Charles and Diana


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
We have only Charles' word that he was not unfaithful until the marriage broke down irretrievably. Diana seemed to feel that there were always three of them in the marriage.

Yes, you are right - Diana felt that there were always three of them in the marriage, but in strict fairness to both Charles and Diana, we only have Diana's word for that too.

My point is that we really will never know 100% exactly what happened and what the situation really was - tensions and emotions were high during this difficult period and much of the breakdown seemed to have been carried out in public, rather than behind closed doors.
 
We have only Charles' word that he was not unfaithful until the marriage broke down irretrievably. Diana seemed to feel that there were always three of them in the marriage.

You are right that we only have Charles and Camilla's word that he was not unfaithful until the marriage broke down irretrievably. Conversely, we only have Diana's word that the adultery happened before that--and Diana had no way of knowing for sure. She never claimed that she caught them together. Some people cite Diana's tale of overhearing telephone conversations, but we only have Diana's word for that too.

We also know that Diana told Ingrid Seward that Charles loved her during the first few years of their marriage. In fact, Diana's story changed several times. Diana failed to disclose her own affairs until she was forced to do so. Failure to tell the full truth is also dishonest. Similarly, Charles denied his affair for several years.

There is no objective proof either way. You can choose to believe either Charles or Diana.

I tend to believe that Charles used Camilla rather than Diana as a confident during the first part of the marriage. That is an emotional adultery and can be very painful. On Charles' side, it is hard to confide and trust someone who is subject to emotional outburst (she claimed she threw herself down a flight of stairs) and he felt deceived that Diana was not the simple, country girl she claimed to be during the courtship.
 
Last edited:
We have only Charles' word that he was not unfaithful until the marriage broke down irretrievably. Diana seemed to feel that there were always three of them in the marriage.

Well, Diana forgot to count her lovers, didn't she? There were at least eight people in that marriage.
 
I believe so, yes. The vows are in effect until one partner dies or the marriage is dissolved.

Considering that divorces - during the separation period - often can take between 2 and 5 years to finalise, should one really have to wait for the Decree Absolute before embarking on another relationship?
 
This reminds me of the teenage cry: "But, mom, everyone does it."

Mom: "Well, if they all jumped off a building, would you do it?"

Yes, many aristocratic, and ordinary, and low-life people, break their marriage vows, perhaps even make those vows with every intention of breaking them.

Some get away with it, some don't, and some ruin their own lives and that of their families.

Still, shouldn't people at least try to be true to their spouses? It never occurs to me to doubt my spouse, but I shouldn't ever have to. Why isn't this the norm?

Why is it so hard for some to stop judging everyone by their own standards. Not everyone thinKS or believ3s the same or will act the same in similar situations. You never cheated thats good for you, but you don't represent everybody. I do not concondone what a Charles or other cheaters did or didn't do. But I just can't stand when people have the attitude, that everyone should think like me and believe like me. The definition of marriage has changed and is still changing. One persons happy marriage may not be the same for another.

I believe Charles aND Diana went into their marriages intending not to stray....but things happen and it didn't end up that way. Over the years it has become apparent to me to take what Diana says with a grain of salt. She decived, manipulated, and chsnged her story to fit her situation. I assume Charles always kept Camilla as a friend and confidant, but that do3snt mEan he was cheating with her before 1986. But to a young naive romantic like Diana it could have been on the same level as a physical affair.
 
Last edited:
A person can be unfaithful to their spouse/vows without having a physical relationship.

IMO Charles may not have been physically unfaithful until when he said...however I do think he was probably emotionally unfaithful to Diana. His attentions were divided and his emotions elsewhere.


LaRae
 
Firstly, Xenia, I don't think I ever said that Charles was the first to cheat. Good gracious, no, that's laughable.

Secondly, Xenia and wyevale, what about judging people by what they themselves profess to believe? Charles and Diana were CoE, JFK was Catholic, all those randy and hypocritical popes and bishops were Catholic, Jimmy Swaggart was Baptist, etc etc. "Conservative" or "liberal" sects aside, none of these groups officially condone adultery - in fact, they condemn it. So, by that token, Charles, Diana, JFK, Popes, Bishops, Jimmy Swaggart, Marion Barry, MLK - they all failed, spectacularly so, at following what they themselves professed to follow.

