Charles and Diana

[Curryong]

You make many good points, Duch_Luver. I do think that Charles was still in love with Camilla at the time he was courting Diana and he should have been mature enough to realise they had little in common really and they would not be right for each other.

However, once it all started going pear shaped, even if it was Charles's decision to marry, I don't know what the Royal Family, specifically the Queen and Prince Philip could have done to hold the marriage of these two people together together when it was irretreviably broken. Charles couldnt 'suck it up' and stay married under those circumstances.

I do think that in public Charles and Diana did make a marvellous team in spite of Charles's jealousy. However, privately, for several reasons, they were completely and utterly miserable together. The Queen and Prince Philip were flummoxed and worried and saddened by the developments, not least that their son was in love with another woman.

They wrote to both parties and held private meetings apparently, but both Charles and Diana were human beings, not puppets, and the Queen and Philip weren't qualified marriage counsellors. How can you make two adults who could barely stand each other stay together in a shell of a marriage just for the sake of the country? I don't believe it would be possible.

King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra had a shell of a marriage for decades, though it wasn't miserable. They held the whole shebang together in public while leading separate private lives. However that was a very different time and a very different British media and society.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Some good points, and its come out that they both had misgivings about the marriage before the start, but once the engagement was announced, the really was no going back, for either of them, barring a huge scandal like Charles being photographed with Camilla, etc. which didnt happen.

I remember Junor saying Charles life is 90 percent duty, well part of that duty was doing what was necessary to stay married, I remember Patrick Jephson saying their main job was to stay married.

Also they like to go on how the queen is such an authority, I remember a Vanity Fair article where she had a 30 min meeting with them before a trip to Germany as they had been showing public cracks in the marriage and the trip went off very well. With Charles being so cowed by his father and mother, im surprised they couldnt bring him to heel as far as quitting Camilla. My guess is that they really didnt care, they were "trapped" in marriage, so to speak, and probably didnt dream back in the mid 80s things would turn out in the media like it did. Also Diana wasnt a blood member of the family, so they would always side with Charles. Or, maybe its a rare instance where Charles could stand up to his parents, shame he didnt do it earlier.

My other issue with them is the apparent lack of setting proper expectations with Diana as far as what Charles' private life was going to be and making sure she had the chance to have one for herself as well. While according to her account of confronting Camilla, she said she wanted her husband, I think it was the dishonesty and sneaking around of the C&C affair which irked her and being isolated and left with not much of a romantic life with him pulling out of the marriage, emotionally, at least.

Yes, when they were "on" such as the tours from 83-86, esp the Oz, Canada and US tour, they were as Jephson says " a world-beating couple" they were a great act.

While im a big Diana fan, I do find it curious that she wouldnt be aware of the chance that would happen to her. Im surprised that being an aristocrat she didnt get taught the ways of their marriages. Maybe they figured she marry a commoner, like a head of a bank or something, so didnt bother. Maybe it was too many Barbara Cartland books, but it seemed like her ideas on marriage came more from the "real" world, otherwise, shed have just quietly found her own version of "Camilla" ie a long term stable romance out of the marriage, its a question that has me most curious and I havent found an answer to it.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Who knew what before the romance started?

One question i've wondered about was about how much Diana's friends and family knew about Charles' connection with Camilla before the romance started?

Watching a documentary on Camilla's rise as Charles mistress, it was said that the PoW had "comfort stops" at various manors and prominent houses in the English countryside.

I find it odd that no one knew anything once Charles and Diana started to see each other, or that her expectations for her having Charles affections to herself alone would be allowed to flourish which seems to be a main area of contention that made the marriage die out.

Makes you wonder if she'd have been encouraged to have a private life for herself outside the marriage, if theyd still be married now. Just seems odd to me that a member of the aristocracy would have the ideas of marriage more along the lines of a commoner. Its that dichotomy that has me so curious.....

Im new to the forums so if there's a better way to position the question, id appreciate it if the mods could let me know, thanks.

 

[Countessmeout]

You think Diana should have been encouraged to have a lover of her own? Should the royals have supplied her a love pad to meet him at? If both members have to have affairs to keep a marriage going, what is the point? Besides Diana wasn't that innocent in her marriage.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

I think the whole love pad thing is a bit silly, but on the subject, several close friends allowed Charles to have "love pads" when their duty should have been to preserving the marriage, even if hes the PoW, part of being a good friend is telling them when they're making a mistake.

In the end, yes Diana wasnt innocent in the marriage, but dont forget Charles started the whole cheating mess, she was just giving a case of whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If hed have done his duty and forsaken all others, my opinion is that she wouldnt have strayed, either.

Also the PoW is much older and should be more mature than her, hes also had more years of having the duty of upholding a royal marriage, etc. I could go on. Considering how the marriage ended and the damage to the monarchy, if only for a calculating self interest, they should have made sure both parties in the marriage were taken care of and ensured a quiet private life for both.

Im guessing they thought Diana would be a meek mouse, and once they had their heir and spare, her happiness was put low on the priority,if it ever was on the radar at all, but she fought to the end, giving the RF a black eye they could have avoided entirely....

But again, im more curious of how she wasnt cautioned beforehand of the Princes wandering eye, or at least educated on how royal marriages would turn out, and thus both parties could have arrived at a mutually beneficial arrangement instead of the "war of the wales".

