The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1341  
Old 05-08-2016, 02:16 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: ***, Antarctica
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
One must suss out what Diana claimed from what we know as fact. Unfortunately, Diana's veracity is always in question. Much of the Diana 'legend' was created by Diana herself.



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



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



It's the reverse. The date of Charles' 'adultery' (with Camilla) has been getting earlier and earlier, so much so that some seem to be saying that there was no break in their relationship over decades. However, Charles had other 'confidantes'. He had no 'need' of Camilla. Diana chose to go after Camilla rather than the others because when she was finally in the mode of destroying Charles, Camilla was indeed the current 'confidante' of Charles.
A BP staffer saw her open the F&G present, palace staffers arranged the lunch before the wedding, etc. While he didnt say in the same breath that he was unfaithful that it was Camilla, he did emphasize how close he was with her, and if it wasnt true, why did Andrew Parker-Bowles feel the need to get divorced, if not for the public cuckolding he received as a result of the Dimbleby interview?

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

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

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

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

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

Reply With Quote
  #1342  
Old 05-08-2016, 02:31 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
And what are we to make of the regular phone communications between Camilla and the Sun editor of the time who, he said, received progress reports of the Royal marriage etc from 1982 for ten years conveying Charles's point of view, via Camilla? A bit strange if Charles and Camilla didn't have any communication with each other at that time. It would have been a boring conversation, one would have thought!

In fact we know that they were seeing each other in the early years of Charles's marriage, when they were hunting with the Beaufort. A photographer caught them on horseback deep in conversation and Charles shouted at him.
I think we were discussing an intimate relationship? Debating your assertions point-by-point would be time consuming. Keep in mind that Diana 'cleaned house' very shortly after her marriage to Charles, sending away his circle of friends, his valet, even his dog.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
My own feeling is that Camilla and Charles were deeply connected before the engagement. Princess Margaret is said to have remarked as much to friends at the time of the wedding and wondered whether Mrs Parker Bowles was prepared to give him up. I believe Charles was in love with Camilla from the time they first met and remained emotionally attached to her throughout his first marriage, in a way that he was not with his wife.
As you say, it is 'feeling' and belief. You are 'informing' the situation with your speculation. It is an interesting narrative. No more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I also believe that Diana's instincts were correct after Harry's birth, in that she believed Charles had emotionally disconnected from her and was seeing Camilla again. Let's not forget too, that yes, Camilla had a family, but both her children were sent away to boarding school as children. Tom in particular has said he was sent away early.
Diana was being a bit disingenuous here. Remember that she was deeply involved with Hewitt (a red-head) whose embarrassing (indirect) tell-all was hot off the press when she made these suggestions. It was imperative that she be seen as the wronged spouse, rather than the wandering spouse herself. She was doing some fancy soft-shoe to re-direct the public's gaze. She was very adept at flipping the onus onto Charles.

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

__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1343  
Old 05-08-2016, 02:54 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: ***, Antarctica
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
I think we were discussing an intimate relationship? Debating your assertions point-by-point would be time consuming. Keep in mind that Diana 'cleaned house' very shortly after her marriage to Charles, sending away his circle of friends, his valet, even his dog.



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



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

But I should disengage. Diana is a very old story. It's not hard to understand if one follows the (factual) bread crumbs to their inevitable (and tragic) conclusion.
OMG not the dog again!!!! the dog was sent away because he was incontinent and his legs stopped working and couldnt manage the stairs their place...this is what happens when you take Penny Junor as the gospel

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

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

Unlike other fans, Ill give you that she could also use the press for her aims as well. I'm not suggesting shes lily white, had Charles kept his promise to her, the church and his country, she most likely would have never strayed.
Reply With Quote
  #1344  
Old 05-08-2016, 02:55 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duch_Luver_4ever View Post
. . . . In the end, yes Diana wasnt innocent in the marriage, but dont forget Charles started the whole cheating mess, she was just giving a case of whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If hed have done his duty and forsaken all others, my opinion is that she wouldnt have strayed, either.