I don't care how you slice it or dice it, they failed and they all paid consequences for that, like we ALL do when we violate our personal views and moral compass.

Let's not sugarcoat it - they both failed. And they both hurt a lot of people - and ultimately themselves, too - with their actions.
 
A person can be unfaithful to their spouse/vows without having a physical relationship.

IMO Charles may not have been physically unfaithful until when he said...however I do think he was probably emotionally unfaithful to Diana. His attentions were divided and his emotions elsewhere.
LaRae

This could be another point of difference between a lot of us. I equate infidelity with sex. No sex, no infidelity, IMO.

I can't wrap my brain around the concept of emotional infidelity. Infidelity requires an intentional and conscious act. You don't have any control over what you think, or how you think, or what you like, or what makes you laugh, but you certainly have control over what you do. If you'd rather be with, or talk to, someone other than your spouse, that's pretty dismal for your marriage if you feel that way all the time, but it's not infidelity. Many of us enjoy the company of friends at times and we can have close friendships with them; it only infidelity if you take the next step and make a physical connection with the other person. In my opinion, anyway.
 
Last edited:
This could be another point of difference between a lot of us. I equate infidelity with sex. No sex, no infidelity, IMO.

I can't wrap my brain around the concept of emotional infidelity. Infidelity requires an intentional and conscious act. You don't have any control over what you think, or how you think, or what you like, or what makes you laugh, but you certainly have control over what you do. If you'd rather be with, or talk to, someone other than your spouse, that's pretty dismal for your marriage if you feel that way all the time, but it's not infidelity. Many of us enjoy the company of friends at times and we can have close friendships with them; it only infidelity if you take the next step and make a physical connection with the other person. In my opinion, anyway.


I have to agree. Having sex equals infidelity. It seems like using Camilla's name was an excuse - he did it so I can sleep with other guys.
 
. . . . . Secondly, Xenia and wyevale, what about judging people by what they themselves profess to believe? Charles and Diana were CoE, JFK was Catholic, all those randy and hypocritical popes and bishops were Catholic, Jimmy Swaggart was Baptist, etc etc. "Conservative" or "liberal" sects aside, none of these groups officially condone adultery - in fact, they condemn it. So, by that token, Charles, Diana, JFK, Popes, Bishops, Jimmy Swaggart, Marion Barry, MLK - they all failed, spectacularly so, at following what they themselves professed to follow.
I think the old adage, "The Church is not a resthome for saints, it is a hospital for sinners", is worth remembering.

People of faith strive to be the best they can be, but they are not saints. To quote the Bible, "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

We live in an imperfect world, while striving for perfection.
 
I think the old adage, "The Church is not a resthome for saints, it is a hospital for sinners", is worth remembering.



People of faith strive to be the best they can be, but they are not saints. To quote the Bible, "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.



We live in an imperfect world, while striving for perfection.


People of faith also stand up for what is right instead of brushing everything under the rug, as has been done time and time again.
 
People of faith also stand up for what is right instead of brushing everything under the rug, as has been done time and time again.
I'm a Christian. I'm not perfect. I don't always do the right thing or stand up for what is right. There is nothing in the Bible that forces anyone to publicly confess each and every sin. As a Catholic, it is perfectly acceptable for me to maintain my privacy and practice my religion. Some of the original Apostles and many of the saints were terrible sinners.

I have friends whose husbands have committed adultery but they don't publicize it beyond a close circle of friends. Unfortunately for Charles, Camilla, Harry, and William, Diana chose to air the dirty linen in public. That didn't make her a better Christian.
 
Better Christian, She never claimed that. He slept with Camilla before he met Diana, when she had a husband and family, did this make him a better Christian, because it wasn't public. I, suspect, he and Camilla never stopped their lives, but were very circumspect. Camilla will never speak about anything. She was the perfect mistress. And emotional infidelity is when your husband, actually, loves someone more than you. I don't know how it feels, but it can't be great. So, Diana's telling her tale was worse than the tale she was living? Charles has been in a position to spin this story a hundred times and his PR office has. It is had to refute anything when you are dead.
 