 

[Osipi]

From what I've read over the years, going into the marriage, I think Diana had totally different expectations than perhaps a more mature woman would have had. I honestly believe that that once married, she believed that Charles was solely hers and that she would come first in all things and all matters. She grew to resent anything that took him away from her. His friends, his passions and his duties (we all know well now that Charles could be classified as a workaholic and always on the go). He did cut out many from his circle of friends (Andrew and Camilla Parker-Bowles among them) and if I remember right, also cut back on his engagements and there were many, many happy times this couple did spend together.

I think the main problem may have been a lack of intimacy of a best friendship between the two. They found out they shared passions for totally different things. Diana wanted and needed someone doting on her constantly and that was something that Charles couldn't give her. She was leaning towards being extroverted and Charles was a major introvert. She loved the city and the life of the city while Charles preferred the countryside and solitude. There were just too many differences.

Where the legacy really lies is that their sons grew up appreciating and learning from the passions of both of their parents. Where I see the best of both Charles and Diana is reflected in their sons. That was the main area where they both agreed on and worked together to be good parents.

 

[Queen Claude]

There were red flags aplenty that Charles was not going to be a lovey, dovey solicitous husband and Diana chose to ignore those red flags because she was just as keen as everyone else involved with Charles marrying (her) and producing heirs. To the extent Diana was in love, IMO she was in love with the Prince of Wales/heir to the throne and not the man himself.

As far as should Diana been warned, I think that the onus should have been on her own family to make sure that she was clear on what kind of arrangement she was entering and the potential pitfalls and not the royal family. Ironically, as much as it gets pointed out that open marriages are common among royals and aristocrats, that was not the case with the Windsors in recent memory. George V and George VI did not have mistresses and in their own way had good marriages. There were murmurings about Prince Philip but many say that he is a flirt not a philanderer. Princess Margaret had an open marriage but then it became public that she and her husband were living separate lives and they ended up getting divorced which IMO is what would have eventually happened to Charles and Diana had Diana herself not exposed their marital situation in the Morton book. Even if Diana and Charles could have come to some kind of understanding with their marriage, I doubt if they could have gone on indefinitely living separate lives privately but playing happy couple/happy family publicly without sooner or later some media outlet deciding to do an expose showing what the true state of Charles and Diana's relationship was.

When I think of Charles and Diana, I definitely see both of their flaws and missteps but ultimately I see them as a two people whose marriage did not work out and they got divorced.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

In the beginning he was supportive, but her popularity bruised his fragile ego, even fellow Charles supporter Junor said it bothered him that he now knew his place as keeper of his wifes flowers, another time, a courtier was seen him kicking a pebble downcast and him saying ruefully they don't want to see me anymore. A photographer said when a kid asked him at a horse outing "Oy Charlie, wheres Di" he said "Shes not coming so you better ask for your money back.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Regardless of what happened when, who knew about who when etc etc the facts are Charles and Diana married, they had two sons, Diana cheated on Charles and Charles purportedly went to Camilla. They divorced, Diana died and in 2005 Charles married Camilla.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Diana and Charles went on a cruise with William and Harry that the media billed as a second honeymoon. Diana was not even speaking to Charles.

Diana supposedly listened to the door while Charles made a phone to Camilla.

There is no evidence that Charles call Camilla in 1981.

This version seems to support the time line, especially when one considers Camilla's family (something conveniently overlooked by most.)

TRUTH ABOUT CHARLES AND DIANA’S CHEATING

The Prince’s public image has been sadly distorted by the failure of his marriage to Diana and the repercussions of her tragic death.

The image she actively cultivated through the media was largely a fantasy which ensured she was visualised as a victim, not just of fate, but of unfair treatment by the Royal Family, who had driven her to seek romantic comfort elsewhere.

Charles suffered the backlash from this and for years was heavily censured for his relationship with Camilla, the wife of his friend Andrew Parker Bowles, who is also a friend of mine.

My firm understanding from the Prince’s close friend, the soldier and businessman Gerald Ward (now dead), is that between 1981, when Charles and Diana married, and 1988, Charles had no affair whatever with Camilla.

They occasionally met socially when her husband was also present and they exchanged Christmas cards, but otherwise there was no relationship.

Then, in 1988 — by which time Diana was having extra-marital affairs — Ward invited Andrew Parker Bowles to fish at Balmacneil, his house on the River Tay in Scotland, and to bring Camilla with him.

Unexpectedly and at very short notice Andrew was unable to do so and Camilla went alone. Prince Charles had also been invited to fish and it was on that occasion that his affair with Camilla was reignited — after his marriage to Diana had irretrievably collapsed. Diana’s psychiatric problems sometimes drove her to assault her husband and Camilla was the only person in whom he could confide when at his wit’s end.

He also turned to her for advice and help when Diana mutilated her own arms and legs or deliberately injured herself in other ways. While Camilla avoided media attention (including from myself), declining all comment, Diana encouraged and manipulated it while blaming it for damaging the marriage.

Few have shown more skill in managing the media to her advantage through direct contact with selected members or through well-briefed friends.

After Andrew and Camilla divorced, he assured me Camilla had no wish to be Queen. Nevertheless, she was convinced that the particular emotional support she alone had been able to provide could be helpful to Charles in his future role as King.

In short, she envisaged herself in a consort role for which she is having excellent experience as Duchess of Cornwall, apparently to the great satisfaction of the rest of the Royal Family and, perhaps even more so, of the public.