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

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

But again, im more curious of how she wasnt cautioned beforehand of the Princes wandering eye, or at least educated on how royal marriages would turn out, and thus both parties could have arrived at a mutually beneficial arrangement instead of the "war of the wales".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Diana and Charles went on a cruise with William and Harry that the media billed as a second honeymoon. Diana was not even speaking to Charles.

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

There is no evidence that Charles call Camilla in 1981.

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

Fishing trip where Prince Charles hooked Camilla by man who's spent 70 years exposing secrets | Daily Mail Online
Firstly, we have no one other that Diana and Charles word on when his affair with Camilla began. Initially, Diana didn't really factor Camilla in on the threat to her marriage in the Morton book. She was more concerned with Tiggy Legge-Bourke's influence on both her husband and her children as Nanny cum Companion to the boys and assistant to Charles.

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

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

As to Charles roving eye . . . any references would be gratefully accepted. As to the notion of a mutual cheating society? Anyone going into marriage with that sort of attitude would be well advised to bail!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1345  
Old 05-08-2016, 03:14 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,189
It's a question of when Charles felt the 'marriage had irretrievably broken down' though, isn't it? Charles never put a date on that. Charles fans discount everything Diana says as lies and fantasies, while Diana fans tend to believe her version of events. When did Charles feel that his marriage was finished and the couple were no longer sleeping together? 1984, or 1986, 1987 for Charles's adherents. We are never likely to know, are we?

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

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

Camilla committed adultery with Charles while married to her husband. It doesn't matter how many nice little bows you tie it up with. Charles and Camilla were adulterers and intruders into each others' marriages, and that was true then and remains true today.
Reply With Quote
  #1346  
Old 05-08-2016, 03:16 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: ***, Antarctica
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Firstly, we have no one other that Diana and Charles word on when his affair with Camilla began. Initially, Diana didn't really factor Camilla in on the threat to her marriage in the Morton book. She was more concerned with Tiggy Legge-Bourke's influence on both her husband and her children as Nanny cum Companion to the boys and assistant to Charles.

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

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

As to Charles roving eye . . . any references would be gratefully accepted. As to the notion of a mutual cheating society? Anyone goin
While not during the marriage, id put this in the "prior bad acts" category for C&C

https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/new-i...-out-new-idea/

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

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

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

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

Its always interesting to see how her detractors use crazy and crafty whenever it suits them, though .
Reply With Quote
  #1347  
Old 05-08-2016, 03:29 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duch_Luver_4ever View Post
Thats the thing with Camilla fans they figure since Diana said it, it cant be true.
I would prefer that this not become about fandom. Refusing to demonize Camilla, and to even see her as a decent woman caught in a cross-fire is not to be her 'fan'. I think Camilla is a cool lady but that is far from being her 'fan'. Hope I've cleared that up.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duch_Luver_4ever View Post
A BP staffer saw her open the F&G present, palace staffers arranged the lunch before the wedding, etc. While he didnt say in the same breath that he was unfaithful that it was Camilla, he did emphasize how close he was with her, and if it wasnt true, why did Andrew Parker-Bowles feel the need to get divorced, if not for the public cuckolding he received as a result of the Dimbleby interview?
You are conflating some facts and telescoping events. Diana effectively made it impossible for the Parker-Bowles' to remain married. The Dimbleby interview did not throw Camilla under the bus. It was Diana who did that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duch_Luver_4ever View Post
It will always be a matter of debate as to when he restarted with Camilla physically, but it was in the early days of the marriage the emotional adultery that caused so many of Diana's rows and issues with Charles. Like most upper class families, Charles was "most likely" physically faithful till his first son was born, after that, who knows.
All I can recommend is that you do more reading regarding exactly what Diana was like. When you do I think your strident defense will be replaced with compassion. However, just a brief scan of some of the video footage available on YouTube should give you the general idea of what Charles was up against with his very immature wife.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duch_Luver_4ever View Post
He for sure had other "comforters" as well, Lady Tryon, i forget that womans name from Canada, and others. Diana had formed sort of a pact with Lady Tryon against Camilla, the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic. Also later in the marriage Tiggy Legge-Bourke(sp) was a target of both Dianas and later Camillas wrath, so it wasn't just a monopoly on disliking Camilla, but she was far and away the one most likely to attract Charles attentions when they should have been given to his wife, so I think thats why Diana had her in her sights.
Diana had Camilla in her sites because Mr Hewitt was nipping at her heels. She had to come up with something fast to divert attention away from her own serious breach with Hewitt.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duch_Luver_4ever View Post
The bottom line was had they not tried to make Diana out to be crazy to deflect his wanderings, people would be less polarized. But his admission just proved that her concerns early in the marriage were valid, and rightly or wrongly, people were willing to excuse her later adultery as the response to him starting it. If someone shoots at you, you dont fault the person that shoots back to defend them self, so to speak.
You are a demonstration of how successful Diana was in her mis-direction. Diana's 'craziness' (like a fox) is (sadly) evident in most videos of her, particularly in interviews, and by her own reports of her actions. Not sure a 'they' had to do much to try to make her out as unusual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duch_Luver_4ever View Post
Camilla was like this constant wet basement rotting away the pillars of the marriage, it might not have been physical from day one, but face it, she helped charles select someone to marry who would "not be a problem" the mouse, i believe, she called Diana, she was always there either on the phone or in person to give Charles the support he should have sought from Diana, at some point she should have made him talk to his wife rather than her, if she was so innocent.