Better Christian, She never claimed that. He slept with Camilla before he met Diana, when she had a husband and family, did this make him a better Christian, because it wasn't public. I, suspect, he and Camilla never stopped their lives, but were very circumspect. Camilla will never speak about anything. She was the perfect mistress. And emotional infidelity is when your husband, actually, loves someone more than you. I don't know how it feels, but it can't be great. So, Diana's telling her tale was worse than the tale she was living? Charles has been in a position to spin this story a hundred times and his PR office has. It is had to refute anything when you are dead.
Diana didn't claim to be a better Christian, but neither did Charles. My comments were not aimed at them but at the poster who was judging Charles' personal Christian beliefs.

I am not defending Charles' affair with Camilla. Some posters have tried to excuse it. At the same time, others try and excuse Diana's affairs. Adultery is adultery. I think they should have divorced before they slept with other people.

I agree that one can be emotionally unfaithful, and it can be very destructive to a marriage.
 
You know, if another person of the opposite sex is your closest friend and confidant, not to mention ex lover, any contact would be completely unacceptable. At least to me.
 
At the end of the day, my point is that I disagree heartily with anyone who seeks to immortalize or deify any of these human beings, especially when their conduct was reprehensible.

Charles and Diana both made a wanton mess of their lives, with each other and within themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow this is some conversation! For my two cents, committing adultery is breaking one of the ten commandments so it's not Christian, but judeo Christian. It is not a certain kind of marriage to committ adultery but a marriage where you are breaking your marital vows, which is why it was always the number one fault in granting divorce.
Now that the courts have blessedly allowed no fault divorce, which as we can see is the only possible way because accessing blame is always crazy. Both parties are almost always to blame. There are exceptions of physical abuse, bullying, verbal abuse, but not the rule
 
You know, if another person of the opposite sex is your closest friend and confidant, not to mention ex lover, any contact would be completely unacceptable. At least to me.

Yep I agree...anything past normal social contact would be a no-go.



LaRae
 
Charles- and to a much lesser extent, Diana- had a sacred obligation to his country, not just to his marriage. Yes, yes, Edward VII and Henry VIII, and all that, but it doesn't mean that the obligation wasn't there. Certainly HM has never waivered from her devotion to her country.

To put it bluntly, all over the world there are married men who manage to uphold their vows, to keep their pants zipped, and to work diligently to make their marriages strong. Apparently Diana's great unhappiness started early in their marriage. And it had nothing to do with any of her (supposed) lovers. She had reason to believe, and with good reason, that her husband was in love with another woman.

Charles could have made a much greater effort to build his marriage and support his very young bride.

I'm glad that he is happily married now, and that he made "an honest woman" of Camilla rather than humiliating her, also. But some of us can't pretend to forget what he/they did. It's no wonder that it's still controversial after all these years.
 
Judging people only by how they conduct their private lives - no only by if they are faithfull or not is quite random to me.

In my books Americans tend to think first of divorce if they have marital Problems - but there are still societies and people who do not think, that divorce is the first and best solution to problems - that you should stand together in good and bad days allike.

I don't think sex is the most important thing in a marriage - I don't think you should judge others by there sex life; and I don't think anyone (not state not religion) should have any say in how we conduct our private sex life.
 
To put it bluntly, all over the world there are married men who manage to uphold their vows, to keep their pants zipped, and to work diligently to make their marriages strong. Apparently Diana's great unhappiness started early in their marriage. And it had nothing to do with any of her (supposed) lovers. She had reason to believe, and with good reason, that her husband was in love with another woman.

Charles could have made a much greater effort to build his marriage and support his very young bride.

I believe Diana had unreasonable and irrational expectations of Charles and what their marriage was going to be. She had issues and was very needy and seemed to want him to give her his full attention during their off-duty times. Charles, OTOH, was a man with a wide range of interests and obligations and who liked to read and spend time with his friends, with whom she had little in common. Hence she was unhappy with him reading philosophy books during the honeymoon when Diana wanted his undivided attention, and she made a fuss when he wanted to be with his boring old friends. Had she taken the opportunity to get to know the real man, and had he taken the time to get to know the real woman, they would have realised they were not suited to each other and that disastrous marriage would never have taken place. She was prone to throwing tantrums when she didn't get what she wanted and even made the poor man give up his pet dog!