Fishing trip where Prince Charles hooked Camilla by man who's spent 70 years exposing secrets | Daily Mail Online

 

[Curryong]

As far as people in London Society knowing about Charles and Camilla's prior relationship before the engagement, in one of the Diana biographies I read it said that a London gossip columnist stated privately that Princess Margaret had commented to friends before the wedding that Mrs Parker Bowles had a strong hold on the Prince of Wales and might not give him up. So the great emotional bond that Camilla and Charles shared before the wedding was known, though perhaps only in a small circle.

I do not believe however that Charles resumed his romance with Camilla until years after the wedding. They did see each other at times when they both hunted, however. The editor of The Sun newspaper disclosed that for nearly a decade from 1982 he would phone Camilla regularly and receive information from Charles's side of things, Charles's POV.

Earl Spencer was a sick man in 1981. He was recuperating from his catastrophic stroke suffered earlier, and was still not well when he escorted Diana down the aisle at her wedding. One courtier who met him at the time of the engagement described him as a charming old buffer but not perhaps as with it as he could have been. I think he was just pleased that Diana was in love, happy that it was a 'good' marriage and expected her to be happy. The Spencer children still had problems with their relationship with their stepmother, Raine, at that time too, so I don't think a clearheaded chat between Diana and her father was ever on the cards.

Diana's mother didn't seem to pay much attention to the relationship. She was happy for Diana but she and Mr Shand Kydd had a new life in Australia at the time of the engagement and I don't think she knew any London gossip.

Ruth, Lady Fermoy, Diana's grandmother, did have some reservations about Diana being able to fit into the BRF's very different lifestyle and made some comments to that effect but I don't think Diana picked up on it. Ruth was said later to have very much regretted that she had kept her stronger doubts about the relationship to herself.

The Queen Mother was 81 years old in 1981. She was shrewd, but probably thought that Diana was charming, Camilla was in the past and everything would be fine. The Queen, perhaps mistakenly, apparently refused to give Charles her opinion on whether he should marry Diana. She obviously wished him to marry without bias of any kind swaying him. Prince Philip was alarmed at the result of media speculation on the romance affecting Diana's reputation and wrote to Charles asking him to make his mind up one way or the other, something Charles chose to regard as an ultimatum.

The BRF at that time seem to have been rather hands off, communicating by letter and not having cosy hearts to hearts. I think Charles did want to do the right thing by the country and himself. However, I do believe that he should have listened to what his heart was telling him, to his doubts. I think, in spite of the pressure, a year or more's courtship before the engagement so they could have got to know each other properly (and realised they weren't right for each other) would have been a very, very good thing. Instead they barely knew each other really.

 

[Osipi]

One thing to keep in mind is that the attitude and thinking of the different eras. At the time of David and Wallis, the attitude of people (along with the CoE) was much different than in the 90s. By the time of Charles' marriage to Camilla, divorce was a more "acceptable" thing and even the CoE had relaxed their stance on it. It no longer carried the stigma it did during the 30s.

First and foremost, when it comes to marriage royal or not, its success depends solely on two people to make it sink or swim. Sometimes when people marry without really knowing each other that well, they find they're truly not compatible at all, want different things from life or sometimes even just drift apart. If a marriage is truly a partnership, a loving one it grows. If it isn't, its not hard for the relationship to be filled with resentment, unhappiness and each spouse to wish things were different. Sometimes divorce is the best answer as then each person is free to find what they need in life from a partner. This also doesn't mean that the couple themselves made a mistake with the marriage. The intentions at the very beginning were good, sincere ones but like oil and vinegar, they just don't mix. Neither of them are at fault for being the persons they are. Its just that the two of them together don't work in a fulfilling way for the good of both of them.

Sometimes the shoes you love in the store just aren't the right fit and hurt when you actually wear them and they hurt your feet.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

One question i've wondered about was about how much Diana's friends and family knew about Charles' connection with Camilla before the romance started?

Watching a documentary on Camilla's rise as Charles mistress, it was said that the PoW had "comfort stops" at various manors and prominent houses in the English countryside.

Lady Sarah Spencer dated Charles before Diana. Did Sarah ever encounter any conversation in which Charles may have mentioned something about Camilla?

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Lady Sarah Spencer dated Charles before Diana. Did Sarah ever encounter any conversation in which Charles may have mentioned something about Camilla?

So far haven't heard anything, and youd think it would be mentioned in a book or documentary. But new stuff always seems to percolate out, or at least new to me. I recently heard in an article in the times or daily mail or something that Sarah looked around St. Paul's on the 29th of July, 1981 and said "I thought all this would be mine".

There was some sibling rivalry between the two, Diana looked up to Sarah, but Sarah treated her like a dog when they lived together briefly in a London flat, so it could be either she didnt know anything, or maybe did, and didnt say anything out of jealousy. Thats what im curious about, and would be an interesting wrinkle on the story, I have no wish to cast a bad eye on Sarah if she didnt know.

But youd think with girls asking their boyfriends about previous girls, and general scuttlebutt, something would come out, but you hear as many stories about CPB being a secret as you do open knowledge among the jet set, so who knows.

I remember thinking when I saw Diana and Sarah getting crowded by press on a trip to Italy shortly before she died, and wondered if at last, she thinks maybe it was a blessing she made the comments she did back when she dated Charles, be careful what you wish for and all.....

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

As far as people in London Society knowing about Charles and Camilla's prior relationship before the engagement, in one of the Diana biographies I read it said that a London gossip columnist stated privately that Princess Margaret had commented to friends before the wedding that Mrs Parker Bowles had a strong hold on the Prince of Wales and might not give him up. So the great emotional bond that Camilla and Charles shared before the wedding was known, though perhaps only in a small circle.