She was this toxic presence in the marriage. id have more respect if her fans would just admit to her playing the long game by any means necessary, and its too bad for Diana that she didnt play it better. Of course, that would mean admitting to an image that the palace is very keen to erase of the whole matter.
Heavy words. Out of balance. Did you ever read or hear Diana own to the part she played in the break down of her marriage? I haven't. She always painted herself as a victim, as you have just done. Doesn't ring true.

This is all Diana's spin. Look at it carefully because at root is the stirring up of animus against people we really do not know. That in itself should reveal the source playing out.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1348  
Old 05-08-2016, 03:42 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
I haven't read this thread for a long time and I don't know what's being discussed here now, but the problem to Dianas shrinking fan base is that they can't accept that she had some of the blame for the things that happened and that she damaged the monarchy like no other since Edward VIII.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #1349  
Old 05-08-2016, 03:52 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Thank you, MARG, for this nice summation. I can never keep the facts straight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Firstly, we have no one other that Diana and Charles word on when his affair with Camilla began. Initially, Diana didn't really factor Camilla in on the threat to her marriage in the Morton book. She was more concerned with Tiggy Legge-Bourke's influence on both her husband and her children as Nanny cum Companion to the boys and assistant to Charles.
Thank you for this clarity. It all gets impossibly mushed up. The timeline is key.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
However, Charles stated in a TV interview that he had been faithful to Diana until the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The came the Panorama TV interview and Diana (in her signature "poor me" stance and a very heavy hand with the black eyeliner) looked up through her eyelashes and completely changed her story . . . . . Charles had cheated with Camilla throughout the entire marriage. There were three people in the marriage.
Exactly so, and we must remember what the back-story was at that time: the Hewitt book, plus serious criminal charges pending regarding Diana's stalking of a married man. Diana was getting bad press. Her 'poor me' stance was her attempt at deflection yet again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Me, I believe there were indeed three in the marriage, but that third gentleman kept changing. It also accounted for the unfair speculation as to who was Prince Harry's real father. If Diana had any decency there would never have been any hint let alone speculations as to who Harry's father was.
Exactly so! Diana never showed the least constancy or loyalty to Charles, let alone gratitude for marrying her and raising her social status into the British stratosphere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
As to Charles roving eye . . . any references would be gratefully accepted. As to the notion of a mutual cheating society? Anyone goin
What was that? 'goin'?

