The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1001  
Old 01-04-2015, 03:19 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nice Nofret View Post
Having lovers was / is 'currant normale' for the aristrocracy and the upper class - you didn't get a divorce but just had your separate love life - no hard feelings it's another way of life. Camilla and Andrew didn't want to separate - but they had to, after hell broke loose - and they are still friends. Why not?

You also see today, that Exes stay in the same circles as current girlfriends / wives - (see the crowd around Harry & Wiliam) - So nothing wrong with an ex (Camilla) beeing together with Diana. It was Diana who didn't 'play by the rules' and had the 'strange' notions in her circles.

In such a small circle you have to drop out completly of the picture or you stay friends.

Anyway I cannot understand why Camilla and Diana shouldn't have been friends and work together to keep Charles happy - But sadly Diana was to immature and to much in a romantic fog (and much to needy).
It may have worked in the very old days, today, you mess around with someones wife or husband and there's a very high possibility that someone will come up missing. You have to be very careful in playing those very dangerous games.

Aristocracy, upper class or not, messing around or getting the "cookie" from another person other than your partner, could make a person wake up dead on the bottom of an ocean, lol.
__________________

__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #1002  
Old 01-04-2015, 03:22 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nice Nofret View Post
Having lovers was / is 'currant normale' for the aristrocracy and the upper class - you didn't get a divorce but just had your separate love life - no hard feelings it's another way of life. Camilla and Andrew didn't want to separate - but they had to, after hell broke loose - and they are still friends. Why not?

You also see today, that Exes stay in the same circles as current girlfriends / wives - (see the crowd around Harry & Wiliam) - So nothing wrong with an ex (Camilla) beeing together with Diana. It was Diana who didn't 'play by the rules' and had the 'strange' notions in her circles.

In such a small circle you have to drop out completly of the picture or you stay friends.

Anyway I cannot understand why Camilla and Diana shouldn't have been friends and work together to keep Charles happy - But sadly Diana was to immature and to much in a romantic fog (and much to needy).

Disgusting. Just appalling. Just arcane and disgusting and appalling. Yikes.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1003  
Old 01-04-2015, 03:37 PM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 514
oh well - I don't like prudes and hypocrites ... or this instant-marrying and divorcing some americans do eather Only because You don't share their way of live - no reason to condem them. Maybe you could consider, that there are more than one way to happiness and having a life.

Life isn't just black and white, and you always have to compromise - it's everybody's choice on what exactly you compromise If you are not willing to compromise - you are a wrecking ball to the social fabric.

Every group has unwritten rules you are expected to play by...
Reply With Quote
  #1004  
Old 01-04-2015, 03:38 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,460
It would not surprise me in the least if Camilla and Charles had at least the hope that they could continue their special "friendship" after the wedding. It's probably why Diana was vetted in their circle, to see if she was as pliable as many assumed she would be because of her youth. And she must have initially given them the impression that she was.

How wrong everyone turned out to be on so many levels. The sad irony is that if Diana had been willing to be in a traditional aristocratic marriage with all that implies, she would have held on to both her man and her marriage. With age and maturity, and a certain determined emotional edge, she and Charles might have found common ground. Combined with their mutual and deep love for their children and Diana's undeniable physical advantages, my personal belief is that Camilla would have eventually faded out of the picture. And I have NEVER bought the idea that Charles was Camilla's great love. She loved her husband Andrew deeply despite his betrayals, and didn't really want to ever divorce him.

Charles and Camilla were not an inevitability. Diana virtually handed him over.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #1005  
Old 01-04-2015, 03:51 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
It may have worked in the very old days, today, you mess around with someones wife or husband and there's a very high possibility that someone will come up missing. You have to be very careful in playing those very dangerous games.

Aristocracy, upper class or not, messing around or getting the "cookie" from another person other than your partner, could make a person wake up dead on the bottom of an ocean, lol.
Thats a flasehood. There are still rich married couples who live separate lives with different partners in the UK and the US. It is common amongst sports that men sleep around and their wives deal with it in their own ways. I dont condone it, but such practices were not just done in the old days.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #1006  
Old 01-04-2015, 04:05 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Thats a flasehood. There are still rich married couples who leave separated lives with different partners in the UK and the US. It is common amongst sports that men sleep around and their wives deal with it in their own ways. I dont condone it, but such practices were not just done in the old days.
It all just seems very unsanitary to me. Why not appreciate what you have at home? If the marriage or relationship don't work out, separate/divorce and move on. I would never sleep around behind my girlfriend/or wife's back. It seems like too much work anyway. Trying to keep up with the one you have at home is enough work. With what's going on all around the world, who have the time and energy to be a 'rollin stone' or 'playa playa from the himalaya'?
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #1007  
Old 01-04-2015, 04:12 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,079
Quote:
Disgusting. Just appalling. Just arcane and disgusting and appalling
NOT Disgusting, NOT appalling... simply a different set of behaviour, and morals from that you profess to follow.

