The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1261  
Old 07-16-2015, 06:49 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,906
I think a lot of people who read a lot consider them-self to be better than others. To me that is what happens a lot in this thread. People that think they know every detail of the marriage and have every book about it and love to quote

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1262  
Old 07-17-2015, 04:25 AM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 3,304
Once again I've had to delete a few posts. Please remember that this thread is not about your fellow posters, nor is for debating why this thread exists. Let's keep it on topic.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1263  
Old 07-17-2015, 08:52 AM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob View Post
I think a lot of people who read a lot consider them-self to be better than others. To me that is what happens a lot in this thread. People that think they know every detail of the marriage and have every book about it and love to quote

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Well i think every argument in this thread should be quoted and the sources clearly noted. The "Charles and Diana" saga is way too polluted with rumours and stories from undefined sources ...
Reply With Quote
  #1264  
Old 07-17-2015, 09:40 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
Well i think every argument in this thread should be quoted and the sources clearly noted. The "Charles and Diana" saga is way too polluted with rumours and stories from undefined sources ...

Great idea, even better unless you were there when it happened you can't post it . That should put an end to this thread for good
Reply With Quote
  #1265  
Old 07-17-2015, 10:19 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
Well i think every argument in this thread should be quoted and the sources clearly noted. The "Charles and Diana" saga is way too polluted with rumours and stories from undefined sources ...
I agree, however we all interpret things differently through our own special glasses tainted by our agendas and earthly experiences. Which of us have met or have anything to do with any royal member of any of the current families in the world? We would have to terminate this site if we were to meet all the criteria required to make our opinion any closer to the truth.

In any case, who can say that ANY source quoted would have a true depiction of what really happened? I am certain even Charles and Diana would not be entirely truthful or at least would have their own version of events...tainted by their own agendas and earthly experiences.
Reply With Quote
  #1266  
Old 07-17-2015, 02:37 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,009
For myself, I tend to distrust the gossipy books or the ones that have a lot of speculation--those that presume what a person is thinking, for example. I prefer the ones that have quotes from letters and diaries and/or are written by people who are serious biographers and have access to the people who would have real information. If I remember a particular source, I will include it. However, I can't always remember where I read something or which documentary I saw it on. Even someone who was in Charles and Diana's circle wouldn't know everything. Even a protection officer wouldn't be with both of them all of the time. They even had their own staff and their own offices. All we can really discuss is what's already in the public sphere. I'm sure there's still much that's unknown.
Reply With Quote
  #1267  
Old 07-17-2015, 03:41 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 11,332
Please remember that this is a discussion forum for royal watchers, and as such....people still have a desire to discuss the marriage of Charles and Diana. As previously discussed, its a part of the British royal history. We still discuss the Abdication of 1936, the War of the Roses, Henry VIII and his wives, the Princes in the Tower, etc.

I do agree that we tend to go round and round but its also worth noting, that there are those who were not around for the actual marriage and are just discovering Diana via her sons and grandchildren.

Its also a free will forum. No one is forced to read or post in a particular thread.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #1268  
Old 07-17-2015, 04:19 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,009
Those of us who are in our 40s and 50s and have lived through the Fairy Tale years, the War of the Waleses, the Divorce, the Death, etc., might be tempted to think that we know it all and there's nothing more to be said. As Zonk says, there are people who are just learning about Charles and Diana by reading up or watching documentaries about William and Catherine, George and Charlotte, and Harry. For those who come here to learn more, it must be intimidating to run across people with very definite ideas, particularly when we take the attitude of "I know more about it, child, than you ever will." There's sharing information and a point of view, and then there's the effort to make this into sort of a classroom where naive students are put in their place. We all, at one time or another, first started Royal Watching. Charles and Diana are part of serious history. They aren't celebrities who are here today and gone tomorrow. Their actions impacted the way the British Royal Family are viewed today.
Reply With Quote
  #1269  
Old 07-17-2015, 04:22 PM
eya eya is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: -, Greece
Posts: 5,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Please remember that this is a discussion forum for royal watchers, and as such....people still have a desire to discuss the marriage of Charles and Diana. As previously discussed, its a part of the British royal history. We still discuss the Abdication of 1936, the War of the Roses, Henry VIII and his wives, the Princes in the Tower, etc.

I do agree that we tend to go round and round but its also worth noting, that there are those who were not around for the actual marriage and are just discovering Diana via her sons and grandchildren.

Its also a free will forum. No one is forced to read or post in a particular thread.
I totally agree with you.
Reply With Quote
  #1270  
Old 07-17-2015, 06:47 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,906
Charles and Diana

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Please remember that this is a discussion forum for royal watchers, and as such....people still have a desire to discuss the marriage of Charles and Diana. As previously discussed, its a part of the British royal history. We still discuss the Abdication of 1936, the War of the Roses, Henry VIII and his wives, the Princes in the Tower, etc.

I do agree that we tend to go round and round but its also worth noting, that there are those who were not around for the actual marriage and are just discovering Diana via her sons and grandchildren.

Its also a free will forum. No one is forced to read or post in a particular thread.