I do not believe however that Charles resumed his romance with Camilla until years after the wedding. They did see each other at times when they both hunted, however. The editor of The Sun newspaper disclosed that for nearly a decade from 1982 he would phone Camilla regularly and receive information from Charles's side of things, Charles's POV.

Earl Spencer was a sick man in 1981. He was recuperating from his catastrophic stroke suffered earlier, and was still not well when he escorted Diana down the aisle at her wedding. One courtier who met him at the time of the engagement described him as a charming old buffer but not perhaps as with it as he could have been. I think he was just pleased that Diana was in love, happy that it was a 'good' marriage and expected her to be happy. The Spencer children still had problems with their relationship with their stepmother, Raine, at that time too, so I don't think a clearheaded chat between Diana and her father was ever on the cards.

Diana's mother didn't seem to pay much attention to the relationship. She was happy for Diana but she and Mr Shand Kydd had a new life in Australia at the time of the engagement and I don't think she knew any London gossip.

Ruth, Lady Fermoy, Diana's grandmother, did have some reservations about Diana being able to fit into the BRF's very different lifestyle and made some comments to that effect but I don't think Diana picked up on it. Ruth was said later to have very much regretted that she had kept her stronger doubts about the relationship to herself.

The Queen Mother was 81 years old in 1981. She was shrewd, but probably thought that Diana was charming, Camilla was in the past and everything would be fine. The Queen, perhaps mistakenly, apparently refused to give Charles her opinion on whether he should marry Diana. She obviously wished him to marry without bias of any kind swaying him. Prince Philip was alarmed at the result of media speculation on the romance affecting Diana's reputation and wrote to Charles asking him to make his mind up one way or the other, something Charles chose to regard as an ultimatum.

The BRF at that time seem to have been rather hands off, communicating by letter and not having cosy hearts to hearts. I think Charles did want to do the right thing by the country and himself. However, I do believe that he should have listened to what his heart was telling him, to his doubts. I think, in spite of the pressure, a year or more's courtship before the engagement so they could have got to know each other properly (and realised they weren't right for each other) would have been a very, very good thing. Instead they barely knew each other really.

Oh yes, I think his fathers comments would have weighed heavily on him, plus his whole getting married by 30 remark did sort of put a noose around him so to speak which made him desperate to marry. She had stars in her eyes, it just seems odd her reaction to the marital infidelities, if shed come from say a middle class background, it would be understandable.

But yes all are points id thought of before with the Earl's stroke, her mother being away and Raine not wanted to invest a lot of time in step children, and her grandmother probably thought this would help her family get closer to the crown. I guess with no one thinking the divorce would happen, maybe they just thought it would all sort itself out somehow...

 

[Lady Nimue]

Diana and Charles went on a cruise with William and Harry that the media billed as a second honeymoon. Diana was not even speaking to Charles.

Diana supposedly listened to the door while Charles made a phone to Camilla.

There is no evidence that Charles call Camilla in 1981.

This version seems to support the time line, especially when one considers Camilla's family (something conveniently overlooked by most.)

Fishing trip where Prince Charles hooked Camilla by man who's spent 70 years exposing secrets | Daily Mail Online

I agree with this. It's what I have always understood. Charles may have 'sought comfort' prior to 1988 but it was not with Camilla. As you say, everyone overlooks Camilla's life with her growing family at the time.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

I agree with this. It's what I have always understood. Charles may have 'sought comfort' prior to 1988 but it was not with Camilla. As you say, everyone overlooks Camilla's life with her growing family at the time.

Short of being able to get access to the PoW phone records if its court of law proof youre looking for. But there was more than one phone call incident, the one before the wedding where Diana "decided to be nice" and leave the room when Charles talked to Camilla on the phone. The one where he says "no matter what happens, ill always love you" was a separate one.

There was the F&G jewellery gift, the entwined C's cufflinks, the diary pictures, the lunch 10 days before the wedding, Camillas constant knowledge of what C&D were up to during the engagement, etc etc. After the marriage, whenever Diana would go to Highgrove and hit redial on the phone it would be Camillas place, Charles saying he wasnt going to be the only PoW to not have a mistress, then the time the press almost caught them and Charles had to be driven out under a blanket in a car.

Lets not forget the PoW's own admission in the Dimbleby interview.

I mean if you like Camilla,whatever, thats a person's perogative, but trying to whitewash her role in the events, only undermines Camilla fans positions, just have the strength to say, "I like her, she did what she did, whatever".

Also laugh at how Charles date of adultery keeps getting later and later, next thing you know they'll be saying her was only unfaithful to Diana in the year 2000!!!

 

[Lady Nimue]

Short of being able to get access to the PoW phone records if its court of law proof youre looking for. But there was more than one phone call incident, the one before the wedding where Diana "decided to be nice" and leave the room when Charles talked to Camilla on the phone. The one where he says "no matter what happens, ill always love you" was a separate one.

There was the F&G jewellery gift, the entwined C's cufflinks, the diary pictures, the lunch 10 days before the wedding, Camillas constant knowledge of what C&D were up to during the engagement, etc etc. After the marriage, whenever Diana would go to Highgrove and hit redial on the phone it would be Camillas place, Charles saying he wasnt going to be the only PoW to not have a mistress, then the time the press almost caught them and Charles had to be driven out under a blanket in a car.

One must suss out what Diana claimed from what we know as fact. Unfortunately, Diana's veracity is always in question. Much of the Diana 'legend' was created by Diana herself.