Anyway, I shouldn't comment on Diana. I find her a very negative experience the more I learn about her. She's such a sad, sad story. She threw it all away. She had reached the pinnacle of her social world, and had not the sense to keep it all in perspective. I put it down to massive immaturity. 'Nuf said.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1350  
Old 05-08-2016, 04:14 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Anyway, I shouldn't comment on Diana. I find her a very negative experience the more I learn about her. She's such a sad, sad story. She threw it all away. She had reached the pinnacle of her social world, and had not the sense to keep it all in perspective. I put it down to massive immaturity. 'Nuf said.
I agree! I try to respect people that I personally don't like, but I find that very difficult when it comes to Diana and some of her fans.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #1351  
Old 05-08-2016, 04:21 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
It's a question of when Charles felt the 'marriage had irretrievably broken down' though, isn't it? Charles never put a date on that. Charles fans discount everything Diana says as lies and fantasies, while Diana fans tend to believe her version of events. When did Charles feel that his marriage was finished and the couple were no longer sleeping together? 1984, or 1986, 1987 for Charles's adherents. We are never likely to know, are we?

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

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

Camilla committed adultery with Charles while married to her husband. It doesn't matter how many nice little bows you tie it up with. Charles and Camilla were adulterers and intruders into each others' marriages, and that was true then and remains true today.
The point I was trying to illustrate was that Diana, from her own mouth, changed her mind. She did not perceive Camilla as any threat and was not an issue at the time of Mortons book, that changed with her dramatic performance on the Panorama interview. His words. Her words.

If Charles and Camilla committed adultery and intruded into others families, so too did Diana and her many lovers, starting with James Hewit. That is a fact . . . there were no innocents in these relationships but I'm sick of Charles being blamed for Diana's behaviour which, in the weeks prior to her death, was splashed across the front pages of the international media as a national scandal. With her death, overnight she became a saint. And there sure as hell weren't any of those present either.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1352  
Old 05-08-2016, 04:25 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,189
And Camilla never dropped poison about Diana in any of her phone calls with the Sun News editor for the ten years she and he were in regular communication? She also constantly praised Diana to Charles whenever they were together? Yes, I can really believe that!

Camilla and Charles adherents are always very good at labelling Diana as a liar and a fantasist while painting Camilla and Charles's adultery as wonderful. Of course it was! Why was it up to Camilla to soothe Charles's brow and give him confidence? Surely the honourable thing to do when he confided in her about his miserable marriage would be to remind him that he and Diana married of their own free will and that it was not up to her to act as a marriage counsellor. Then she should have butted out!

So Diana was NEVER constant to Charles, and she should have been 'grateful' to him for raising her up! Is this the story of King Cophetua and the Beggar Maid ? I don't know about demonising Camilla. There's always plenty of demonising of Diana going on.

The truth is nobody behaved honourably in this situation. Diana didn't, James Hewitt didn't. Neither did Charles. And Camilla, a woman who broke her own marriage vows when she slept with Charles, certainly didn't.

To some it seems that Charles and Camilla's behaviour is excusable because after all Diana was a lying fantasist and made him unhappy and damaged the monarchy and Camilla and he are made for each other and she is so discreet and they are so happy together. Talk about creating your own myths here, people, something Diana fans are constantly being accused of.

Fact-- Camilla was a married woman. She intruded into Charles's unhappy marriage as a third party and slept with him while he was married to Diana. He intruded into her marriage as a third party (even though Andrew Parker Bowles was his friend) and slept with his friend's wife.

That equals adultery in my book. It doesn't matter how you dress it up.

Diana is out of it when we discuss Charles and Camilla's behaviour, as we are all responsible for our own conduct respecting others.

If you consider Charles's and Camilla's adultery, which involved four children and broke two marriages was acceptable, OK, but if what Diana did was terrible in the eyes of many here, don't let's wrap Camilla and Charles's reprehensible behaviour in a pretty pink bow and make excuses for it.
Reply With Quote
  #1353  
Old 05-08-2016, 04:41 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
As I've said several times before: Can't people just try to forget this controversial person who has been dead for almost 20 years and who turned a revered institution in to her own soap opera, attacked her husband on television, embarrassed the Queen and was putting the future of her sons at risk etc. And I repeat again: Charles wasn't completely innocent, but he didn't attack Diana on TV or in front of the kids.

