The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2681  
Old 08-22-2017, 05:54 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
well yes she knew him and she was given insrtuciton in "Royal life"..but it wasn't by the queen Mother.
and I think she wasn't aware of how formal Royal life is, even in private, because she had never been part of the "inner circle" who socialised with royals as an adult. She did get invites to "big royal events" because of her status and being part of 2 families who were courtiers, but until she started dating Charles she had no regular contact with the RF.
It was a big change for her, and less of a change for Charles.. of course. He just had to accommodate a wife in hs life, she had to give up her old life and learn about a new one.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2682  
Old 09-30-2017, 05:36 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Lakewood, United States
Posts: 348
For me, Charles married to satisfy others and Diana married for a title. IMO she cunningly sought him out as it has been said as if auditioning for a role. No one thought it would end as it did although something noticeable enough for “insiders” to question them both I agree with much prior posts only to add as years went on I believe Diana tried to bend the Queen’s will and change the monarchy to what she wanted
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2683  
Old 10-01-2017, 06:31 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
Not at all. Diana believed she was in love with Charles - and yes she wanted to be Princess of Wales? Why not. she hoped that it would make up for her onw feelings of inadequacy.. adn it was a perfectly normal ambition for a girl of her class.
And Charles married because he had reached the age when he really had to settle and get married and have children.. and he thougt that he was fond enough of Diana for it to work out.
Diana did try to change the monarchy but it is bound to change every generation. However, she was not IMO expeirneced or intelligent enough to do it in a considered fashion. She made haphazard attempts, tried to criticise her husband and ended up in a position of more or less "pushed out".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2684  
Old 10-01-2017, 10:00 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missjersey View Post
For me, Charles married to satisfy others and Diana married for a title. IMO she cunningly sought him out as it has been said as if auditioning for a role. No one thought it would end as it did although something noticeable enough for “insiders” to question them both I agree with much prior posts only to add as years went on I believe Diana tried to bend the Queen’s will and change the monarchy to what she wanted

If I marry a Mr Whoever, it's reasonable enough to expect that I wish to be MRS Whoever. Diana was in far less need of a title than many others. She already had one. I think, like many other 16 year olds -the age she was when she met his socially- she had dreams. In her case, dreams -NEEDS- of a happy ever after, lasting marriage. However, on the day they married, my words were "There are more than 13 years age difference dividing them". Those words were followed with these others "But at least she's made the one marriage which can't fail"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2685  
Old 10-01-2017, 10:01 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Not at all. Diana believed she was in love with Charles - and yes she wanted to be Princess of Wales? Why not. she hoped that it would make up for her onw feelings of inadequacy.. adn it was a perfectly normal ambition for a girl of her class.
And Charles married because he had reached the age when he really had to settle and get married and have children.. and he thougt that he was fond enough of Diana for it to work out.
Diana did try to change the monarchy but it is bound to change every generation. However, she was not IMO expeirneced or intelligent enough to do it in a considered fashion. She made haphazard attempts, tried to criticise her husband and ended up in a position of more or less "pushed out".

Spot on, Denville.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2686  
Old 10-01-2017, 10:03 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
The courtesy title of an earl's daugther is not the same as the title of the wife of a senior Royal, much less a future queen.
yes she did believe and hope that this was " a marriage that could not end in divorce" which was an attraction when her home had been broken up by selflish parents and a bitter divorce.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2687  
Old 10-01-2017, 05:30 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,243
I agree, Denville. Lady Diana's "title" wasn't truly hers; it was a courtesy title based on her father's. That's why it didn't really make much sense to me when she reported said that her title was older than Prince Philip's. His original title was as a Prince of Greece and Denmark, and Denmark is the oldest monarchy in Europe. Plus, the first Duke of Edinburgh was Prince Frederick, the grandson of George I, who created the title in 1726. The Earl of Spencer title was created by George III in 1765. She was wrong on both counts.

I do believe that Diana thought that she was in love with Prince Charles, but I don't believe that she was any more "cunning" than another aristocratic girl who would have fit Prince Charles' requirements. Plus, she was pretty and fun to be around for him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2688  
Old 10-01-2017, 05:51 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,670
At the time of the engagement, I don't think Diana knew who she was in love with. Was it Charles, the man or Charles, The Prince of Wales? I don't think she realized that the man she was in love with was actually two different people that she needed to know and understand. There was Charles with his own insecurities, idiosyncrasies, likes and dislikes and then there was The Prince of Wales with duties, responsibilities and a chocked full calendar of places he had to go and things he needed to do. This all made for a very complicated person that she was marrying and "in love" with. I don't think she took the needed amount of time to really be familiar with all that Charles was.

I do think too that she thought that after marriage, she could change things to be more to her liking. She believed that she would be the highest on a pedestal in Charles' life and could "mold" him to her liking. She didn't figure in that there was a lot in Charles' life that was unchangeable and that there would always be things that Charles held dear such as his responsibilities, his duty to Crown and Country and his own passions that Diana could never have a say in.