Lets not forget the PoW's own admission in the Dimbleby interview.

He did not admit to anything you are suggesting (regarding Camilla). He merely said that both of them went elsewhere after the marriage became 'irretrievably broken down'.

I mean if you like Camilla,whatever, thats a person's perogative, but trying to whitewash her role in the events, only undermines Camilla fans positions, just have the strength to say, "I like her, she did what she did, whatever".

It's not about white-washing. It's about not taking Diana's slander of Camilla as fact, and repeating it as gospel. That's all. But I have a hunch this is not a reasonable stance in your view, so we can move on.

Also laugh at how Charles date of adultery keeps getting later and later, next thing you know they'll be saying her was only unfaithful to Diana in the year 2000!!!

It's the reverse. The date of Charles' 'adultery' (with Camilla) has been getting earlier and earlier, so much so that some seem to be saying that there was no break in their relationship over decades. However, Charles had other 'confidantes'. He had no 'need' of Camilla. Diana chose to go after Camilla rather than the others because when she was finally in the mode of destroying Charles, Camilla was indeed the current 'confidante' of Charles.

 

[Curryong]

And what are we to make of the regular phone communications between Camilla and the Sun editor of the time who, he said, received progress reports of the Royal marriage etc from 1982 for ten years, conveying Charles's point of view, via Camilla? A bit strange if Charles and Camilla didn't have any communication with each other at that time. It would have been a boring conversation, one would have thought!

In fact we know that they were seeing each other in the early years of Charles's marriage, when they were hunting with the Beaufort. A photographer caught them on horseback deep in conversation and Charles shouted at him.

My own feeling is that Camilla and Charles were deeply connected before the engagement. Princess Margaret is said to have remarked as much to friends at the time of the wedding and wondered whether Mrs Parker Bowles was prepared to give him up. I believe Charles was in love with Camilla from the time they first met and remained emotionally attached to her throughout his first marriage, in a way that he was not with his wife.

I also believe that Diana's instincts were correct after Harry's birth, in that she believed Charles had emotionally disconnected from her and was seeing Camilla again. Let's not forget too, that yes, Camilla had a family, but both her children were sent away to boarding school as children. Tom in particular has said he was sent away early.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

One must suss out what Diana claimed from what we know as fact. Unfortunately, Diana's veracity is always in question. Much of the Diana 'legend' was created by Diana herself.



He did not admit to anything you are suggesting (regarding Camilla). He merely said that both of them went elsewhere after the marriage became 'irretrievably broken down'.



It's not about white-washing. It's about not taking Diana's slander of Camilla as fact, and repeating it as gospel. That's all. But I have a hunch this is not a reasonable stance in your view, so we can move on.



It's the reverse. The date of Charles' 'adultery' (with Camilla) has been getting earlier and earlier, so much so that some seem to be saying that there was no break in their relationship over decades. However, Charles had other 'confidantes'. He had no 'need' of Camilla. Diana chose to go after Camilla rather than the others because when she was finally in the mode of destroying Charles, Camilla was indeed the current 'confidante' of Charles.

A BP staffer saw her open the F&G present, palace staffers arranged the lunch before the wedding, etc. While he didnt say in the same breath that he was unfaithful that it was Camilla, he did emphasize how close he was with her, and if it wasnt true, why did Andrew Parker-Bowles feel the need to get divorced, if not for the public cuckolding he received as a result of the Dimbleby interview?

It will always be a matter of debate as to when he restarted with Camilla physically, but it was in the early days of the marriage the emotional adultery that caused so many of Diana's rows and issues with Charles. Like most upper class families, Charles was "most likely" physically faithful till his first son was born, after that, who knows.

He for sure had other "comforters" as well, Lady Tryon, i forget that womans name from Canada, and others. Diana had formed sort of a pact with Lady Tryon against Camilla, the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic. Also later in the marriage Tiggy Legge-Bourke(sp) was a target of both Dianas and later Camillas wrath, so it wasn't just a monopoly on disliking Camilla, but she was far and away the one most likely to attract Charles attentions when they should have been given to his wife, so I think thats why Diana had her in her sights.

The bottom line was had they not tried to make Diana out to be crazy to deflect his wanderings, people would be less polarized. But his admission just proved that her concerns early in the marriage were valid, and rightly or wrongly, people were willing to excuse her later adultery as the response to him starting it. If someone shoots at you, you dont fault the person that shoots back to defend them self, so to speak.

Camilla was like this constant wet basement rotting away the pillars of the marriage, it might not have been physical from day one, but face it, she helped charles select someone to marry who would "not be a problem" the mouse, i believe, she called Diana, she was always there either on the phone or in person to give Charles the support he should have sought from Diana, at some point she should have made him talk to his wife rather than her, if she was so innocent.

She was this toxic presence in the marriage. id have more respect if her fans would just admit to her playing the long game by any means necessary, and its too bad for Diana that she didnt play it better. Of course, that would mean admitting to an image that the palace is very keen to erase of the whole matter.

 

[Lady Nimue]

And what are we to make of the regular phone communications between Camilla and the Sun editor of the time who, he said, received progress reports of the Royal marriage etc from 1982 for ten years conveying Charles's point of view, via Camilla? A bit strange if Charles and Camilla didn't have any communication with each other at that time. It would have been a boring conversation, one would have thought!

In fact we know that they were seeing each other in the early years of Charles's marriage, when they were hunting with the Beaufort. A photographer caught them on horseback deep in conversation and Charles shouted at him.

