The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1281  
Old 07-19-2015, 05:25 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
I agree with must of your post. Last night I read the sections of Dimbleby's book that dealt with the marriage. There was discussion of incompatibility along with description of happier days in their marriage. I found that most of the information about Diana was pretty horrible. If Prince Charles really didn't want Diana name and reputation harmed, he could have had those parts toned down or excised. I think that, although the book wasn't as destructive as Morton's, it did further contribute to the dissolution of the marriage. Who wants a Prince of Wales to authorize something so personal and damaging about his immediate family?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Binny2 View Post

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.
Agreed. No named source has ever confirmed there was physical intimacy, and although I think that Diana had a 'crush' on him, and he was supportive to her, she herself denied an affair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1282  
Old 07-19-2015, 06:09 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Indianapolis, United States
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I agree with must of your post. Last night I read the sections of Dimbleby's book that dealt with the marriage. There was discussion of incompatibility along with description of happier days in their marriage. I found that most of the information about Diana was pretty horrible. If Prince Charles really didn't want Diana name and reputation harmed, he could have had those parts toned down or excised. I think that, although the book wasn't as destructive as Morton's, it did further contribute to the dissolution of the marriage. Who wants a Prince of Wales to authorize something so personal and damaging about his immediate family?
It's been a while since I saw the Dimbleby book. I don't have a copy with me now. What did Charles authorize in the book about Diana?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
Agreed. No named source has ever confirmed there was physical intimacy, and although I think that Diana had a 'crush' on him, and he was supportive to her, she herself denied an affair.
Even if there was no physical affair, it would still be nearly as bad. She was having a emotional affair with her bodyguard. She states something to the effect that she adored him on the Settleten tapes. Isn't that the same as Charles' emotional affair with Camilla? How could she complain about Charles' emotional intimacy with Camilla and still have a platonic romance with her bodyguard?

I think she was sleeping with Manakee. She was never a blushing bride. She had big needs and wouldn't hesitate to have them fulfilled if the opportunity presented itself.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1283  
Old 07-19-2015, 06:34 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 150
I wouldn't want my past all known by strangers who really have no business knowing, so I wouldn't open a book and read about some personal details of someone's marriage, really it has no relevance in my life. From what media I have seen by chance, Dianna was ill, Prince Charles is a royal with a big role, they split up because during that time divorce was quite common and they had their reasons. It wasn't a surprise, it was news, you couldn't help but hear about.
Reply With Quote
  #1284  
Old 07-19-2015, 06:48 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binny2 View Post
Even if there was no physical affair, it would still be nearly as bad. She was having a emotional affair with her bodyguard. She states something to the effect that she adored him on the Settleten tapes. Isn't that the same as Charles' emotional affair with Camilla? How could she complain about Charles' emotional intimacy with Camilla and still have a platonic romance with her bodyguard?

I think she was sleeping with Manakee. She was never a blushing bride. She had big needs and wouldn't hesitate to have them fulfilled if the opportunity presented itself.
I can attest to the the fact that it is very possible to have a close, solid, intimate yet platonic best friend relationship with a member of the opposite sex that has no bearing or effect on a marriage as I had a similar best friend relationship with a man for years while still married to my first husband. It was only years after my divorce that my friend and I resumed contact with each other and to both of our surprise, it turned romantic and now we've been happily married for going on 18 years.

So yes, it is possible. Not all close relationships are based in the physical.
__________________
“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
  #1285  
Old 07-19-2015, 07:36 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binny2 View Post
Even if there was no physical affair, it would still be nearly as bad. She was having a emotional affair with her bodyguard. She states something to the effect that she adored him on the Settleten tapes. Isn't that the same as Charles' emotional affair with Camilla? How could she complain about Charles' emotional intimacy with Camilla and still have a platonic romance with her bodyguard?

I think she was sleeping with Manakee. She was never a blushing bride. She had big needs and wouldn't hesitate to have them fulfilled if the opportunity presented itself.