These are reasons why I believe that Diana found her marriage to be a total let down from what she expected it to be. Cold, hard reality sunk in and the fairy tale Barbara Cartland idea of "happily ever after" went out the window.
__________________
“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
  #2689  
Old 10-01-2017, 06:49 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I agree, Denville. Lady Diana's "title" wasn't truly hers; it was a courtesy title based on her father's. That's why it didn't really make much sense to me when she reported said that her title was older than Prince Philip's. His original title was as a Prince of Greece and Denmark, and Denmark is the oldest monarchy in Europe. Plus, the first Duke of Edinburgh was Prince Frederick, the grandson of George I, who created the title in 1726. The Earl of Spencer title was created by George III in 1765. She was wrong on both counts.
If a title became extinct it doesn't matter any more when it was first created. The title always takes it's ancienty from the last creation (this is also reflected in the order of precedence; the next Dukes of Kent and Gloucester will be the lowest ranking dukes based on the date of the last creation). So yes, the Duke of Edinburgh title was much younger than the Earl of Spencer title, but of course his princely title was way older than 1726 (although the Danish titles of course work very differently; all heirs through the make line from approved have that title (until Queen Margrethe's descendants) in comparison to the Earl title that was only inherited by the oldest son (or oldest male-line male relative).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2690  
Old 10-02-2017, 11:31 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
At the time of the engagement, I don't think Diana knew who she was in love with. Was it Charles, the man or Charles, The Prince of Wales? I don't think she realized that the man she was in love with was actually two different people that she needed to know and understand. There was Charles with his own insecurities, idiosyncrasies, likes and dislikes and then there was The Prince of Wales with duties, responsibilities and a chocked full calendar of places he had to go and things he needed to do. This all made for a very complicated person that she was marrying and "in love" with. I don't think she took the needed amount of time to really be familiar with all that Charles was.

I do think too that she thought that after marriage, she could change things to be more to her liking. She believed that she would be the highest on a pedestal in Charles' life and could "mold" him to her liking. She didn't figure in that there was a lot in Charles' life that was unchangeable and that there would always be things that Charles held dear such as his responsibilities, his duty to Crown and Country and his own passions that Diana could never have a say in.

These are reasons why I believe that Diana found her marriage to be a total let down from what she expected it to be. Cold, hard reality sunk in and the fairy tale Barbara Cartland idea of "happily ever after" went out the window.
Very insightful, Osipi
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2691  
Old 10-07-2017, 07:56 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Washington D.C., United States
Posts: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
At the time of the engagement, I don't think Diana knew who she was in love with. Was it Charles, the man or Charles, The Prince of Wales? I don't think she realized that the man she was in love with was actually two different people that she needed to know and understand. There was Charles with his own insecurities, idiosyncrasies, likes and dislikes and then there was The Prince of Wales with duties, responsibilities and a chocked full calendar of places he had to go and things he needed to do. This all made for a very complicated person that she was marrying and "in love" with. I don't think she took the needed amount of time to really be familiar with all that Charles was.

I do think too that she thought that after marriage, she could change things to be more to her liking. She believed that she would be the highest on a pedestal in Charles' life and could "mold" him to her liking. She didn't figure in that there was a lot in Charles' life that was unchangeable and that there would always be things that Charles held dear such as his responsibilities, his duty to Crown and Country and his own passions that Diana could never have a say in.

These are reasons why I believe that Diana found her marriage to be a total let down from what she expected it to be. Cold, hard reality sunk in and the fairy tale Barbara Cartland idea of "happily ever after" went out the window.
This sounds very reasonable. Given everything we now know about Charles and his mindset at the time (and that ghastly "whatever in love means"), I think poor Di got a huge shock. The kind of acting out we saw from her was mild compared to what she could have done. She was the only non-adult really when this all began - the other adults around her behaved abominably, imo.

It's really unfortunate that she didn't have anyone truly in her corner who could have helped her. She needed a strong mother figure to counter some of the mess.

