Charles and Diana

[Denville]

However I think the queen would have refused, as she was clearly very reluctant to allow the marriage to end officially. I think she only gave way because if Charles wanted out of it as well, she knew it was really all over, and that if he and Diana were engaged in newspaper wars, the damage to the monarchy done by that was going to be worse than if they had a clean break

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, newspaper wars, book wars, interview wars were ongoing, with headlines getting more and more sordid all the time. People tended to be on Charles' side or Diana's, and it was affecting the whole country. I'd even go for far as to say that it was affecting the Commonwealth monarchies, because they were still officially our future king and queen. It was very serious business, not just the marital battling of a couple of celebrities.

 

[Katrianna]

I agree and in the midst of all the press eagerly publishing each blow by the Wales, the couple made their tour of South Korea. That was the biggest debacle and neither Charles nor Diana made any effort at being civil to one not only in front of the world's media, but worse, to their South Korean hosts. It still is embarrassing to view the videos of those two on that tour. They not only represented the Monarchy, but the Govt. of Great Britain and to a broad extent the Commonwealth, if viewed quite broadly, and they failed, but didn't seem to care.
I've read in books and articles that the tour was a last ditch effort by HM to save the Wales marriage because, indeed, she was reluctant to see it dissolve. After the humiliating behaviour by both Charles and Diana, HM finally had to take the position of "let's just end all of this now". She'd had enough and I think everyone from the Royal Family to the public had also. The only ones who wanted it to go on was the media. It sold papers and made great headline news on tv and radio.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It didn't end the marriage though. It only lead to the formal separation. Had the Queen wanted to end the marriage she would have ordered the divorce then rather than allow it to continue for another four years - the marriage had been over for years and there was no hope at that point but what was allowed to happen was the near destruction of the BRF while the farce was allowed to fester until 1996 and the final divorce.

Anyone with half a brain knew that marriage was over the moment the Morton book hit the shelves and this tour just confirmed it. Some may have thought there was a way back but no man was ever going to remain with a woman who had so publicly humiliated him as Diana had done with the Morton book (what she hoped to gain - who knows, I have heard she expected him to return but anyone who advised her of that was lying through their teeth).

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I've never heard that reasoning for the book; the latest I read was that it was a pre-emptive strike to distract from her inappropriate behavior.

 

[Denville]

I've never heard that reasoning for the book; the latest I read was that it was a pre-emptive strike to distract from her inappropriate behavior.

and what inappropriate behaviour was that?

 

[Pranter]

I've always understood she did the book because she thought that Charles would be forced to give up Camilla (I think she wanted to work things out at that point) and she wanted folks to know how badly she was being treated (regardless of what others might think her perception was that she was being badly treated). I do think she thought she'd done a lot for the family and they were disregarding that.



LaRae

 

[Queen Claude]

I thought that in Britain you needed to be separated for a certain length of time if you wanted to get a divorce without demonstrating that one or both parties did something wrong. Having said that, I don't think that when the separation was announced, it was a given that Charles and Diana would end up getting divorced.

and what inappropriate behaviour was that?

Affairs.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The rows between Charles and Diana grew more and more heated. The housekeeper at Highgrove, Wendy Berry, recalled that screaming and slammed doors were the norm.

 

[Denville]

I thought that in Britain you needed to be separated for a certain length of time if you wanted to get a divorce without demonstrating that one or both parties did something wrong. Having said that, I don't think that when the separation was announced, it was a given that Charles and Diana would end up getting divorced.


Affairs.

yes you have to live apart for 2 years, for a no fault divorce. I agree that it wasn't a given.. I think the queen hoped to keep the marriage tecniclaly intact, but hoped that if C and Diana did not have to live or work together they would be less fraught and there wouldn't be the same obvious tension between them or leakages to the press.
As for affairs, Charles was having an affair, so I'm not sure why Diana's affairs are "inappropriate" and his isn't?

 

[Osipi]

Perhaps it was a distraction to pull focus away from Diana basically doing the same thing that she was derailing Charles for. If the focus remained more on Charles for his faults than pointing out that Diana had the same faults, it put her in a better light to garner sympathy. Damage control.

 

[Katrianna]

I don't know if the Morton book was so much of a distraction by Diana, but more of way to gain more sympathy from the public.

 

[Osipi]

The Morton book was published in 1992 and at that time, Hewitt was back from his tour of duty in the Gulf War and there were rumblings in the press about his and Diana's affair. Up until the end of 1992, Charles and Diana were not yet separated.

