Charles and Diana

[Roslyn]

The marriage probably was going to fail no matter what, but at least they could have had the proper help and guidance to resolve their marital issues privately, respectively and with consideration for their children.

I believe that by the time they had affairs, the damage had been done and the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Once that happens there's no point in trying to save it and it doesn't matter whether the parties have affairs or not. It's over and once it's over nothing will fix it. I totally agree with you about seeking guidance, and being offered assistance by family and friends, too. If they had sought counselling and been able to resolve their issues, a lot of the nastiness would never have happened and their sons would have benefited.

It's all over now and no one can go back and do things differently, so none of it really matter anyway.

I disagree on this point. I think it does matter because I think the way Diana involved the children and used them as pawns in her war against her husband harmed them significantly and we'll continue to see the consequences of that.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Think of a young Diana on her wedding day.
She had recently had her twentieth birthday on July 1st and 28 days later, it is her wedding day.
Was Lady Diana overwhelmed with all the attention?
​

 

[wyevale]

the way Diana involved the children and used them as pawns in her war against her husband harmed them

This is what I find utterly unforgivable about her behaviour, that and blabbing a stream of lies to the press [without care of the collateral damage it would do to the institution into which she married, or to anyone or anything else. To me it negates all her 'good works', and her 'mental illness' doesn't excuse it.

 

[ladongas]

Think of a young Diana on her wedding day.
She had recently had her twentieth birthday on July 1st and 28 days later, it is her wedding day.
Was Lady Diana overwhelmed with all the attention?
​

Yes, and hadn't that 19/20 year old girl found a valuable bracelet that her fiance planned to give to his mistress? Didn't she find a picture of his mistress among the belongings he brought on his honeymoon?

I don't know about any of you, but I cannot imagine marrying a man who was secretly sending gifts to another (married) woman. Nor can I imagine being able to forget that my new husband had secretly brought a picture of the woman on our honeymoon. Perhaps others expect less of a fiance or spouse?

Twenty years old and presented with hard evidence that her husband was in love with another....

 

[Mermaid1962]

The Archbishop shouldn't have married them in the first place. He said in later life that he saw problems between them when he met with them, and he knew about Camilla. That's a reason why clergy meet with people who plan to marry, to advise them if they see potential problems. But no. He let the marriage go ahead, knowing what he knew, and comparing them in his wedding service to a fairy tale. At the very least, he should have brought his concerns to the Queen. I hold him as responsible as anyone else in this sad saga. He could have stopped it, and he didn't.

Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, could have offered them marriage counseling. Just my thoughts, BTW.

 

[Mbruno]

The Archbishop shouldn't have married them in the first place. He said in later life that he saw problems between them when he met with them, and he knew about Camilla. That's a reason why clergy meet with people who plan to marry, to advise them if they see potential problems. But no. He let the marriage go ahead, knowing what he knew, and comparing them in his wedding service to a fairy tale. At the very least, he should have brought his concerns to the Queen. I hold him as responsible as anyone else in this sad saga. He could have stopped it, and he didn't.

I assume the Queen and Prince Philip also "knew about Camilla". Nonetheless, they encouraged the marriage. Either they assumed that Charles would settle down. or that Diana would manage to live with her husband's infidelity like countless royal consorts before her.

 

[Roslyn]

The Archbishop shouldn't have married them in the first place. He said in later life that he saw problems between them when he met with them, and he knew about Camilla. That's a reason why clergy meet with people who plan to marry, to advise them if they see potential problems. But no. He let the marriage go ahead, knowing what he knew, and comparing them in his wedding service to a fairy tale. At the very least, he should have brought his concerns to the Queen. I hold him as responsible as anyone else in this sad saga. He could have stopped it, and he didn't.

I didn't know that about the Archbishop. Add him to the list of people who let the wedding arrangements proceed full steam ahead despite knowing there were issues.

Everyone was hell-bent on getting Charles hitched to a suitable gel and no-one was brave enough to put a hold on things. Diana agreed too soon and too readily and Charles allowed her to do it. I can excuse Charles a bit since I'm in the camp believe that Charles, and the rest of the RF, had been deceived by her into believing she absolutely adored everything he adored and was the perfect bride for him, when in fact they had little in common. Even when Diana expressed doubts her own sister wouldn't support her and cracked that infamous joke about the pictures on the teatowels.

I wonder what would have happened had Diana put her foot down and said she would not marry a man who clearly - in her opinion, for I do not believe that his close friendship with Camilla necessarily meant that he was "in love" with her, or that he did not go into the marriage fully intending to give it his best shot - loved another woman. Had Diana really been a suitable match for Charles and had a strong love grown between them, I believe his relationship with Camilla would have faded into friendship as his wife would take her place in his affections, but this was not a wife who was suited to him so that transition did not occur. Would the Royals and her own family have talked her out of waiting on the basis the arrangements were too advanced? I'm sure her father would have been apoplectic at the idea that he might not manage to get one of his daughters married to The Prince of Wales and I doubt she would have had any support from him.

I bet there are documents squirrelled away somewhere that will provide some answers, but they probably won't come to light during my lifetime.