Sounds like matters of the mind, if she adored someone, really, the psychology of that could be complex.
Those tapes were like a therapy session, or came across that way, I saw a bit, they bored me, but were easy to get attention drawn to given the mind state of Diana. Everyone needs someone they can share emotions with to just talk about it, whatever it is it was like mirror time with an audience and someone to talk to for her. She just seemed like what she had going on was a matter of medical significance. Not really something for the public but like she reached out to those who suffered the same condition and non-compliance to treatment, like she wanted others to get help, like that was her true motive, not belittling Prince Charles.

Mannakee was with the royal protection squad, so his eduction suited the position most likely and listening to Diana was part of the job. Maybe she was smitten with him, I doubt it. Perhaps she didn't care for Prince Charles in a way she liked or felt she could trust, perhaps she liked Mannakee better in a way she could handle, like a friend and felt like she was in control that way with a lifestyle that rich that seemed out of control to her. The thing that matters out of all of it is that through her struggles, she reached out to people even if it wasn't the best thing. Buying a bunch of published personal information about Royals is ridiculous. It is only history to their immediate family.
Reply With Quote
  #1286  
Old 07-19-2015, 09:53 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
Dimbleby described Diana as extremely unstable and hysterical. Prince Charles is presented as more-or-less a victim of a loony wife. Prince Charles actually comes across as a rather passive person, marrying because the country and his family wanted it and not because he really wanted to. The fact that he didn't love Diana is made pretty obvious.

The book was as authorized biography. Prince Charles had the chance to review it before it was published.

I do think that Prince Charles is basically an honourable person who wants to do the right thing. I'd like to think that he regrets the liberties that he gave Dimbleby.

As for Manakee vs. Camilla, I think that Diana was morally unformed when she married. She refers to herself as 'keeping herself tidy for what lay ahead.' That suggests to me that any decisions she made about 'keeping herself' for Prince Charles weren't based on morality but on more practical matters. Once she was married to Prince Charles, she perhaps didn't have the same ideas about fidelity that she had about 'tidiness'. Just because I don't think she was intimate with Manakee doesn't mean I think she was innocent. She was hypocritical when she found fault with Prince Charles being close to Camilla during the same period, even if only emotionally close.

Dimbleby claims that Prince Charles had virtually no contact with Camilla until the mid-80s, only meeting her randomly at social events where others were present, and that he called her only once before that, to tell her about the birth of William. (That seems rather odd to me. Surely everyone in Britain knew about the birth of William ad nauseum.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binny2 View Post
It's been a while since I saw the Dimbleby book. I don't have a copy with me now. What did Charles authorize in the book about Diana?
Reply With Quote
  #1287  
Old 07-19-2015, 10:02 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
The public relations war between Charles and Diana impacted the country. People were divided into who supported Charles and who supported Diana. They were going to be the King and Queen one day, and so what was said about them and people's reactions to them had the possibility of how they viewed part of their country's leadership--the monarchy. The royal family aren't just rich people living in big houses, after all. The monarch represents the nation. He or she takes the same role in the UK as the phrase 'The People' or the flag in the United States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumbahlina View Post
Buying a bunch of published personal information about Royals is ridiculous. It is only history to their immediate family. Otherwise it is what the big achievements in society for everyone the royals made that makes the history books.
Reply With Quote
  #1288  
Old 07-19-2015, 11:51 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Indianapolis, United States
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I agree with must of your post. Last night I read the sections of Dimbleby's book that dealt with the marriage. There was discussion of incompatibility along with description of happier days in their marriage. I found that most of the information about Diana was pretty horrible. If Prince Charles really didn't want Diana name and reputation harmed, he could have had those parts toned down or excised. I think that, although the book wasn't as destructive as Morton's, it did further contribute to the dissolution of the marriage. Who wants a Prince of Wales to authorize something so personal and damaging about his immediate family?
If you don't mind writing more, what exactly did he say about her? I don't recall the exact details.

I don't think the book was necessarily harmful to her, but more a confirmation of the many rumors of mental instability surrounding Diana. He pulled the curtain on the many severe symptoms she was having for, I suspect, her sake as well for his. And, he made certain that his picture of Diana was motivated by more than just the current rancorous state of their marriage. He gave Dimbleby access to over 10,000 of his letters, journals and personal diaries to document his experience of the marriage. The portrait that emerges from the letters must have been much more damning than him simply saying "she's awful." I don't remember what Dimbleby wrote about Camilla. How bad was it?