With Hewitt returning in 1991 and it was rumored that people were getting a whiff of the romance between Diana and Hewitt, the Morton book could have the reasoning behind it that along with gaining sympathy for herself from the public over Charles' mistreatment of her, it gave the public something directly (in a round about way) from the horse's mouth so that the focus was on Diana and what Diana wanted to put across for people to think about and it deflected from the rumors of the Hewitt affair.

Charles and Diana officially separated a short while after the Morton book was first published. It wasn't until the Panorama interview that Diana, herself, acknowledge the affair and gushed on how much she "loved" Hewitt.

 

[Queen Claude]

yes you have to live apart for 2 years, for a no fault divorce. I agree that it wasn't a given.. I think the queen hoped to keep the marriage tecniclaly intact, but hoped that if C and Diana did not have to live or work together they would be less fraught and there wouldn't be the same obvious tension between them or leakages to the press.
As for affairs, Charles was having an affair, so I'm not sure why Diana's affairs are "inappropriate" and his isn't?

I don't think that the issue was that Diana behaved inappropriately vis a vis Charles, rather that her engaging in affairs would be seen as inappropriate on its own and would tarnish her image, so she tried to control the narrative. Diana did not acknowledge her affairs in the Morton book, but she succeeded in painting Charles, his family and their courtiers as the bad guys so when it finally did come out that Diana herself had an affair, affairs actually, the hit to her image was lessened because by then, many felt that she was in such a bad situation that it was understandable that she sought comfort elsewhere.

 

[Denville]

well i agree that in the Royal world, unfair as it is, her being engaged in an affair or affairs would be seen in some ways as "worse" than Charles' doing so.. He was male and the royal partner.. She was only married into the RF and of course there are double standards. But I think that to say her behaviour was "inappropriate" is very unfair, if his isn't being seen as inappropriate.
But I don't know if Diana was really so calculating. True she didn't tell about her afairs until later on, DHTS focussed on charles' faults as a husband, selfish, unfeeling, unfaithful, etc.. and Di's own feelings that the RF were also cold and over formal. but then in an autobiographical work, one doesn't usualy lead with one's faults.
I think that chalres only addressed the affair with Camilla in his biography because he really HAD to..
I just don't know if Diana was really calculating in "doing" Diana her True Sotry. I can't help thinking it was partly an attempt to knock Charles, partly perhaps an attempt to get a divorce and partly just a confused painful lashing out, without a coherent plan.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Diana's affairs were inappropriate for one major reason - she wasn't just committing adultery but treason.

The Treason Act makes it treasonable for any man, other than her husband, to sleep with the wife of the monarch or the wife of the heir to the throne. As she didn't cry rape she was aiding and abetting that crime thus making herself equally guilty.

The Treason Act doesn't apply to any man but to the wife of the monarch, the wife of the heir to the throne and the daughters of the monarch. Knowing who the father of those in the line of succession is regarded as important.

For admitting she committed Diana was given 17 million pounds, lost her HRH and was divorced. Others were locked away or even executed in earlier times.

Diana knew she would lose big time if it came out that she was having affairs before it was known Charles was so she put her narrative out first. She knew she was in the wrong big-time for having the affairs so had to manipulate the public to her side (just as the press had to manipulate those same people to blame the royals rather than the press when she died).

 

[Ish]

I highly doubt the BRF suddenly saw Diana’s affair as being inappropriate in 1992 - her affair with Hewitt began in 1985. It doesn’t take 7 years for the BRF to decide that’s inappropriate.

Diana’s inappropriate behaviour in 1992 was her involvement in the Morton book. The scandal that followed is what pushed the Queen to allow a separation.

 

[Denville]

true Ish, I'm sure the RF would have tolerated Diana having affairs, for the rest of her married life. What bothered them was her making her marital problems public.

 

[ladongas]

true Ish, I'm sure the RF would have tolerated Diana having affairs, for the rest of her married life. What bothered them was her making her marital problems public.

IIRC, the Charles/Camilla affair was well known to the public in general at that time.

 

[Biri]

true Ish, I'm sure the RF would have tolerated Diana having affairs, for the rest of her married life. What bothered them was her making her marital problems public.

And if Diana had had affairs and would have gotten pregnant? (what would have involved in consequence, doubts concerning the paternity? Now we have genetic tests, which didn't exost previously).

 

[Pranter]

It isn't unheard of for members of the aristocracy in the UK to accept their spouse's 'love child' and even have them take their name. At least after the heir was born. So I would imagine that would of been up to C&D to work out how they would handle any pregnancies after they went their separate ways but remaining married.