I'm dyslexic and I meant to write: Charles wasn't completely innocent, not that he was completely innocent. I've now corrected it.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #1354  
Old 05-08-2016, 04:43 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: ***, Antarctica
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
I would prefer that this not become about fandom. Refusing to demonize Camilla, and to even see her as a decent woman caught in a cross-fire is not to be her 'fan'. I think Camilla is a cool lady but that is far from being her 'fan'. Hope I've cleared that up.

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



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



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



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

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



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



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

This is all Diana's spin. Look at it carefully because at root is the stirring up of animus against people we really do not know. That in itself should reveal the source playing out.
I've been following Diana since 1980 read many books and watched pretty much everything youtube has on her, so im well versed with both her good qualities and faults. Camillas not a "decent woman caught in a crossfire" she put herself in the line of fire with the role she played in the courtship of D&C, and the contact with Charles throughout the marriage.

Im guessing by the courtship youre referring to country pursuits? Another right up there with the dog, she must be the first woman or man EVER overstate an interest in something the other likes while in a relationship. (more penny junor claptrap)

As for her immaturity, she was only 20 at the time, and Charles was old for his age interest wise. The fact that she didnt love Van de Plost (sp) philosophy novels is not something to fault her for. Charles was 12-13 years older than her, and should have known what he was getting into.

He chose to keep his bachelor life and never gave the marriage a proper chance, palace courtiers were saying at the time, he was a nice enough chap but hadnt given a serious thought as to what marriage would entail. He wanted a young, inexperienced bride for breeding and not having to have anyones "sloppy seconds" and for not being able to figure out what he was up to.

Had they done their research on the Spencers, shown in the documentary on althorp, theyd have realized the number of strong forceful women in that family tree and not miscalculated that Diana would be a meek mouse and turn the other way.

The tantrums, listening at doors, opening letters, the rows were all because of his emotional involvement with CPB and likely others. All the work the palace and others did to make her out as crazy was rendered null and void once Tampax Charlie came clean on his cheating ways.

They isolated her from the start of the engagement, which gave her nothing but time to ruminate on what Charles was doing or not doing, real or imagined.

Id suggest reading more than Junor or Dimbleby in terms of how Diana was.
To be fair they both got a big serving of "be careful what you wish for". She thought shed get a devoted, caring husband, he thought hed get a quiet, baby maker that would be keen to sit in the background.

If you look at how the royal family set up the start of the marriage it was a lot like how a cult brings people in. They isolated her during the engagement and honeymoon, she was alone alot at KP. They overwhelmed her with duties, then William came along. I think they felt it would keep her off balance and manageable, or maybe it was a case of just not bothering to plan for her at all, it often seems that was the case. So in a lot of ways the palace created a lot of the "problems" they had with Diana.

Yes she had her issues with people too, im in the minority in thinking that Hewitt got thrown over rather badly and a lot of the wrath hes endured is undeserved. But Hewitt was known about before the Morton book came out. She was aware of the "squidgy" tapes held by the press but not released at that point, and im sure the morton book was partly to deflect those, but it was also about the fact that here is the other half of the marriage having a well run palace and friends machine supporting his adultery which happened first. He dismissed his second born because he wasnt a girl (so ironic because she was rebuked for not being a boy) and of course the spencer red hair (harry being born 2 years before she met Hewitt).

Camilla was no fan of Tiggy as it was reported she wanted her gone as much as Diana, seems Camilla doesnt want that job vacancy of mistress filled, if she can help it. Im sure she does love Charles, but someone else did too, his first wife, who he promised to love,cherish, etc. FORSAKING ALL OTHERS, cough, cough.