I think we were discussing an intimate relationship? Debating your assertions point-by-point would be time consuming. Keep in mind that Diana 'cleaned house' very shortly after her marriage to Charles, sending away his circle of friends, his valet, even his dog.

My own feeling is that Camilla and Charles were deeply connected before the engagement. Princess Margaret is said to have remarked as much to friends at the time of the wedding and wondered whether Mrs Parker Bowles was prepared to give him up. I believe Charles was in love with Camilla from the time they first met and remained emotionally attached to her throughout his first marriage, in a way that he was not with his wife.

As you say, it is 'feeling' and belief. You are 'informing' the situation with your speculation. It is an interesting narrative. No more.

I also believe that Diana's instincts were correct after Harry's birth, in that she believed Charles had emotionally disconnected from her and was seeing Camilla again. Let's not forget too, that yes, Camilla had a family, but both her children were sent away to boarding school as children. Tom in particular has said he was sent away early.

Diana was being a bit disingenuous here. Remember that she was deeply involved with Hewitt (a red-head) whose embarrassing (indirect) tell-all was hot off the press when she made these suggestions. It was imperative that she be seen as the wronged spouse, rather than the wandering spouse herself. She was doing some fancy soft-shoe to re-direct the public's gaze. She was very adept at flipping the onus onto Charles.

But I should disengage. Diana is a very old story. It's not hard to understand if one follows the (factual) bread crumbs to their inevitable (and tragic) conclusion.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

I think we were discussing an intimate relationship? Debating your assertions point-by-point would be time consuming. Keep in mind that Diana 'cleaned house' very shortly after her marriage to Charles, sending away his circle of friends, his valet, even his dog.



As you say, it is 'feeling' and belief. You are 'informing' the situation with your speculation. It is an interesting narrative. No more.



Diana was being a bit disingenuous here. Remember that she was deeply involved with Hewitt (a red-head) whose embarrassing (indirect) tell-all was hot off the press when she made these suggestions. It was imperative that she be seen as the wronged spouse, rather than the wandering spouse herself. She was doing some fancy soft-shoe to re-direct the public's gaze. She was very adept at flipping the onus onto Charles.

But I should disengage. Diana is a very old story. It's not hard to understand if one follows the (factual) bread crumbs to their inevitable (and tragic) conclusion.

OMG not the dog again!!!! the dog was sent away because he was incontinent and his legs stopped working and couldnt manage the stairs their place...this is what happens when you take Penny Junor as the gospel

As for the valet, id have to look it up but it was Stephen something, he and Diana had it out for each other, he resented her reducing his influence on him, and he was (i wasnt there of course) the one who laid out the infamous CC cufflinks. Again, if his friends are hiding him fooling around, can you blame her for wanting them out?

So now youre saying Hewitt is Harry's father?? To use the Camilla date game, that was in 86 and Harry was born in 84

Unlike other fans, Ill give you that she could also use the press for her aims as well. I'm not suggesting shes lily white, had Charles kept his promise to her, the church and his country, she most likely would have never strayed.

 

[MARG]

. . . . In the end, yes Diana wasnt innocent in the marriage, but dont forget Charles started the whole cheating mess, she was just giving a case of whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If hed have done his duty and forsaken all others, my opinion is that she wouldnt have strayed, either.

Also the PoW is much older and should be more mature than her, hes also had more years of having the duty of upholding a royal marriage, etc. I could go on. Considering how the marriage ended and the damage to the monarchy, if only for a calculating self interest, they should have made sure both parties in the marriage were taken care of and ensured a quiet private life for both.

Im guessing they thought Diana would be a meek mouse, and once they had their heir and spare, her happiness was put low on the priority,if it ever was on the radar at all, but she fought to the end, giving the RF a black eye they could have avoided entirely....

But again, im more curious of how she wasnt cautioned beforehand of the Princes wandering eye, or at least educated on how royal marriages would turn out, and thus both parties could have arrived at a mutually beneficial arrangement instead of the "war of the wales".

Diana and Charles went on a cruise with William and Harry that the media billed as a second honeymoon. Diana was not even speaking to Charles.

Diana supposedly listened to the door while Charles made a phone to Camilla.

There is no evidence that Charles call Camilla in 1981.

This version seems to support the timeline, especially when one considers Camilla's family (something conveniently overlooked by most.)

Fishing trip where Prince Charles hooked Camilla by man who's spent 70 years exposing secrets | Daily Mail Online

Firstly, we have no one other that Diana and Charles word on when his affair with Camilla began. Initially, Diana didn't really factor Camilla in on the threat to her marriage in the Morton book. She was more concerned with Tiggy Legge-Bourke's influence on both her husband and her children as Nanny cum Companion to the boys and assistant to Charles.

However, Charles stated in a TV interview that he had been faithful to Diana until the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The came the Panorama TV interview and Diana (in her signature "poor me" stance and a very heavy hand with the black eyeliner) looked up through her eyelashes and completely changed her story . . . . . Charles had cheated with Camilla throughout the entire marriage. There were three people in the marriage.

Me, I believe there were indeed three in the marriage, but that third gentleman kept changing. It also accounted for the unfair speculation as to who was Prince Harry's real father. If Diana had any decency there would never have been any hint let alone speculations as to who Harry's father was.

As to Charles roving eye . . . any references would be gratefully accepted. As to the notion of a mutual cheating society? Anyone going into marriage with that sort of attitude would be well advised to bail!