The difference between Diana and the royal history you mentioned is that Diana's sons are alive if they should see the hatred that is posted here it would be shocking.
Also how many threads is there in here about Diana ? Diana and the Queen , Diana and her step mum, Diana and Sophie etc etc so clearly this forum is Diana obsessed
If posters said things about living royals in the manner and using the words that they use about Diana they would be deleted at the very less
At the same time posters are afraid to say William is like is mum
Anyway my thoughts which I'm sure are welcome


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1271  
Old 07-17-2015, 09:08 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,009
I'd imagine that William and Harry know that their mother is controversial, which isn't to say that they wouldn't find comments hurtful. I don't like the way some people express themselves, either on the very negative side or on the extremely positive side. To see either Charles or Diana as some near-demonic presence or, on the other side, as some kind of purely good, heroic, human being is to miss the mark IMO. I find both options hard to take. However, because I like to talk about Charles and Diana, I have to see them occasionally. One factor is that a deceased person can't be legally defamed, because a deceased person can't sue. That's why comments can be made about those who are 'gone' that can't be made about the living. Would anyone call Edward VIII a Nazi sympathizer were he still alive or call Wallis a hermaphrodite? Would anyone post that George III was insane were he still living? Not if they didn't want to be banned from this board. If someone is part of history, it's different. It's not fair, but that's the way it is. I enjoy your comments, royal rob.
Reply With Quote
  #1272  
Old 07-18-2015, 04:56 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
And I enjoy your comments Mermaid1962
Reply With Quote
  #1273  
Old 07-18-2015, 05:03 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,906
Thank you mermaid 1962 I've been staying away from this tread 💐


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1274  
Old 07-18-2015, 08:00 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Indianapolis, United States
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
Oh, the PoW, aided and abetted by his mistress and their friends, did indeed try to play the "media game" against his former wife. He simply was not as good at the game as she was. She made mincemeat out of all of them.

I do agree that whatever "mystery" the BRF had is a thing of the past but that's hardly all Diana's fault. An aging blowsy Princess Margaret cavorting on Mustique with her lovers in the late 70's certainly didn't seem better or more noble than the rest of us and neither did her Uncle David and his shady twice divorced wife in the 1930's.

In fact, none of the European RF's have any real mystery or magic anymore. It's simply a sign of the times.

He was not as good at the game because he did not go for the jugular like she did. He tried to protect the monarchy and his sons as much as he could despite great provocation. He could have destroyed her public image in a matter of months if all her affairs were publicized, especially the first one early in the marriage with Barry Manakee, her married bodyguard. Reporters would have been interviewing Mrs. Manakee for all the sad details on how a glamorous princess with the world at her feet seduced a married man in her employ.

He could have released video of her screaming at him calling him all sorts of nasty names and denigrating his fitness for the throne. Someone could have audiotaped her when she was abusing her staff. I think plenty of people would have been shocked at what a nasty person she was. Read the Housekeeper's Diary and see how awful she was to her dresser who she often reduced to tears.

In her Her True Story and the Panorama interview, she openly argues for skipping Charles and depriving him of his birthright. Charles never once directly states in his book or the television interview that she was unfit to be the Princess of Wales and a future Queen. He never brings up her numerous affairs including those with married men. He never discusses her obssessive behavior such has her frequent hang-up calls to James Hewitt, Camilla, and of course, Oliver Hoare who eventually needed to involve the police. He could have easily painted her as a possessive, selfish mother who exposed her sons to many of her lovers, particularly James Hewitt, whom they would later find out on television was, in fact, having sex with their mother.

Princess Margaret was 5th in line to the throne and not a future Queen Consort. Margaret's tawdry behavior was an IED in comparison to Diana's nuclear blast. Diana was such a selfish person. By attacking Charles, she was attacking the monarchy and the future kingship of her son, but she did not care as long as she was hurting Charles and the Royal Family. I do not see her as some sort of PR genius. Consumed with vengeance, she won the media war because she had no conscience about causing any collateral damage. Although she did not realize it at the time, her media war created lasting damage to her reputation, her marriage, her children, and the institution that made her, the monarchy.

I don't know much about the other European monarchies to be able to comment.
Reply With Quote
  #1275  
Old 07-18-2015, 08:14 PM
Princess Mara's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: United States, United States
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
Exactly. Poor innocent misled little donkey Charles. Nothing to do but fly back to the comfort of his very married mistress.

I don't know what is so hard to accept about the fact that both Charles and Diana were-to some level-victims here. They should never have married but got caught up in a complex situation.

There was no real bad guy here.