It takes two to make a marriage work, and Diana was just as much at fault in the early period when they failed to bond in a way that would create a stable foundation for their future together. Diana owed Charles as much of an obligation to try to make him happy as he did to try and make her happy.

And please no-one raise the fact they had two children as evidence they were in love. All that means is that they fancied each other.
 
Lady Sarah, Diana's sister had remarked, "I wouldn't marry anyone I didn't love whether he were the dustman or the King of England."
Suppose at the announcement of her engagement to Prince Charles, Lady Diana had spoken thus: "Gentlemen of the press, my dear sister Sarah first spoke these words: 'I wouldn't marry anyone I didn't love whether he were the dustman or the King of England.'"
Would people have been shocked?
Would Charles have been shocked?
 
Yes. I think, what it all boils down to, is whether a person believes that there's an absolute standard of behaviour to which one is accountable. Some people believe that sexual unfaithfulness is wrong no matter what the circumstances; others disagree. These two views are opposed and will never come to an agreement. To those who believe that marriage vows are a sacred/binding contract--whether in the eyes of the church or the state, Charles and Diana's adultery is unjustifiable and inexcusable. However, I fear that those who believe this now are largely judged as being judgmental--how's that for irony?

Charles- and to a much lesser extent, Diana- had a sacred obligation to his country, not just to his marriage.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a member of the Church of England. I'm not even a Christian. Through the years, of course I've known people who were unfaithful in their marriage. That's nothing to do with me, and I don't presume to judge them, although I hope their children don't know about it.


I expect higher standards from my rabbi because of what he has chosen to represent. I would presume that the future head of the CoE is meant to represent similarly high standards.
 
I'm not a member of the Church of England. I'm not even a Christian. Through the years, of course I've known people who were unfaithful in their marriage. That's nothing to do with me, and I don't presume to judge them, although I hope their children don't know about it.


I expect higher standards from my rabbi because of what he has chosen to represent. I would presume that the future head of the CoE is meant to represent similarly high standards.

The Head of the CoE, such as Edward VII or William IV... what difference. Charles loved someone. And, truly, so. Important. This was not just a fling, it was real. But, he, also thought, as many previous princes have, he could have he cake and eat it, too. Diana was a spoiler. Why she thought he would devote himself to her, I do not know. This was not a marriage of passion. He did his duty. She was his Queen Alexandra. Only, she didn't read the script. Rabbis have affair, too. No one is exempt. They have to really care about the other person and not be, personally, selfish. Charles is very spoiled. He knows whatever he does, if he is circumspect, will go without mention. Diana, was young and had a middleclass idea of marriage. Not the one she was exposed to. Perhaps, that is what she wanted. She wanted to be loved and cherished. Wrong fellow. He loved someone else. And she was immature and demanding. Camilla was warm and loving, and what Charles needed. Somewhat of a lover and mother.
 
Charles' religion accepts that human beings have weaknesses and make mistakes and permits him, and every other member of the Church of England, to confess his sins, express his remorse, and be forgiven by God. Here is part of the transcript of the CNN coverage of Camilla & Charles' wedding. The speakers are correspondent Becky Anderson and Anderson Cooper, and the Right Rev. Michael Scott-Joynt, Bishop of Winchester.

"ANDERSON: OK. Bishop Michael Scott is still with us. He's in the London bureau. Bishop, thank you very much indeed for staying with us. Talk to us, if you will, through the blessing that we will be witnessing live here on CNN in the next hour or so.

SCOTT-JOYNT: Glad to do that. And I think the -- it's heart is the couple's affirmation, before God and in public, of the marriage commitment that they've just made in the register office. They're praying together for God's blessing on their marriage and they're doing that in the context of Christian worship in that historic place before the archbishop of Canterbury. And that's the core of the service.