Charles had other motivations. He was desperate to keep his good name that was being trashed by his wife in the media. She was running a very effective, shrewd, ruthless campaign against him. He was fighting for his survival as a viable future king. Certainly, he couldn't turn to his monarch for help who responded with her usual Ostrich routine.

Although both parties may not have been consciously seeking a divorce with their respective books, they at least wanted the British public know about their suffering.
Reply With Quote
  #1289  
Old 07-19-2015, 11:53 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Indianapolis, United States
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I can attest to the the fact that it is very possible to have a close, solid, intimate yet platonic best friend relationship with a member of the opposite sex that has no bearing or effect on a marriage as I had a similar best friend relationship with a man for years while still married to my first husband. It was only years after my divorce that my friend and I resumed contact with each other and to both of our surprise, it turned romantic and now we've been happily married for going on 18 years.

So yes, it is possible. Not all close relationships are based in the physical.
What a lovely story!
Reply With Quote
  #1290  
Old 07-20-2015, 12:25 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Indianapolis, United States
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
Dimbleby described Diana as extremely unstable and hysterical. Prince Charles is presented as more-or-less a victim of a loony wife. Prince Charles actually comes across as a rather passive person, marrying because the country and his family wanted it and not because he really wanted to. The fact that he didn't love Diana is made pretty obvious.

The book was as authorized biography. Prince Charles had the chance to review it before it was published.

I do think that Prince Charles is basically an honourable person who wants to do the right thing. I'd like to think that he regrets the liberties that he gave Dimbleby.
Sorry about my previous post; I see you were already answering my request for more detail in the Dimbleby book.

IMO, Charles presented the truth of Diana's behavior which was verified by other people in the vicinity. Whether it was wrong to put this out in the public is not clear. As I said earlier, he must have felt desperate. He must have been sick of the fairy tale as was Diana.

I have to read the book again. I got that he was being pushed into marriage, but not necessarily that he didn't love her. He was fond of her and found her lovable. She was willing to accept a faint love if it allowed her to be the Princess of Wales. I don't think he regrets what he allowed to be written about Diana in his authorized biography.

I agree that he is basically an honorable man who has lived his entire life in a very constricting role. Expressing his true feelings publicly must have been the most liberating act of his life. He probably wouldn't give that up for anything. On the other hand, maybe he regrets putting it all out there because it likely hurt his children.
Reply With Quote
  #1291  
Old 07-20-2015, 01:08 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
The whole few years--from 1992 to 1996--was a very unfortunate chapter. Personally, I wish that none of the books or documentaries were made, and that goes all the way back to the 1984 interview with Alastair Burnet and the fly-on-the-wall documentary the following year. Allowing more access to the personal lives of the members of the royal family simply created a desire for more. I think that for a couple who already had 'issues', even positive publicity was harmful in the end because it increased the pressure on them to be the happy couple that they were portrayed as being. Had they had more privacy and more time to develop as a couple, perhaps more time before the first baby arrived, I think it would have been better. They were much too public too soon, and I think that it was harmful. This is why I think that William and Kate are being wise in being so private. The books and interviews of the 90s were nasty, self-imposed obituaries for a marriage that was long dead.
Reply With Quote
  #1292  
Old 07-20-2015, 12:43 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Indianapolis, United States
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
The whole few years--from 1992 to 1996--was a very unfortunate chapter. Personally, I wish that none of the books or documentaries were made, and that goes all the way back to the 1984 interview with Alastair Burnet and the fly-on-the-wall documentary the following year. Allowing more access to the personal lives of the members of the royal family simply created a desire for more. I think that for a couple who already had 'issues', even positive publicity was harmful in the end because it increased the pressure on them to be the happy couple that they were portrayed as being. Had they had more privacy and more time to develop as a couple, perhaps more time before the first baby arrived, I think it would have been better. They were much too public too soon, and I think that it was harmful. This is why I think that William and Kate are being wise in being so private. The books and interviews of the 90s were nasty, self-imposed obituaries for a marriage that was long dead.
Very well said!
Reply With Quote
  #1293  
Old 07-20-2015, 01:07 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
The whole few years--from 1992 to 1996--was a very unfortunate chapter. Personally, I wish that none of the books or documentaries were made, and that goes all the way back to the 1984 interview with Alastair Burnet and the fly-on-the-wall documentary the following year. Allowing more access to the personal lives of the members of the royal family simply created a desire for more. I think that for a couple who already had 'issues', even positive publicity was harmful in the end because it increased the pressure on them to be the happy couple that they were portrayed as being. Had they had more privacy and more time to develop as a couple, perhaps more time before the first baby arrived, I think it would have been better. They were much too public too soon, and I think that it was harmful. This is why I think that William and Kate are being wise in being so private. The books and interviews of the 90s were nasty, self-imposed obituaries for a marriage that was long dead.
Excellent. Everyt ime I find myself annoyed with the Cambridges for seeming self-indulgent and precious I remember the disaster that the Wales media blitz provoked. Every intimate detail of their lives was known to the public-even though admittedly the nasty wire-tapping of their phones was outside their control.

