The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1041  
Old 01-06-2015, 05:48 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #1042  
Old 01-06-2015, 06:03 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,079
Quote:
All that means is that they fancied each other.
It doesn't EVEN prove that.. just that they NEEDED to provide heirs...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1043  
Old 01-06-2015, 06:10 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
It doesn't EVEN prove that.. just that they NEEDED to provide heirs...
True. They could have achieved that with a turkey baster.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #1044  
Old 01-06-2015, 07:05 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,857
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?
Reply With Quote
  #1045  
Old 01-06-2015, 07:09 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,007
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
Charles- and to a much lesser extent, Diana- had a sacred obligation to his country, not just to his marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #1046  
Old 01-06-2015, 08:05 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,455
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.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #1047  
Old 01-06-2015, 08:48 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1048  
Old 01-06-2015, 08:50 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
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/TRANSCRIP.../09/se.01.html
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #1049  
Old 01-06-2015, 08:51 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1050  
Old 01-06-2015, 09:54 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,007
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1051  
Old 01-07-2015, 12:26 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
IMO, the marriage failed because Diana lied and didn't try to correct her lie by getting to know her husband through sharing his interests.

She complained about only 13 meeting before getting engaged, yet on her honeymoon she left her husband on deck while she went below to socialize with the male staff.

When she arrived at Balmoral (Craig Gowan) she complained about wanting to go to London. What or who was in London that was more important than her husband? Who wants to spends their summers in London with the tourist when they have a country home?

In 1982, she behaved the same way. When the family arrived at Balmoral Diana complained about wanting to go to London. Why didn't she try to bond with her son & husband? It should not have matter where she was, she had a new born son and he should have been her focus rather than London.

Charles tried to be supportive by flying her girlfriends from London to Balmoral but even after her friends arrives she kept insisting on going to London.
Reply With Quote
  #1052  
Old 01-07-2015, 05:59 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
IMO, the marriage failed because Diana lied and didn't try to correct her lie by getting to know her husband through sharing his interests.

She complained about only 13 meeting before getting engaged, yet on her honeymoon she left her husband on deck while she went below to socialize with the male staff.

When she arrived at Balmoral (Craig Gowan) she complained about wanting to go to London. What or who was in London that was more important than her husband? Who wants to spends their summers in London with the tourist when they have a country home?

In 1982, she behaved the same way. When the family arrived at Balmoral Diana complained about wanting to go to London. Why didn't she try to bond with her son & husband? It should not have matter where she was, she had a new born son and he should have been her focus rather than London.

Charles tried to be supportive by flying her girlfriends from London to Balmoral but even after her friends arrives she kept insisting on going to London.

You have stated your views on their marriage many many times almost daily. There is nothing new to add surely. Diana is dead and can't answer back to defend herself let her rest in peace


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1053  
Old 01-07-2015, 08:08 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by casualfan View Post
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.
This may come off as talking down to you but I do not mean it in that way. Do you know much about historical figures? JFK, FDR, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, hundreds of Kings andmonarchs throughout the centuries. Many are immortalized and revered even though they didn't necessarily live upstanding lives. FDR was a great man and great president despite his long standing affair. Same thing for Bill Clinton, a great man who did a lot of great things but is definitely the poster child for a womanizer. You can admire a person despite their personal or religious failings.
I could go the non adultery route as well, Thomas More is a saint and he burned people to death. Julius Ceasar is a man to be admired even though me killed how many people?
__________________
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
  #1054  
Old 01-07-2015, 08:19 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
This may come off as talking down to you but I do not mean it in that way. Do you know much about historical figures? JFK, FDR, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, hundreds of Kings andmonarchs throughout the centuries. Many are immortalized and revered even though they didn't necessarily live upstanding lives. FDR was a great man and great president despite his long standing affair. Same thing for Bill Clinton, a great man who did a lot of great things but is definitely the poster child for a womanizer. You can admire a person despite their personal or religious failings.

I could go the non adultery route as well, Thomas More is a saint and he burned people to death. Julius Ceasar is a man to be admired even though me killed how many people?

I have a masters degree in history. So, yeah, I have wrestled with this question a lot. And ultimately my studies have proved to me personally that no human being should be put up on a pedestal.

I absolutely don't disagree with your point that people's individual accomplishments can be admired, but those are just pieces of the puzzle.

If someone chooses to idolize Charles and Diana, they can, but ultimately IMO they would be ignoring the fact that these two failed at their marriage in major, public and ugly ways. Both of them.
Reply With Quote
  #1055  
Old 01-07-2015, 09:11 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Egham, United Kingdom
Posts: 21
We are forgetting that treason was committed and quite a number of times. I have no reason not to believe the POW when he said what he did, or did not, do and when. Neither do I doubt that his wife thought otherwise. They were both telling the truth as they saw it. They were both victims. Let's leave it now.
Reply With Quote
  #1056  
Old 01-08-2015, 06:08 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,007
Treason? Is it still considered treason to sleep with the wife of the Prince of Wales? Is it still considered very bad form to sleep with a fellow officer's wife? I'm not sure what you mean by "treason" in this case, unless you're speaking of treason against one's marriage instead of treason against a state.
Reply With Quote
  #1057  
Old 01-08-2015, 06:14 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,857
In Diana, Sarah Bradford wrote:
There before the altar, Charles stood waiting for her: 'I remember being so in love with my husband that I couldn't take my eyes off him,' Diana recalled. 'I just absolutely thought that I was the luckiest girl in the world.'

Diana may have been the luckiest girl but unfortunately for how long?
Would it have made a difference in the marriage if Charles had granted her every wish?
Reply With Quote
  #1058  
Old 01-08-2015, 07:15 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
Treason? Is it still considered treason to sleep with the wife of the Prince of Wales? Is it still considered very bad form to sleep with a fellow officer's wife? I'm not sure what you mean by "treason" in this case, unless you're speaking of treason against one's marriage instead of treason against a state.
The Treason Act 1351 is still in force. It is still treason to "violate" the wife of "the King's eldest son and heir". The maximum penalty is now life imprisonment, not death, but that only changed in 1998, so James Hewitt and Diana's other paramours up till the date of the divorce, were committing a capital offence.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #1059  
Old 01-08-2015, 08:40 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,007
The chances that Diana and her men took were huge.
Reply With Quote
  #1060  
Old 01-08-2015, 08:41 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
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.
He had affairs with other men's wives, long before Diana. Camilla, is one, so was Kanga, I am sure there were others.. He had no particular scruples. Some had children when these affairs took place. Charles has always been a hypocrite. A pompous one at that.
__________________

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
#jewels ascot 2016 autographed signed best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit brunei catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece history 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 marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess mette-marit and women deliver conference 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 wreathoflaurels


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 06:45 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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