 

[Curryong]

It's a question of when Charles felt the 'marriage had irretrievably broken down' though, isn't it? Charles never put a date on that. Charles fans discount everything Diana says as lies and fantasies, while Diana fans tend to believe her version of events. When did Charles feel that his marriage was finished and the couple were no longer sleeping together? 1984, or 1986, 1987 for Charles's adherents. We are never likely to know, are we?

Also, why should Chapman Pincher be believed above any other Royal correspondent? Because he disliked Diana and takes Charles's part? As for 'giving Charles the emotional support he needed' why couldn't Camilla have just pointed to the fact that Charles had married Diana (of his own free will) and that it was up to them to work their problems out. Camilla wasn't a marriage counsellor. The honourable thing would have been to butt out.

The truth is that no one behaved well during this marriage, not Diana and not Charles. And the other parties who intruded on the marriage behaved dishonourably. That includes James Hewitt and anyone else, and yes it includes Camilla.

Camilla committed adultery with Charles while married to her husband. It doesn't matter how many nice little bows you tie it up with. Charles and Camilla were adulterers and intruders into each others' marriages, and that was true then and remains true today.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Firstly, we have no one other that Diana and Charles word on when his affair with Camilla began. Initially, Diana didn't really factor Camilla in on the threat to her marriage in the Morton book. She was more concerned with Tiggy Legge-Bourke's influence on both her husband and her children as Nanny cum Companion to the boys and assistant to Charles.

However, Charles stated in a TV interview that he had been faithful to Diana until the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The came the Panorama TV interview and Diana (in her signature "poor me" stance and a very heavy hand with the black eyeliner) looked up through her eyelashes and completely changed her story . . . . . Charles had cheated with Camilla throughout the entire marriage. There were three people in the marriage.

Me, I believe there were indeed three in the marriage, but that third gentleman kept changing. It also accounted for the unfair speculation as to who was Prince Harry's real father. If Diana had any decency there would never have been any hint let alone speculations as to who Harry's father was.

As to Charles roving eye . . . any references would be gratefully accepted. As to the notion of a mutual cheating society? Anyone goin

While not during the marriage, id put this in the "prior bad acts" category for C&C

https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/new-...-and-camillas-love-child-speaks-out-new-idea/

I agree with the prior post of Camilla feeding the press, id seen press people in docs mentioning that she was a pipeline for them for years re: the marriage, so Charles was at least emotionally unfaithful from very early on.

As for Dianas suitors, unfortunately she didnt have the experience the PoW had with fooling around, (several times before and after the marriage he was "the other man") or the network of palace staff and friends to hide it either, like he did.

Could Diana manipulate the media, of course, and she was soooo much better at the media that the BRF. Id love to see a book or movie just about how this one woman could beat the stuffing out of the unlimited resources of the BRF^^

If you look at what it cost her, no one does that unless they feel they have a good reason. The "crafty" thing would have been for her to be silent and live a lavish lifestyle, so its hard to believe that she had no reason to feel wronged enough to destroy the marriage with the panorama interview.

Its always interesting to see how her detractors use crazy and crafty whenever it suits them, though .

 

[Lady Nimue]

Thats the thing with Camilla fans they figure since Diana said it, it cant be true.

I would prefer that this not become about fandom. Refusing to demonize Camilla, and to even see her as a decent woman caught in a cross-fire is not to be her 'fan'. I think Camilla is a cool lady but that is far from being her 'fan'. Hope I've cleared that up.

Diana, however, does not have a good track record based upon what people who knew her have to say. I didn't know her, but those who did know her well admit to her lack of integrity. Plus we have endless examples of her propensity to bend the truth, the most glaring example being what she told Charles during the courtship.

A BP staffer saw her open the F&G present, palace staffers arranged the lunch before the wedding, etc. While he didnt say in the same breath that he was unfaithful that it was Camilla, he did emphasize how close he was with her, and if it wasnt true, why did Andrew Parker-Bowles feel the need to get divorced, if not for the public cuckolding he received as a result of the Dimbleby interview?

You are conflating some facts and telescoping events. Diana effectively made it impossible for the Parker-Bowles' to remain married. The Dimbleby interview did not throw Camilla under the bus. It was Diana who did that.

It will always be a matter of debate as to when he restarted with Camilla physically, but it was in the early days of the marriage the emotional adultery that caused so many of Diana's rows and issues with Charles. Like most upper class families, Charles was "most likely" physically faithful till his first son was born, after that, who knows.

All I can recommend is that you do more reading regarding exactly what Diana was like. When you do I think your strident defense will be replaced with compassion. However, just a brief scan of some of the video footage available on YouTube should give you the general idea of what Charles was up against with his very immature wife.

He for sure had other "comforters" as well, Lady Tryon, i forget that womans name from Canada, and others. Diana had formed sort of a pact with Lady Tryon against Camilla, the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic. Also later in the marriage Tiggy Legge-Bourke(sp) was a target of both Dianas and later Camillas wrath, so it wasn't just a monopoly on disliking Camilla, but she was far and away the one most likely to attract Charles attentions when they should have been given to his wife, so I think thats why Diana had her in her sights.

Diana had Camilla in her sites because Mr Hewitt was nipping at her heels. She had to come up with something fast to divert attention away from her own serious breach with Hewitt.

I'm not aware Camilla has ever given an interview. It is unknown what Camilla thinks and feels about anything, least of all Tiggy. Though we can certainly assume that she loves Charles.