But the tit-for-tat biographies and interviews were, as QEII would say, "unhelpful" and that's actually an understatement.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #1294  
Old 07-20-2015, 02:35 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
It was not tit for tat biographies.

The Dimbleby book and television program were started before the creation of the Morton book.

The Dimbleby book and television program was to correspond to the twenty fifth anniversary of Prince Charles becoming Prince of Wales.

Diana became jealous because she wanted the Dimbleby book to be about her. Dimbleby refused to change the concept of the book and television program and Diana became upset.

She went looking for someone to write her story. She settled on the Morton book which came out two years before the Dimbleby book.

I cannot be certain but the tone of the Dimbleby book and interview probably changed to reflect the Morton book.

IIRC, the Dimbleby book spends very little time on the private aspect of his life and the marriage in comparison to the Morton book. It is mostly about what the book's focus was intended to be his life as Prince of Wales.

Andrew Morton book 167 pages vs.
Jonathan Dimbleby book 620 pages
Reply With Quote
  #1295  
Old 07-20-2015, 02:49 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,643
I think this really puts it all in perspective. Its all to easy to think that the books from this time period were written solely to use as ammunition against each other in the War of the Wales.
__________________
“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
  #1296  
Old 07-21-2015, 02:55 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,461
The bottom line is that neither book did either of them any favors.

From a PR standpoint they were both stinking disasters.

Diana's "True Story" garnered an initial huge groundswell of support and sympathy for her, but that book and the circumstances under which it was revealed to have been written was the beginning of the end for her...literally.

And sorry but Dimbleby's Charles comes off like a weak, prevaricating whinger.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #1297  
Old 07-21-2015, 06:17 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,022
I agree...they both ended up looking like rather sad figures....Charles as the 'woe is me' was a bit much as well.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1298  
Old 07-21-2015, 01:45 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 2,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
The bottom line is that neither book did either of them any favors.

From a PR standpoint they were both stinking disasters.

Diana's "True Story" garnered an initial huge groundswell of support and sympathy for her, but that book and the circumstances under which it was revealed to have been written was the beginning of the end for her...literally.

And sorry but Dimbleby's Charles comes off like a weak, prevaricating whinger.
I wholeheartedly agree. In the end their tell all interviews hurt their children, extended family, staff and themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #1299  
Old 07-25-2015, 10:53 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,432
Duran Duran drummer tells how IRA nearly killed his band, Princess Diana and Prince Charles in gelignite concert bomb plot-
Duran Duran drummer on how IRA nearly killed band, Princess Diana and Prince Charles | Daily Mail Online
__________________
"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
  #1300  
Old 07-26-2015, 12:27 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
This is one of those stories that show how members of the BRF are unlike other celebrities. Thanks for sharing, Dman.
__________________

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 e-mail fashion poll 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 outfits princess madeleine princess madeleine hats princess marie princess mary princess mary casual style 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 queen rania fashion royal 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 tiara


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 07:37 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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