After reading all of this information about the BRF, Charles, Diana, Camilla, Diana's family, etc., it's AMAZING that she was able to be such a brilliant shining star in her own right. Flawed, yes, but brilliant.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2692  
Old 10-08-2017, 05:14 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
What did they do that was so abominable?? She was an adult, albeit a young and immature girl..but she was old enough to get married. She knew that this marriage was one that coudlnt end in divorce.. But when it ended up badly, she pushed nad pushed till she got a divorce. Then she was cleary shaken and unhappy about being "pushed out" by the RF insisting that things had gone too far and that there had to be a divorce. She had legitimate grievances, but she pushed things way too far... Its true that Charles had lingering feelings for Camilla, but he was IMO fond of Diana and willing to fall in love with her. He thought that she shared his interests and that she was if still very young, mature enough to marry. When he found that she was NOT that keen on most of his pursuits which were pretty much "standard" in the RF at the time.. and that she was very very unable to cope with the demands of Royal life, he did his best to help for a time. He got her to see psychiatrists. It wasn't his fault that there was little knowledge of eating disorders at the time..He stayed home with her, He spent time with her and the children. He took her on SUnshine holidays. He tired to understand why she was making herself sick but it wasn't an illness that he knew anyting about, like 90% of people at the time. And she concealed her illness, or tried to.. because that's a feature of it. She wouldn't talk to doctors or shrinks about it. She wasn't likely to get better unless she could find a therapist and be honest with him about her illness.
It wasn't her fault that she was mentally fragile.. it wasn't entirely her fault that she was ill educated... and knew little about Royal life so that it all came as a schok to her.. but she idnd't always act wisely. The RF were wlling to tolerate her living a separate life to Charles in private, and taking a lover if she was discreet. They weren't too happy about the way she overshadowed her husband But I think they were willing to overlook that if she did the royal job well and maintained a civil relationshp with her husband..
But increasingly she did not even try to fit in with their ways.. She began to leak things to the papers.. She picked a lover who was very indiscreet about his affair with her..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2693  
Old 10-08-2017, 08:32 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 599
She got engaged at 19 and at just barely 20 married an older man who wasn't in love with her.
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #2694  
Old 10-08-2017, 12:06 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Washington D.C., United States
Posts: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
She got engaged at 19 and at just barely 20 married an older man who wasn't in love with her.
Exactly - and we know the rest. That was - there isn't another word for it - abominable.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2695  
Old 10-08-2017, 12:25 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
what was "abominable" about it? Nobody forced her. She went out with Charles, she chose to marry him. She was indeed very eager to marry him though she later said that they had only had about 12 or 13 dates.. (which is probably inaccurate as they certainly spent weekends together, she visited him at Balmoral once or twice and went on the Royal Yacht with him.). He wasn't deeply in love with her but he was IMO fiond of her, believed tat they had enough in common to make their marriage work, and he tried to make it work.
How on earth could he have known that she was emotionally and psychologically fragile, and that under the pressure of Royal life, she would get very wobbly and Develop Bulimia. How was he to know that she didn't really enjoy the country life and sports she was seeming to enjoy when they were courting
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2696  
Old 10-08-2017, 06:11 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,243
I don't believe either that they saw each other only 13 times before getting married. Besides the weekend visits, Charles was supposed to have a safe house in London where he could meet her. His valet, Stephen Barry, wrote about picking her up at rendezvous spots such as her grandmother's or her sister Jane's.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2697  
Old 10-08-2017, 07:34 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
She got engaged at 19 and at just barely 20 married an older man who wasn't in love with her.
He may not have been head over heels "in love" with her but he had the conviction that they could make a go of it and he did care deeply for her although he did not understand her. Their ideas of what marriage should be like was totally different going into the marriage. I do think Diana perhaps had an over romanticized vision while Charles was looking for a partner to work together in marriage. Neither one could give the other what they wanted and needed.

Oil and vinegar.
__________________
“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
  #2698  
Old 10-09-2017, 04:36 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I don't believe either that they saw each other only 13 times before getting married. Besides the weekend visits, Charles was supposed to have a safe house in London where he could meet her. His valet, Stephen Barry, wrote about picking her up at rendezvous spots such as her grandmother's or her sister Jane's.
I don't think they spent a HUGE amount of time together but I'm glad that someone is agreeing that Diana's supposedly saying "they only met 12 or 13 times" is a retcon on her part. they were courting for a few months, spent weekends with her at Cam's home and him at Highgrove, and they went out together in London. and she visited him at Balmoral and on Brittannia.. I think that it wasn't like a lot of courtships where people have a couple of years to get to know each other or who can live togetheter.. but they did spend a lot more than 13 dates.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2699  
Old 10-09-2017, 04:39 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
He may not have been head over heels "in love" with her but he had the conviction that they could make a go of it and he did care deeply for her although he did not understand her. Their ideas of what marriage should be like was totally different going into the marriage. I do think Diana perhaps had an over romanticized vision while Charles was looking for a partner to work together in marriage. Neither one could give the other what they wanted and needed.

Oil and vinegar.
Charles said more than once that as his marriage had to last and as the woman in question was going to be queen.. he tought of marriage as a partnership, a friendship, more than a romance. ANd IMO he was right...
I think that friendship and closeness and common interests and a common outlook are better foundations for marriage than "romance" or sex. But I think he was attracted by her physically.. and he was feeling the pressure of "needing to get settled" and ther was a lot of pressure from the Papers, who had decided that Diana was adorable, pretty, young enough to be a virgin and mouldable..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2700  
Old 10-12-2017, 03:46 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,925
Please note that posts relating to Diana's health have been moved to the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...sues-4416.html thread.
__________________

__________________
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
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 06:31 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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