daniel.
I personally also think there should be a distinction between the 8th in line to the throne marrying a commoner and the 1st in line marrying one.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #2611  
Old 07-28-2017, 06:33 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,373
Yeah it's a crap shoot...but really even if a woman hadn't been intimate someone could lie just to get the attention (money). Kate has a 'past' but no one cares in this day and age.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2612  
Old 07-28-2017, 08:04 PM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
No, I am thinking of three separate classes of people: royalty (only kings/queens and princes/princesses or equivalent); nobility (a.k.a. aristocracy); and all the rest, whom I am generically calling "commoners". What I meant is that Diana belonged to the second class, rather than the third.
Possibly there lies the difference. Diana was Lady Diana Spencer before she married, so absolutely a member of the Aristoracy. However, still a commoner insofar as the Royal Family were concerned.
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #2613  
Old 07-29-2017, 01:14 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,917
This is an amusing little article reprinted from 1976 when it was thought that Davina Sheffield might well become Princess of Wales.

Queen Davina? London Gossip Says Charles Is Smitten at Last

She was a statuesque blonde, nearly six feet tall. The trouble was that she had been seriously involved with James Beard, who was some sort of speed boat champion, when she first caught Charles's eye.

Davina broke it off with James and dated Charles but, just when it looked as if it was getting serious, (Charles was 29 she was 25) a reporter sought James out. He burbled on about what a fantastic girl she was even though apparently he had been upset when she broke it off, said what a great princess and queen she would make, then dropped the bombshell in conversation that they had happily shared a cottage together when they had dated. (They were almost engaged.)

I think he did it innocently in order to show what a fine, domesticated woman she was, but apparently that scuppered Davina's chances for all time. It was the mid 1970s, all sorts of huge social changes going on everywhere, but not it seems, at BP!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2614  
Old 07-29-2017, 03:52 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
The He had met Diana in person some years previously over a country weekend (where else and whilst sitting on a bale of hay; they may have met previously as he had dated her sister, but this was our first introduction). The then 16 year old caught his attention, but it was going to be another three years before he considered the 19 year old as someone with possible marriage prospects.

The rest as the saying goes is history.
he met Diana "in a ploughed field" at Althorp when she was 16 and he was dating Sarah. Later he met her at a party and was taken with her. but he did have to get married. It didn't matter that there were other sons, it was he who was expected to carry on the family line.
I don't know wher you get that "other proposals" were rejected. AFAIK he only ever proposed to his 2 wifves and to Amanda Knatchbull.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I think he did it innocently in order to show what a fine, domesticated woman she was, but apparently that scuppered Davina's chances for all time. It was the mid 1970s, all sorts of huge social changes going on everywhere, but not it seems, at BP!
I dobt it. He must have know that talking about their preivous love affair was going to scupper her chances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
Possibly there lies the difference. Diana was Lady Diana Spencer before she married, so absolutely a member of the Aristoracy. However, still a commoner insofar as the Royal Family were concerned.
She was legaly a commoner. In the UK, the only member of a family who has a noble title, is the title holder. All of his children are commoners. Lady Diana has a ring to it, but she was still a commoner.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2615  
Old 08-05-2017, 04:10 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
So am expecting you totally agree with my post!?!
sorry what post?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2616  
Old 08-18-2017, 06:04 PM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 426
I have been wondering lately about what would have happened in Diana and Charles's marriage if the circumstances of Diana's upbringing had been different. I know we could also discuss Charles' upbringing too. However, I am looking at it from Diana's side because she said she loved him, but he said he never loved her. From that stand point, unfortunately, she would have had to do most of the giving in and made most of the sacrifice, since Charles was so set in his ways. If her parents had been happily married and raised her lovingly so that she developed confidence in herself with a good self-esteem, I wonder if, when she began having suspicions about Camilla, before the marriage, if she would have had the strength to break off the engagement with him? Or, I wonder if in view of the throne, she would have sought to align herself more with his interests and maybe they could have found some common ground. She would have probably had to have done the most giving in the give and take due to his being set in his ways. Just thinking out loud. Please don't misinterpret that I am placing the burden of having made the marriage work on Diana. It takes two, but unfortunately in their situation, it would have taken mostly her due to his lack of love for her. Or, I wonder if she had had a good, stable upbringing if she would not have been attracted to him at all? I tend to think she would not have been attracted to him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2617  
Old 08-18-2017, 06:31 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,917
Diana would have been an entirely different person had her background been different, wouldn't she, so who knows! A person with bags of self confidence might well have not had an eating disorder, may have passed all her exams at school, got an excellent job or even gone to university, may have had a longterm romance before, might have liked horse riding and so joined the Beaufort Hunt, so cutting off one of Charles and Camilla's main trysting locales.... All sorts of things!