If theres a crazy like a fox award, it has to go to Camilla for selecting with charles a wife they thought would be no bother (turned out to be a big mistake), sought out her interests to see when and where she could spend time with Charles, and either through her contact with him, or because of Charles feeling for her, keep momentos of her around to poison the marriage.

I'll be fair and say yes there were things she did to hinder the marriage, but the reason it seems people treat her as a victim, is that in a large part, she was. It was the PoW that made the offer of marriage, hes known since birth what that life entails and could have prepared her better for it. He chose a young, naive woman who longed for her prince charming. Im sure he pushed that angle as much as she may have said she liked country life.

I think what upsets people is that the balance of power in terms of knowledge and expectations at the time of the engagement and marriage were heavily slanted in Charles's favor, so it makes them more willing to overlook things she did. People see them as her reacting to things Charles knew was coming but didnt share with her, but in some ways they both trapped each other and both suffered for it. I think they call it "duty of care" people felt Charles had a duty of care as the older and royal since birth to support and care for her better, but that again is something I blame his parents for.

He was much older and wiser and should have forseen that such an age gap would be a big problem for compatibility. He was indulged by his mother and father too much to be allowed to have his bachelor life for so long, and he became set in his ways, and then was under pressure to marry.

He didnt do his homework on the Spencer women, and even if he could he could ill afford the time to pass over her, thanks to his stupid remarks about marrying at 30, he put the noose around his own head. he thought he picked a meek woman who would be happy to let he go off and still be a bachelor with no consequences.

The problem was they had to lie to get her to marry him, but then they failed to realize that they were as stuck with her as they though she was with them. Theres a saying, dont trap the burglar in the house, they figured, well she cant divorce, shell pump out a few kids, and have to put up with Charles sleeping around, what can she do? They found out what happens when you corner a mouse^^
Reply With Quote
  #1355  
Old 05-08-2016, 05:07 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,147
Can I just say that i hope that Charles and Diana's children and grandchildren never read this thread; if people talked about my parents this way without any of them personally knowing my parents or the complete facts, I'd be really really angry...

just my 2cts
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #1356  
Old 05-08-2016, 05:44 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,924
Amen to that. The lady in question is dead for a longer time than her marriage lasted. Her sons were kids. Now one of them is a bald middle-aged looking dude with two children himself and the once-her-husband is going to his Seventies now. It is al so long ago.
Reply With Quote
  #1357  
Old 05-08-2016, 06:23 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
In historical terms it isn't all that long.

Diana will be debated and her life and words discussed and analysed for the rest of time. She is simply a figure in history and should be treated no differently to any other public figure whose life is dissected while they are alive or when they are dead.

If the determinant is that no person can be discussed while they still have living descendants who personally knew them then there can be no such thing as 'Modern History'. Men like Churchill have children still alive and his life is dissected all the time - why not Diana's???
Reply With Quote
  #1358  
Old 05-08-2016, 07:19 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,880
I thought we were meant to show respect on this forum but that never happens when it concerns Diana. I have decided to try and give up posting on Diana threads because of the disgusting things that are said and what I think amounts to bullying. If this is what makes you happy it says more about you than it does Diana.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1359  
Old 05-08-2016, 07:53 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,147
Please note that my comment of three posts ago refers both to comments regarding Diana as well as comments regarding P.Charles...
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #1360  
Old 05-08-2016, 10:41 AM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,657
20+ years later and still debating on that topic ...
Diana, bless her, was sanctified by death, for better or worse. The better is of course her undisputed human qualities, and no one can deny that. The worse is that you still can't have a decent, and balanced , discussion about her dark side, and let's face it, she had one (like everyone). She was a human being, not a porcelain doll.
On the other side, Charles and Camilla's biggest default is to be alive and well. Seems unfair ? Maybe yes, or maybe not. But that's the reality. They made some mistakes, they have some defaults for sure but they have also many many great qualities.
In a world of black of white, all this story is definitely grey.
__________________

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
andrew scott cooper ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coronation coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events dictatorship 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 murder new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 october and november 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess mette-marit fashion and style 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 05:31 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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