The bottom line was had they not tried to make Diana out to be crazy to deflect his wanderings, people would be less polarized. But his admission just proved that her concerns early in the marriage were valid, and rightly or wrongly, people were willing to excuse her later adultery as the response to him starting it. If someone shoots at you, you dont fault the person that shoots back to defend them self, so to speak.

You are a demonstration of how successful Diana was in her mis-direction. Diana's 'craziness' (like a fox) is (sadly) evident in most videos of her, particularly in interviews, and by her own reports of her actions. Not sure a 'they' had to do much to try to make her out as unusual.

Camilla was like this constant wet basement rotting away the pillars of the marriage, it might not have been physical from day one, but face it, she helped charles select someone to marry who would "not be a problem" the mouse, i believe, she called Diana, she was always there either on the phone or in person to give Charles the support he should have sought from Diana, at some point she should have made him talk to his wife rather than her, if she was so innocent.

She was this toxic presence in the marriage. id have more respect if her fans would just admit to her playing the long game by any means necessary, and its too bad for Diana that she didnt play it better. Of course, that would mean admitting to an image that the palace is very keen to erase of the whole matter.

Heavy words. Out of balance. Did you ever read or hear Diana own to the part she played in the break down of her marriage? I haven't. She always painted herself as a victim, as you have just done. Doesn't ring true.

This is all Diana's spin. Look at it carefully because at root is the stirring up of animus against people we really do not know. That in itself should reveal the source playing out.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I haven't read this thread for a long time and I don't know what's being discussed here now, but the problem to Dianas shrinking fan base is that they can't accept that she had some of the blame for the things that happened and that she damaged the monarchy like no other since Edward VIII.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Thank you, MARG, for this nice summation. I can never keep the facts straight.

Firstly, we have no one other that Diana and Charles word on when his affair with Camilla began. Initially, Diana didn't really factor Camilla in on the threat to her marriage in the Morton book. She was more concerned with Tiggy Legge-Bourke's influence on both her husband and her children as Nanny cum Companion to the boys and assistant to Charles.

Thank you for this clarity. It all gets impossibly mushed up. The timeline is key.

However, Charles stated in a TV interview that he had been faithful to Diana until the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The came the Panorama TV interview and Diana (in her signature "poor me" stance and a very heavy hand with the black eyeliner) looked up through her eyelashes and completely changed her story . . . . . Charles had cheated with Camilla throughout the entire marriage. There were three people in the marriage.

Exactly so, and we must remember what the back-story was at that time: the Hewitt book, plus serious criminal charges pending regarding Diana's stalking of a married man. Diana was getting bad press. Her 'poor me' stance was her attempt at deflection yet again.

Me, I believe there were indeed three in the marriage, but that third gentleman kept changing. It also accounted for the unfair speculation as to who was Prince Harry's real father. If Diana had any decency there would never have been any hint let alone speculations as to who Harry's father was.

Exactly so! Diana never showed the least constancy or loyalty to Charles, let alone gratitude for marrying her and raising her social status into the British stratosphere.

As to Charles roving eye . . . any references would be gratefully accepted. As to the notion of a mutual cheating society? Anyone goin

What was that? 'goin'?

Anyway, I shouldn't comment on Diana. I find her a very negative experience the more I learn about her. She's such a sad, sad story. She threw it all away. She had reached the pinnacle of her social world, and had not the sense to keep it all in perspective. I put it down to massive immaturity. 'Nuf said.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Anyway, I shouldn't comment on Diana. I find her a very negative experience the more I learn about her. She's such a sad, sad story. She threw it all away. She had reached the pinnacle of her social world, and had not the sense to keep it all in perspective. I put it down to massive immaturity. 'Nuf said.

I agree! I try to respect people that I personally don't like, but I find that very difficult when it comes to Diana and some of her fans.

 

[MARG]

It's a question of when Charles felt the 'marriage had irretrievably broken down' though, isn't it? Charles never put a date on that. Charles fans discount everything Diana says as lies and fantasies, while Diana fans tend to believe her version of events. When did Charles feel that his marriage was finished and the couple were no longer sleeping together? 1984, or 1986, 1987 for Charles's adherents. We are never likely to know, are we?

Also, why should Chapman Pincher be believed above any other Royal correspondent? Because he disliked Diana and takes Charles's part? As for 'giving Charles the emotional support he needed' why couldn't Camilla have just pointed to the fact that Charles had married Diana (of his own free will) and that it was up to them to work their problems out. Camilla wasn't a marriage counsellor. The honourable thing would have been to butt out.

The truth is that no one behaved well during this marriage, not Diana and not Charles. And the other parties who intruded on the marriage behaved dishonourably. That includes James Hewitt and anyone else, and yes it includes Camilla.

Camilla committed adultery with Charles while married to her husband. It doesn't matter how many nice little bows you tie it up with. Charles and Camilla were adulterers and intruders into each others' marriages, and that was true then and remains true today.

The point I was trying to illustrate was that Diana, from her own mouth, changed her mind. She did not perceive Camilla as any threat and was not an issue at the time of Mortons book, that changed with her dramatic performance on the Panorama interview. His words. Her words.

If Charles and Camilla committed adultery and intruded into others families, so too did Diana and her many lovers, starting with James Hewit. That is a fact . . . there were no innocents in these relationships but I'm sick of Charles being blamed for Diana's behaviour which, in the weeks prior to her death, was splashed across the front pages of the international media as a national scandal. With her death, overnight she became a saint. And there sure as hell weren't any of those present either.