I still think Diana may have been attracted to Charles and dated him. Whether one of this alternate Diana's main ambitions would have been to marry young and have lots of babies is debatable though.

I tend to think that a strong and confident young woman would have asked questions about Charles's past love life long before the engagement and wouldn't have married him after only thirteen or so dates. IMO the whole process would have been slowed down.

Diana would have wanted about a year before she made up her mind and if, during that time she felt any hint that Charles was still in thrall to another woman she would have broken it off as Anna Wallace did, though perhaps not in the same way!

It's interesting to speculate, but I do think Diana liked town life anyway, and they might not have suited each other considering Charles's devotion to the country and country pursuits.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2618  
Old 08-18-2017, 06:34 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,670
First off, I don't believe Charles ever said he never loved Diana and I do believe that he loved her. Perhaps he wasn't "in love" with her totally at the time of their marriage but there was enough there to make Charles think that he could grow to being in love with her and they could have a happy marriage. I also tend to believe that on Diana's side, her concept of loving someone was far from mature and a huge part of Charles' attraction for Diana was that he was The Prince of Wales. I can't believe that these two people knew each other well enough at the time of their marriage to actually be able to say that they loved each other unconditionally. Unconditional love is a big factor, I believe, in a solid, loving marriage. They both had different expectations of what a marriage should be like and both expectations mixed like oil and vinegar.

Now, to play the "what if" game that Diana grew up in a stable, loving environment with a happy, carefree childhood. I do think she would have had more self confidence in herself but her concept of a good marriage would be drastically different. That was one point about her marriage to Charles that stands out in just about every biography I've read. She saw a marriage to Charles as one where a divorce could never happen. I do believe that if Diana had been more self confident in who she was, she may have come to see things differently in the marriage. Perhaps there wouldn't have been so many perceived threats. Perhaps she could have embraced that in marriage, one also keeps and maintains one's individuality and the marriage wasn't always CharlesandDiana as one entity. She seemed to want Charles' attention to be on her and her alone hence all the demands she made that started a lot of their problems.

I also think that a lot of Diana's character traits would have remained the same regardless of her childhood but maybe some of them wouldn't have had such an impact on her adult years if had been able to address them and balance them as she grew to maturity.
__________________
“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
  #2619  
Old 08-18-2017, 07:04 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,373
I think Charles cared for her, was fond of her but I'm not really sure he 'loved' her as most of us would expect our spouse to do. I don't think they ever got to a emotionally stable enough place for things to develop past that initial stage.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2620  
Old 08-18-2017, 07:09 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,925
The problem is, none of that happened in reality - Diana had the upbringing she had and Charles had the up-bringing he had.

I do think need to be wary of speculating "what if" scenarios because speculation will lead us nowhere, especially since we are now 37 years past the event.
__________________

__________________
JACK
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
austria birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark duchess of cambridge eveningwear earl of snowdon family french general news gloucester hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta margarita infanta sofia italy iñaki urdangarín juan urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy morgan news nobel 2017 prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince liam prince nicholas prince oscar prince sebastian princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary casual style princess mary current events princess of asturias princess sofia princess sofia eveningwear princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathildes hats queen maxima queen silvia state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge fashion vatican victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:31 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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