LaRae

 

[Ish]

IIRC, the Charles/Camilla affair was well known to the public in general at that time.

If I remember correctly, it was the Morton book that first revealed the Charles/Camilla affair; previously it had been known among certain circles that both Charles and Diana had strayed, and it had been rumoured publicly that the marriage was unhappy and that Charles was having an affair, but I don’t believe anything was concrete or that Camilla’s name was known to the public.

And if Diana had had affairs and would have gotten pregnant? (what would have involved in consequence, doubts concerning the paternity? Now we have genetic tests, which didn't exost previously).

Paternity tests actually go back to the 1920s, when scientists first determined that blood types are inherited. More accurate genetic tests go back to the 1960s, and the test that is now the standard method for paternity testing was developed in 1983.

Had Diana gotten pregnant, the issue wouldn’t have really been the paternity of the child. In order to do anything about an illegitimate child, Diana’s affair would have had to become public knowledge. As British law establishes the legal father of a child as the husband of the mother, in all likelihood a theoretical child of Diana and James Hewitt would have simply been treated as Charles’ son, unless Diana wanted to make her affair public knowledge. It would have been a bit harder to cover up a child with one of her later lovers - Dodi and Hasnat Khan both being Middle Eastern - but Diana’s relationships with them didn’t begin until her divorce.

 

[AdmirerUS]

IIRC, the Charles/Camilla affair was well known to the public in general at that time.

Yes, but Charles' infidelity was not treasonous, by law. Stupid law, anyway. Not enforced because it is often both sides cheating and the whole bunch are just hoping the press does not catch on.


EDIT. And re: blood tests, I could find an online reference (however dubious) that Charles is O-, Camilla is reptile (which actually made me laugh because it is such internet trash) and Diana and Wills were also something RH -. BTW, if you want to descend to the lowest level of internet sliming, look up anyone in the BRF + Blood type. Goodness gracious there is some awful stuff out there.

But the only blood type not possible for the boys if Charles really is Type O is AB. Were Wills or Harry AB, it would be clear that Charles was not their father.

 

[Biri]

From what would a simple person know their blood type? Such a thing only their doctors know.

 

[Leopoldine]

From what would a simple person know their blood type? Such a thing only their doctors know.

In the US most adults know their own blood type. And parents usually know their childrens' blood types.

I seem to remember Prince Edward, the Earl of Wessex, in the course of supporting a charity, was asked if he gave blood. He said that Royal Family members don't give blood.

 

[Pranter]

It would surprise me if they did. Too much risk for someone to get hold of it and use it for their own purposes.


LaRae

 

[MARG]

To me what adults do behind closed doors is their business and, if it leads to divorce, so be it. You've worked for it, you've earned it and have nobody to blame but yourself. Diana broke all the rules but to me the Morton book and the Panorama interview were unforgivable. She was such a self-obsessed woman that she gave no thought whatsoever to the welfare of her children.

I didn't envy Harry at school, particularly Eton. Kids are mean and cruel when they want to be and they take no prisoners. I'd bet there were those that referred to him as a royal bastard because of the whole red-haired thing. For all the reassurances from his father that he was his son, I'd bet my best jewellery that Harry had a DNA test as soon as he was of age. He'd have to Know for himself.

What a horrible thing for a boy, teenager and young man to always have that sneaky little doubt that he wasn't his father's son and that William wasn't really his full brother. And just to rub it in, the media speculated annually and he never knew what that other red-headed git was going to say in the next paid interview.

 

[Pranter]

IIRC didn't Hewitt even hint at it early on ..trying to stir the pot?



LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

Hewitt first made the suggestion after the Morton book - once Diana had dumped him. He, I suspect, didn't feel that it should all be on Charles when Diana started cheating in 1986 - the same year Charles returned to Camilla.

Don't forget there had been the rumours about Mannekee as early as 1983 so there were stories circling about Diana being unfaithful even earlier then that Charles was. 1992 confirmed that they were both adulterers and had been so for many years. What subsequently came out was that Diana was a serial adulterer over the years.

 

[Biri]

In the US most adults know their own blood type. And parents usually know their childrens' blood types.

I didn't have in mind family members, but average Brittons.
(From what should they know their Royals' blood types?)

I seem to remember Prince Edward, the Earl of Wessex, in the course of supporting a charity, was asked if he gave blood. He said that Royal Family members don't give blood.

It seems to me that I heard Crown Princess and Crown Princess of Norway during their post-wedding trip gave their blood for the victims of 9/11.

The recipient does not know who the donor is, this is anonymous.