 

[Dman]

I believe that by the time they had affairs, the damage had been done and the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Once that happens there's no point in trying to save it and it doesn't matter whether the parties have affairs or not. It's over and once it's over nothing will fix it. I totally agree with you about seeking guidance, and being offered assistance by family and friends, too. If they had sought counselling and been able to resolve their issues, a lot of the nastiness would never have happened and their sons would have benefited.

I disagree on this point. I think it does matter because I think the way Diana involved the children and used them as pawns in her war against her husband harmed them significantly and we'll continue to see the consequences of that.

The Prince of Wales did the same thing. They were going through a very tough time. It's no excuse, they were doing some very dumb things out of hurt and anger.

 

[Roslyn]

The Prince of Wales did the same thing. They were going through a very tough time. It's no excuse, they were doing some very dumb things out of hurt and anger.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't believe that Charles did the "same thing". I don't believe it is in his nature to, for example, at the last minute change dinner plans to deny Diana the opportunity to see her sons by insisting they eat with him in his private rooms instead of with her.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

The Prince of Wales did the same thing. They were going through a very tough time. It's no excuse, they were doing some very dumb things out of hurt and anger.

The Prince of Wales did not do the same thing, no matter how many times you try and create a false equivalency. He never attacked or criticized Diana publicly and there are many credible sources that indicate that he never criticized Diana to their sons.

Yes, and hadn't that 19/20 year old girl found a valuable bracelet that her fiance planned to give to his mistress? Didn't she find a picture of his mistress among the belongings he brought on his honeymoon?

I don't know about any of you, but I cannot imagine marrying a man who was secretly sending gifts to another (married) woman. Nor can I imagine being able to forget that my new husband had secretly brought a picture of the woman on our honeymoon. Perhaps others expect less of a finance or spouse?

Twenty years old and presented with hard evidence that her husband was in love with another....

Diana made those claims, 15 years after the fact and during the breakup of the marriage. I don't believe her because we know that she was not honest about everything that happened during the marriage, including the fact that she had several affairs of her own. At other times, she has said that Charles loved her deeply the first few years. At the time she made those claims, she had an interest in claiming that Charles was unfaithful throughout her marriage.

The Archbishop shouldn't have married them in the first place. He said in later life that he saw problems between them when he met with them, and he knew about Camilla. That's a reason why clergy meet with people who plan to marry, to advise them if they see potential problems. But no. He let the marriage go ahead, knowing what he knew, and comparing them in his wedding service to a fairy tale. At the very least, he should have brought his concerns to the Queen. I hold him as responsible as anyone else in this sad saga. He could have stopped it, and he didn't.

I've never heard that the Archbishop claimed he knew about Camilla before the marriage. Do you have a source? I am shocked that a man of God would reveal such private information.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Here's an article with Robert Runcie's comments. To clarify, I haven't found a source that said that he knew about Camilla before the marriage. He certainly knew before it became public knowledge.
UNITED KINGDOM: FORMER ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, ROBERT RUNCIE, KNEW OF PRINCE CHARLES' AFFAIR WITH CAMILLA PARKER BOWLES

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Here's an article with Robert Runcie's comments. To clarify, I haven't found a source that said that he knew about Camilla before the marriage. He certainly knew before it became public knowledge.
UNITED KINGDOM: FORMER ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, ROBERT RUNCIE, KNEW OF PRINCE CHARLES' AFFAIR WITH CAMILLA PARKER BOWLES

Mermaid1962, thank you for the link. I'm shocked that the Archbishop would betray the confidence of both Diana and Charles. It's a horrible breach of ethics for a clergyman. I can't imagine how I would feel if my priest were to talk about his knowledge of my husband and me.

Some people fault Charles and Diana for not getting professional help. If they couldn't even trust a member of the clergy, who could they trust?

 

[Roslyn]

Thanks so much, Mermaid1962.

What great stuff! How unreasonable of Charles, needing a woman to love and be cared for by! *eyeroll* Also interesting that Diana's grandmother was admitting her granddaughter was not in love with Charles.

I never thought I'd want to read a biography of an Archbishop, but I want to read this one!

 

[Mermaid1962]

You're welcome!

 

[Skippyboo]

Diana's family really didn't do her any favors. Her sister even dated Charles so she knew what was involved with becoming involved with him. You think they would have intervened or make them date longer before getting engaged.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Dman]

A lot of people knew the real deal behind Charles and Diana's relationship and stuff that went on before they married. The whole situation was crazy from the beginning.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

A lot of people knew the real deal behind Charles and Diana's relationship and stuff that went on before they married. The whole situation was crazy from the beginning.

What happened before they were married doesn't matter. The marriage broke down because they didn't have much in common, they didn't understand each others emotion needs, and they know how to communicate with each other.

 

[Skippyboo]

What happened before they were married doesn't matter. The marriage broke down because they didn't have much in common, they didn't understand each others emotion needs, and they know how to communicate with each other.