Of course, it's the case that, like any Church of England service, there is an expression of penitence, of regret, of remorse, which they, and all the others who are there, will say together. They'll use language then that Prince Charles will have used most Sundays of his life. But it's really not the case to say, as I think I heard a few minutes ago, that that act of penitence is the heart of the service. That's simply a natural element within it.

The heart of the service, in my judgment, is their public reaffirmation of the commitment to each other in marriage, that they've just made privately before this small number of people in the register office. And that will be a moment where people will be able to see that the couple have committed themselves in this way.

COOPER: That act of penitence has received, obviously, a lot of attention in British papers. People focusing on past acts of indiscretion -- and they both have -- has occurred. What exactly is the act of penitence? What do people -- what do they say and what do those in attendance say as well? SCOTT-JOYNT: Well, I think the British press I think have got themselves over-excited about that. Of course it's the case that on a day like this, none of those present and none of the rest of us can forget the past, and many of those pictures have been shown already on news bulletins earlier today. I'm quite -- I'm confident that in their preparation for the service with the archbishop of Canterbury, Prince Charles and Camilla will have talked through with him, I guess, prayed through with him, the events of the past. And, of course, it's natural that in this service, as in any other Church of England service, there is a corporate act of penitence.

The words of it are those from the confession and the Book of Common Prayer and Communion Service, and they're strong words. And when we say them, as any of us who are Christians do regularly, we have in mind both our own personal sins and shortcomings and those that we share in as some human beings. It's very important then to realize that whenever we confess our sins, we're looking to God for forgiveness, and the confession that they and everybody else present will say together will be immediately followed by the archbishop's expressing God's forgiveness for the couple and all concerned for what they have poured into that confession.

I think it's important too to remember and to be very sympathetic about today, the reality that as in any marriage of this kind, all many of those present will have all kinds of complex, difficult, many- layered memories of the past, from the couple's children to their parents to previous -- a previous spouse, to friends, who lived with all the history of the last 20, 30 years or so. So all that will be there, and the act of penitence is there. The absolution is really more important, the declaring of God's forgiveness, and the core of it is that done and meant and real their affirmation of their marriage commitment to each other before God and us all."

Charles admitted his transgressions as provided for in the rules of the Anglican Church and, according to the Church to which he belongs and of which he will one day be Supreme Governor, he has been forgiven by God. In those circumstances, I think it's high time for people who dwell on the past and the mistakes he made associated with his ill-fated first marriage, to forgive him, too.

ETA: Here is a link to the transcript of the coverage. It includes the service itself and the relevant words of Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. There's some other interesting stuff in there, too, related to Diana and Charles. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/09/se.01.html
 
Last edited:
I'm not a member of the Church of England. I'm not even a Christian. Through the years, of course I've known people who were unfaithful in their marriage. That's nothing to do with me, and I don't presume to judge them, although I hope their children don't know about it.


I expect higher standards from my rabbi because of what he has chosen to represent. I would presume that the future head of the CoE is meant to represent similarly high standards.

I'm not unsympathetic to your point but there is a major difference between Charles and your rabbi: Charles doesn't have a choice about becoming the head of the Church of England. I think it is safe to assume your rabbi had a choice. Moreover, although Charles attends church, I'm not sure that he goes every Sunday.

Regarding Charles future role, as a Christian, I believe in forgiveness and redemption. Although I don't excuse adultery, I'm also sympathetic to the fact that both Diana and Charles were trapped in a marriage and it took a while for them to accept that divorce was a possibility.

Between Charles and Diana, I think Diana was more of the hypocrite because she criticized Charles without disclosing that she had affairs of her own. As I said, Charles has no choice about his future role as head of the church, Diana did have a choice.


ETA: Diana also had affairs with other women's husbands even as she was criticizing Charles and Camilla. To me that she was as much of a hypocrite as a religious leader who was having an affair would be.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes, I'm in agreement with you. We have no reason to believe that the expression of repentance and remorse as part of C & C's marriage blessing service wasn't genuine.

Regarding Charles future role, as a Christian, I believe in forgiveness and redemption. ..
ETA: Diana also had affairs with other women's husbands even as she was criticizing Charles and Camilla. To me that she was as much of a hypocrite as a religious leader who was having an affair would be.
 
Back
Top Bottom