Exactly! Thank you, Moonmaiden.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1276  
Old 07-18-2015, 09:43 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,009
I don't think that Diana ever considered the long-term implications of what she was doing, in the same way that I don't think that Prince Charles considered the long-term fallout of Dimbleby's book. That book and interview were mistakes, as much as the Morton book and the Bashir interview. Diana's attempt to blacken Charles' future was inexcusable, I agree. However, I think that the Dimbleby involvement did Charles no favours either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binny2 View Post
By attacking Charles, she was attacking the monarchy and the future kingship of her son, but she did not care as long as she was hurting Charles and the Royal Family. I do not see her as some sort of PR genius. Consumed with vengeance, she won the media war because she had no conscience about causing any collateral damage. Although she did not realize it at the time, her media war created lasting damage to her reputation, her marriage, her children, and the institution that made her, the monarchy.
Reply With Quote
  #1277  
Old 07-18-2015, 11:06 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Indianapolis, United States
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I don't think that Diana ever considered the long-term implications of what she was doing, in the same way that I don't think that Prince Charles considered the long-term fallout of Dimbleby's book. That book and interview were mistakes, as much as the Morton book and the Bashir interview. Diana's attempt to blacken Charles' future was inexcusable, I agree. However, I think that the Dimbleby involvement did Charles no favours either.
The Morton book and the Dimbleby book are not equivalent in my opinion.

I agree that the Dimbleby book was not the most flattering biography, but overall, it was pretty anodyne. He publicly complains about his parents which is not becoming to a man his age. This was the low point of the book. The long-term fallout of the Dimbleby book was to make him look kinda whiny, but he did not damage the monarchy to the devastating extent that Diana had.

The Dimbleby book and documentary did not hurt Diana with the public and were not created with the intent to be harmful towards her. Charles does not attack Diana in his book, but attributes many of the problems in the marriage to incompatibility. According to Charles, the marriage did not fall apart due to malice or a lack of integrity in the other person as Diana does in her book and interview.

The Morton book and Bashir interview were a scathing attack on Charles and the Royal Family. Diana clearly was out to damage her husband and his family. Sadly for her, her forays into media manipulation led to catastrophic consequences; namely, divorce and loss of position for Diana.

I recall watching this entertainment show in the early 90's (I think it was called Extra) that interviewed Andrew Morton a few years before the Her True Story came out. The interviewer asked him what would happen if Diana went for a divorce. He snorted and said that would be the "ding dong of the century."

I agree with you. She truly could not work out the long term consequences for her actions. I don't know why she thought she was invincible.
Reply With Quote
  #1278  
Old 07-19-2015, 12:17 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Poor Charles the Victim. Had no control, could do nothing, just waited in the wings, hoping to save the monarchy, his sons and the world. Frankly, a poor excuse for a husband. He knew what the repercussions might be. Remember, Camilla was non-negotiable. He played his hand and the chips fell where they did. Diana was difficult and she had a childish view of marriage to her husband. She thought he would be her husband exclusively, not primarily.
Reply With Quote
  #1279  
Old 07-19-2015, 01:03 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Indianapolis, United States
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Poor Charles the Victim. Had no control, could do nothing, just waited in the wings, hoping to save the monarchy, his sons and the world. Frankly, a poor excuse for a husband. He knew what the repercussions might be. Remember, Camilla was non-negotiable. He played his hand and the chips fell where they did. Diana was difficult and she had a childish view of marriage to her husband. She thought he would be her husband exclusively, not primarily.
But, she was cheating on him almost from the first starting with her bodyguard Manakee. She was not an innocent. She wasn't exclusively his wife for almost the entirety of the marriage. I don't think there was ever a period of time when she wasn't not having an affair.

How could she expect Charles to come back to her if she was already sleeping with other men? It sounded in some ways like an open marriage, but Diana wanted it both ways: to be the poor, cheated upon wife and also the free spirit who could pursue any man she wanted (whether he was married or not) with no repercussions from her spouse. I think Charles withdrew from her once it became apparent she was cheating constantly.

It probably did not help that Charles was very happy with Camilla becoming increasingly devoted to her while she was floundering from one affair to the next.
Reply With Quote
  #1280  
Old 07-19-2015, 08:54 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,675
From all that I've read over the years, I have serious doubts that there was an affair going on with Mannakee. I do however think that there was a closeness and an intimate friendship which makes sense because at the time, he was Diana's protection officer. Later on, she was to be pretty close with Paul Burrell but I don't think I've ever heard it insinuated that there was an affair there.

With Charles tied up quite a bit of the time with his duties and roles as Prince of Wales and his own interests, I think Diana found herself alone more often than she thought would happen and it wasn't what her idea of what a marriage should be at the time. Thinking about this, she probably did spend more of her time with Mannakee than with Charles but that doesn't automatically denote that there was an affair going on.

Things could have been very different if Diana had the insight to use her focus and her energies into constructive ways to use her time when apart from Charles rather than dwell on the negatives both real and imagined. As has been stated, she knew from the beginning that she was not only marrying a man but also his position. Charles didn't have the luxury of the choices William has today of being able to put more focus into his home and family and perhaps if more consideration was given to this issue, things might have been different. Its looking at this scenario where it seems quite plausible that Diana didn't want to spend the time she she did have with Charles with his friends and that became a major issue.

There are many "if only" and "what ifs" surrounding this marriage and probably a whole lot that's never made it to the public domain that we can only look at what we know in hindsight. We'll never have the full story as that rests between one that sadly has left this earth too early in life and another who has put the past behind him and has moved on.
__________________

__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
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 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit 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 elisabeth fashion poll free hosting grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction member watch monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess beatrice hats princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats prince sverre magnus 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 swedish royal family summer portraits 2016 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 11:42 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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