It was, and indeed still is [for many], the way aristocratic marriages work[ed] in Europe for at least a millenium.
Reply With Quote
  #1008  
Old 01-04-2015, 04:30 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
NOT Disgusting, NOT appalling... simply a different set of behaviour, and morals from that you profess to follow.

It was, and indeed still is [for many], the way aristocratic marriages work[ed] in Europe for at least a millenium.

For this particular monarchy, though, who also profess to be "Christian," shouldn't this attitude be theirs, too?

But putting religion aside-completely aside-what respect for family and your future children does this "well, they should have been friends for his sake" mentality show? I mean, from a completely pragmatic point of view, there are plenty of examples of this producing fairly screwed up and disturbed people.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same result isn't the definition of insanity (contrary to popular convention), but it is the definition of stupidity.
Reply With Quote
  #1009  
Old 01-04-2015, 04:32 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
NOT Disgusting, NOT appalling... simply a different set of behaviour, and morals from that you profess to follow.

It was, and indeed still is [for many], the way aristocratic marriages work[ed] in Europe for at least a millenium.
Not everyone is hip to that game though. Not even all those who belong to that sort of group. From where I come from, you can go ahead and pull it and play the game, but you may end up walking away with a limp or even worse. These people out there today don't fool around with you.

No member of the royal family should be put through that today. They wouldn't be able to get away with it anyway...not in this day and age.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #1010  
Old 01-04-2015, 04:46 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,079
Casualfan - 'Christian' is a catch-all description encompassing a myriad different definitions of morality.. and the CoE {of which I count myself a member} is amongst the most 'liberal' and least proscriptive of all the sects which compose it.
HM the Queen's definition of the 'sanctity' of marriage would be rather different from that of the late Earl Spencer, or of the late Princess Margaret.. yet they are/were all card carrying members of that sect.
As for 'open marriages', and their offspring, there are many children successfully, and happily brought up within marriages of this kind, just as there are innumerable examples of childrens lives ruined within 'monogamous' marriages.
In short I think it is up to each couple to decide which ethic works best for them, and NOT for others to judge !
Reply With Quote
  #1011  
Old 01-04-2015, 04:53 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
It all just seems very unsanitary to me. Why not appreciate what you have at home? If the marriage or relationship don't work out, separate/divorce and move on. I would never sleep around behind my girlfriend/or wife's back. It seems like too much work anyway. Trying to keep up with the one you have at home is enough work. With what's going on all around the world, who have the time and energy to be a 'rollin stone' or 'playa playa from the himalaya'?
That may be how you see things but not everyone thinks the same. Not everyone has the same road map to happiness or a happy marriage. So I try not to judge others relationships as long as both are on the same page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by casualfan View Post
For this particular monarchy, though, who also profess to be "Christian," shouldn't this attitude be theirs, too?

But putting religion aside-completely aside-what respect for family and your future children does this "well, they should have been friends for his sake" mentality show? I mean, from a completely pragmatic point of view, there are plenty of examples of this producing fairly screwed up and disturbed people.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same result isn't the definition of insanity (contrary to popular convention), but it is the definition of stupidity.
Many of the royals aristocrats and rich iin democracies were also Christians but still were sleeping with someone other than their wife. JFK was a Catholic and cheated with everyone, Edward VII was the Head of the COE and had a mistress. How many Popes, Bishops, Priests had illegitimate children? History is full of religious people stepping out on their vows, and thqts not counting the Catholic Church sex scandal.
Again not condoning thr behavior, but this notion that Charles was the first man to cheat on his wife is based in fiction.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #1012  
Old 01-04-2015, 05:01 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
I'm one of those Christians who believe (and practice) that adultery is wrong under any circumstance. People vow that they will be sexually faithful when they marry. There are consequences to breaking vows, particularly vows that are made using God's name. Charles and Diana were both wrong to cheat sexually on the other. For whatever reasons they entered their marriage, they made highly publicized vows of faithfulness to each other. They should have realized that breaking those vows would have been a huge disappointment to the world--let alone the nation and commonwealth--who rejoiced on that wedding day in July of 1981. But instead, they both chose the road of selfishness. It was a choice. Neither person was forced into the arms of another. This caused the most suffering to the two people who loved them most, William and Harry. Then, when the War of the Walses ensued, it divided opinion; because, as with most marriage break-downs, people take sides. We all know the tragic events that followed their divorce.
Reply With Quote
  #1013  
Old 01-04-2015, 05:03 PM
Ana Von Cleves's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Our Town, United States
Posts: 97
You know, I am not quite a year older than Diana. I followed the whole thing like a true little groupie. I remember that news conference very well. At the time, I just thought he was being his normal shy self. It wasn't until years later I realized that he just couldn't look anyone in the eye and say he was in love when he wasn't.