And if all that was known before the marriage. Maybe getting married isn't a good idea?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[royal rob]

Anyone that has or has had a 19 year old daughter must think why didn't someone who was in a powerful position put a stop to this wedding. She was like a lamb to the slaughter. A 19 no one has the wisdom to take on that huge commitment especially a young girl that has been abandoned by her mother. And if these people knew of Charles affair with Camilla and did nothing Shame on the RF and shame on the Spencer family


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Mermaid1962]

If I had a daughter who had just turned 19, I'd be very concerned if a 32-year-old began to court her--even if he was the Prince of Wales. There's a story that Lady Diana went home to Althorp from Buckingham Palace during the engagement because it was too much for her. I wonder whether her father and Raine Spencer convinced her to go back, or did she make up her own mind to continue with the engagement? Another thing we'll never know, I guess.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

And if all that was known before the marriage. Maybe getting married isn't a good idea?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I definitely think they shouldn't have gotten married. From Charles's side, she seemed much more mature than she was: she had lived on her own for more than a year and she seemed to be able to cope with the media. From Diana's side, Charles appeared to be charming and attentive.

I think her mother should have had a serious discussion with Charles and/or the Queen and Prince Philip and insisted the engagement be postponed until at least Diana was 20 years old. They would have gotten to know each other better.

I don't know if it would have made a difference but it certainly couldn't have hurt.

 

[Mermaid1962]

She seemed to cope with the media so well. Looking back at those video clips, she seems to have lots of patience with their questions and their picture-taking. The only time she cracked in public was at that polo match just before the wedding. To all appearances, she was a young woman who was able to handle the pressure of public interest. I can see how the Queen and Prince Philip would be impressed by that.

 

[Frelinghighness]

The queen had to have her marriage postponed by her parents, they made her wait till,she was 21.
I do believe that Diana was the most harmed because of her age and her lack of parenting.

 

[Osipi]

Had Diana really been a suitable match for Charles and had a strong love grown between them, I believe his relationship with Camilla would have faded into friendship as his wife would take her place in his affections, but this was not a wife who was suited to him so that transition did not occur.

This statement right here, to me, boils it all down into a nutshell. A niggling feeling in the back of my mind tells me that it was more likely that Charles didn't have someone in the background before and during his early marriage as a mistress but as a very close and intimate confidante. If there had been a very strong bond between Charles and Diana and it continued to grow, Diana would not have had the urge to dismiss and cut off Charles' circle of friends she felt threatened by. There is quite a bit of difference between loving someone and being "in" love with someone.

 

[COUNTESS]

What nonsense. Charles loved someone else. He has married her. And it seems to be a good marriage. Too bad the RF looked down their noses at her. Diana was perfect. Except he loved someone else, very much. It is hard to establish a marriage and relationship with one who has different loyalties. Charles never saw that would be a problem. In their circles, not just his, having a mistress was nothing new. Diana never played her role as expected. Devoted loving wife. She was the focal point, for Charles that was a negative, for the RF it was a negative. They need the spotlight. She was the spotlight. Beautiful and elegant a new twist for stodgy and uninteresting.

 

[casualfan]

Can't we all agree that there are no good guys when looking back at this time? Not Charles and Diana, not the Queen, not her family, not anyone?

 

[Mirabel]

Very true. It's easy to say in hindsight that Charles and Diana should never have married, and that this person or that should have stopped it.

But that is overlooking the media frenzy at that time. It was horrendous! Even the Queen said she couldn't stand it any longer. Diana's mother actually wrote a reproving letter to the press about how they were hounding Diana, calling her at all hours of the night and invading her workplace.

Diana seemed to be the perfect future Queen, no one could understand why Charles was even hesitating. Everyone got carried away in the hype, and there was a general hope that everything would work out. Even Charles thought, wrongly, that once they were married the press would go away and leave them alone. But that never happened.

 

[Osipi]

What nonsense. Charles loved someone else. He has married her.

Of course he loved other people besides Diana. There are multitudes of ways to love someone without having a romantic or sexual undercurrent to it. I believe it was the decades of a strong relationship in all aspects that makes Charles' marriage today a happy one.

Perhaps Diana was just not mature enough to realize this and felt she had to be the sole entity in Charles' life.

 

[Dman]

Of course he loved other people besides Diana. There are multitudes of ways to love someone without having a romantic or sexual undercurrent to it. I believe it was the decades of a strong relationship in all aspects that makes Charles' marriage today a happy one.

Perhaps Diana was just not mature enough to realize this and felt she had to be the sole entity in Charles' life.

Charles and Diana did love each other, they just couldn't make their relationship work. Their love produced two fine boys, princes William and Harry. Their shared a bond through William and Harry. Had Charles and Diana formed a friendship before their marriage, things probably would've been different.

 

[Marty91charmed]

But how can you love two women? IMO Charles has always loved Camilla (as a partner) and I'm sure he loved Diana, but not like a companion... I think he cared for her and they had a special bond because of their sons but I stronly believe the only love of his like has always been Camilla... I don't know if you get what I mean... I don't think thier love was that of a husband and wife... That's my perception of course, we all are just speculating... What I really mean is that a person cannot feel the same love for 2 women...