Charles was under quite a lot of pressure to marry the right sort of girl. No ex secretaries (Norway), ex beauty queens (Sweden), etc for him. Maybe he too felt he was on a roller coaster he could not get off. I think he would have been quite happy to remain a bachelor.


Still, he was a grown man and should have put his foot down if he felt it wasn't right. My feeling is that he thought that if he couldn't have the woman he loved, anyone will do.


If anything good came of this disaster, it is that it was the final nail in the coffin of "appropriate" marriages. I don't think there would have been a possibility of Katherine without it. It may also have helped pave the way for Mitte-Marrit and all the other very non royal or aristocratic brides and grooms that came after.
Reply With Quote
  #1014  
Old 01-04-2015, 05:05 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
That may be how you see things but not everyone thinks the same. Not everyone has the same road map to happiness or a happy marriage. So I try not to judge others relationships as long as both are on the same page.
Well, I'm not judging anyone. I just think it's good to appreciate what you have at home, if not, spare the other person and pain and hurt and just try to end things peacefully.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #1015  
Old 01-04-2015, 05:35 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
There can be no true comparisons when citing marriage to the pow , one of the most well known figures in the world. He was not simply another aristocrat.
Frelinghighness, I like your statement that Prince Charles was not simply another aristocrat.
Charles Philip was the eldest son of a sovereign. He was the Heir Apparent. He was His Royal Highness. He was a Prince. He was Royalty.
How can you take the Prince and the Royalty out of a Prince Royal?
Reply With Quote
  #1016  
Old 01-05-2015, 03:50 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 185
There have been rumors of adultry by current kings - King Carl of Sweden and King Juan Carlos of Spain. Then there also rumors abut Prince Phillip, Prince Bernard and Prince Claus of the Netherlands.

So Charles was not the first to break his marriage vows.
Reply With Quote
  #1017  
Old 01-05-2015, 04:04 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee27 View Post
There have been rumors of adultry by current kings - King Carl of Sweden and King Juan Carlos of Spain. Then there also rumors abut Prince Phillip, Prince Bernard and Prince Claus of the Netherlands.

So Charles was not the first to break his marriage vows.
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?
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #1018  
Old 01-05-2015, 04:20 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,925
If my memory serves me correctly, I understood that it was only after the marriage had broken down irreconcilably that Charles committed adultery. As such, would it not be the case that in the eyes of Diana and Charles (as opposed to anyone else), there was no marriage left to save?
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?
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #1019  
Old 01-05-2015, 04:23 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
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?
I am quite sure that both Charles and Diana went into their marriage, and made their vows, fully intending to be faithful. But their marriage was doomed, and it broke down, and once a marriage breaks down irretrievably I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy to have to stay faithful to someone that makes them as unhappy as Charles and Diana made each other. I don't condemn either of them for seeking comfort in the arms of others, but I do criticise Diana for her hypocrisy about it.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #1020  
Old 01-05-2015, 04:56 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I am quite sure that both Charles and Diana went into their marriage, and made their vows, fully intending to be faithful. But their marriage was doomed, and it broke down, and once a marriage breaks down irretrievably I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy to have to stay faithful to someone that makes them as unhappy as Charles and Diana made each other. I don't condemn either of them for seeking comfort in the arms of others, but I do criticise Diana for her hypocrisy about it.
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.
__________________

__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales, princess diana


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charles and Diana Picture Thread Josefine Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 434 08-12-2015 06:00 PM
Charles and Diana: Visit to Italy - 1985 jun5 Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 57 09-02-2012 10:35 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 beatrice borromeo best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit 2016 catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events dom duarte duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll felipe vi grand duchess josephine-charlotte grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess charlene fashion princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:45 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises