The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1861  
Old 07-19-2016, 05:10 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,188
Yes, there was love at the beginning, though I suppose we can argue about the depth of it on Charles's part. However, there was also a large age gap, not many interests in common from the beginning, and, IMO there was a basic incompatibility in their personalities, ways of looking at the world etc, and it wasn't long before that showed itself. They both adored their sons which is great, and I do think that kept them together for a long time. Had the marriage been childless there would have been an unofficial separation within a few years of the wedding, IMO.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1862  
Old 07-19-2016, 05:44 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,416
It was fate that the two married. Our life is already planned for us. It was meant for Charles and Diana to come into each other's life, even though it was only for a season. You really can't say they shouldn't have married. It wasn't all that bad of a marriage either. Sure you can say, the later years were crazy, but I know those early years were filled with love and laughter and two beautiful kids came out of it.
__________________

__________________
"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
  #1863  
Old 07-19-2016, 05:00 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
^ Charles has always been old for his age while Diana was young for hers. He wanted a wife who would fit into his already well-ordered world, whether on Britannia or not.

It never seemed to Charles, from my reading about their courtship, that he expected his well-oiled life to change much in any way after marriage, except that he would have a partner who would fit in and they would eventually have children who would also fit in --- with him.
no I shouldnt' think he did, but then, he was the POW, he was an old fashioned kind of man. I think that he was right to see Di's friends as lightweight and probably he did find them boring. And why should he take an interest in Michal Jackson etc? If it was Ok for Diana to be bored by HIS interests, why could he not be bored by hers? Diana HAD given a performance of a girl eager to learn about what interested Charles and who already shared his country life interests...So Charles probably thought that they had a reasonable amount in common as it was, and that he hoped she'd as she grew older, share his interest in reading heavy stuff and so on..
I don't believe he refused a tennis court until much later, when she and he were at odds and he problably thought (if this story is true) why should he build a court for her when she only came to Highgrove at the weekend ot bring the kids...
I don't believe he expected her to Share everyting, but he did believe that if she was not into say reaeding something with him, or going shooting, she would amuse herself doing something she enjoyed, on her own or with her own friends. As Cam does now./..But Diana from early days seems to have gotten upset and wound up that C was going out, and she needed someone to look after her.
Reply With Quote
  #1864  
Old 07-19-2016, 05:48 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
It was fate that the two married. Our life is already planned for us. It was meant for Charles and Diana to come into each other's life, even though it was only for a season. You really can't say they shouldn't have married. It wasn't all that bad of a marriage either. Sure you can say, the later years were crazy, but I know those early years were filled with love and laughter and two beautiful kids came out of it.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I consider that we plan our own lives by the choices that we make. I believe it is fair to say that they shouldn't have married, since they were totally unsuited. There would have been other children if they had married other people.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #1865  
Old 07-19-2016, 06:15 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I consider that we plan our own lives by the choices that we make. I believe it is fair to say that they shouldn't have married, since they were totally unsuited. There would have been other children if they had married other people.
I've learned to appreciate what they had. They had some very good days, love, laughs and William and Harry were produced out of the love they shared. Charles and Diana was also a beautiful couple too.

Yes, we make our own choices, but I believe those choices are already put in place for us and the paths are already paved before us. Like all relationship and marriages, sometimes our paths cross for only a season. It wasn't meant for Charles and Diana to have a long and successful marriage. What they had was only for a time. That's fate. What was for them, was for them. When it was over, it was over.
__________________
"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
  #1866  
Old 07-19-2016, 07:03 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,632
I do believe that there is truth in both statements that our purposes here in this lifetime have certain goals to accomplish and we also have free will to make our own choices. That's the human experience. That's why things called mistakes exist. We learn from them.

Nothing is ever good or bad in black and white and that goes for Charles and Diana's marriage. Both had the opportunity to create or destroy what they had and what they wanted out of each other. They had the opportunity to work to be a united team against the world or try and make the other into something they wanted the other to be.

A lot of good came out of the marriage. Most importantly William and Harry. Perhaps the BRF also, even seen at their worse, became more humanized and seen to have as many troubles as anyone else. Perhaps with a failed marriage between the heir to the throne and a "perfectly suitable" bride gave way to realizing that the only reason for a marriage is a deep love between two people going into it and not for crown and country and heirs and spares.

Perhaps Diana completed her purpose on this Earth and has left behind so many reminders of who she was, the issues she called attention to that benefited many, many lives and even more importantly, maybe allowed Charles to see what it is like to be truly loved. Sometimes you have to experience something very wrong in order to realize what is very right and he now has that with his Camilla.

Reminds me so much sometimes of a Garth Brooks tune called "The Dance"

And now I'm glad I didn't know
The way it all would end, the way it all would go
Our lives are better left to chance
I could have missed the pain
But I'd have had to miss the dance
__________________
“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
  #1867  
Old 07-19-2016, 07:04 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
no I shouldnt' think he did, but then, he was the POW, he was an old fashioned kind of man. ...
Yes I agree. But I at least think our human mission is to learn from life. And given what he's written that I have read, the POW agrees. We take past past lessons and infuse them into the present and the future. It's why he is working on building modern communities that are infused with architectural meaning and purpose. When he plumps for spaces in which people can have full lives he is saying "learn from life."
Sadly, IMO, neither he nor Diana saw how the other was moving forward. Learning from life. He had his way and she, hers.
Both had a need to be "right." And sadly, wanting to to be the "right" person in the room means that everyone else is somehow wrong. Pity, really, because none of what they dealt with in their marriage was a black/white issue.
__________________
A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...bob_dylan.html
Reply With Quote
  #1868  
Old 07-19-2016, 07:37 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
I'm one who doesn't believe that Charles and Diana were "doomed from the beginning." However, I do believe that they both gave up too soon on their marriage. I do think that Diana needed more time to spend doing the royal round with Charles before her first pregnancy as well as having more time just being husband and wife. With learning how to get along with his family, learning how to be the Princess of Wales, learning how to be a married woman with home responsibilities, plus having a baby, it's a wonder she was able to perform publicly at all after that summer of 1982. It's not surprising she went into a depression and lost all that weight. Yes, she married willingly, but I'm not convinced that she really understood what being Princess of Wales involved. We see her life from the point of view of seeing her dressed up and "meeting and greeting". We don't see the paper work, the decision-making, the required entertaining at home, etc. The books that she was recommended to read would have been a help had she read them, but they wouldn't have prepared her at all for the media storm and Diana-mania. I think that Prince Charles is, at heart, a decent man who was likely bewildered at what was happening with his young bride. He had lived for 32 years in the royal system and had no idea what a shock it was to marry into his family and wake up a princess with all the attendant expectation and responsibilities. I have sympathy for the young Diana, although I realize that she caused a lot of her own problems later on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Nothing is ever good or bad in black and white and that goes for Charles and Diana's marriage. Both had the opportunity to create or destroy what they had and what they wanted out of each other. They had the opportunity to work to be a united team against the world or try and make the other into something they wanted the other to be.


Perhaps Diana completed her purpose on this Earth and has left behind so many reminders of who she was, the issues she called attention to that benefited many, many lives and even more importantly, maybe allowed Charles to see what it is like to be truly loved.
Reply With Quote
  #1869  
Old 07-19-2016, 09:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
And a major rival. Everyone seems to forget her insecurity and his entitlement. When she became the world's darling, he was jealous. He thought he had married the run of the mill aristocrat that knew how the game was played. He didn't realize she was a needy person, as he was, and now who was going to tend to them. The world revolved around him, now, suddenly it revolved around her.
Reply With Quote
  #1870  
Old 07-20-2016, 02:39 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
It was fate that the two married. Our life is already planned for us. It was meant for Charles and Diana to come into each other's life, even though it was only for a season. You really can't say they shouldn't have married. It wasn't all that bad of a marriage either. Sure you can say, the later years were crazy, but I know those early years were filled with love and laughter and two beautiful kids came out of it.
I don't agree. They had some feelings, but it was IMO a pretty bad marriage. Diana was bitterly unhappy and almost suicidal. It was only planned in the sense that botht of thtem were at a stage where they felt they needed to marry, and that blinded them to the signs that they weren't compatible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
And a major rival. Everyone seems to forget her insecurity and his entitlement. When she became the world's darling, he was jealous. He thought he had married the run of the mill aristocrat that knew how the game was played. He didn't realize she was a needy person, as he was, and now who was going to tend to them. The world revolved around him, now, suddenly it revolved around her.
yes he was jealous, but that's only human. He was used to being the star of the show and that's how it was meant to be. Diana was meant to be his support act, even if she had more charisma than him.. but she didn't stick with that. She began to use her charm and charisma against him, rather than using it for the good of the RF and him. He worked hard, he was a serious man, He tried to use his position to do good, so of course he was going to be annoyed when he found that Diana got more adoration than he did, just for being pretty and wearing a nice dress. He did try to tend to her needs, he did try and be the kind of husband she wanted, when he realised that she was so needy, but it was difficult for him.. and I think that when they married, Di soon became so unhappy that it was all about her, and Charles' didn't get any "tending" or support in return from her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I'm one who doesn't believe that Charles and Diana were "doomed from the beginning." However, I do believe that they both gave up too soon on their marriage. I do think that Diana needed more time to spend doing the royal round with Charles before her first pregnancy as well as having more time just being husband and wife. her own problems later on.
I am not sure if they were utterly doomed, but I think that the marriage was not one that was likely to be a very close or happy one. I agree that both of them probaby did give up on it too soon. Diana was so miserable, from early on, that while she made a few attempts to fit in, she wasn't really able to do so properly. She learned to do the royal job, but she didn't really learn how to cope with the RF in private or why it was necessary to try and get on with them. THe RF hang together because they NEED each other.. no one else knows what it is to be royal, so they do need each other as a support system. But I think that when Di saw her in laws up close, she didn't like them much and found them hard to adjust to, and didn't see that it was necessary to try and fit into their ways and learn from them...Same reason problaby that she didn't want to read the books on previous princesses..She was bullish and a bit arrogant probalby because she was scared of being found wanting..
I think that yes it is possilbe she got pregnant too soon and had the problems of becoming a mother, coping with her bulimia and depression before she had adjusted to being a wife, and learning the Royal job. And Charles tried to be there for her, but she was not easy to help and he had the image of Camilla in his mind.. He could not understand the whole Di mania thing but he could see that it was a big strain on his wife.. and he could see she wasn't really coping that well, but he problaby felt that there was only so much he could do to help.. and the more Diana was difficult the more he thougt longingly of Camilla and how easy and good tempered she was..
MAYBE given time, if Di had had a few years to learn being Princess of Wales, and adjust to being C's wife and to the RF, and THEN had a baby, she would have had a chance to mature gradually.. But I think it would have required marriage guidance and therapy, and perhaps it would also have meant that they both ahd to realise that it was never going to be a wonderfully close marriage. They had different interests, they had different friends, and Charles had his work that kept him busy..I think they would have had to realise that perhaps they needed quite a bit of space from each other, and to try and make the best of the things they had in common.. but If they were spending time apart in the early years, that wasn't what the press wanted from their glam new couple. If they were spending time apart, seeing their own friends and pursuing their own hobbies, I think the press would have been sniffing around saying
"why don't they spend more time together? Why is she in London playing tennis while he's up at Balmoral shooting and painting? Is the marriage a failure? Are they both seeing other lovers?"
So I can see that the RF problaby felt that they HAD to be seen spending time together, that It was a good idea to have a baby early as it gave them something in common,
and I think that Di found it hard to adjust to the idea that her fairy tale romance wasn't a fairy tale, and that for her marriage to work, she had to learn to adjust to NOT being looked after by Charles and spending time iwht him all the time.. So she got more neurotic and fed up and began to get angry with C for not wanting to be with her all the time and began to turn to other people to give her full time companionship, and after a while that tuned to looking for another lover.
I think that the marriage would have been a very very difficult one to work out, and their public position and the Di mania made ti hard for them to do the things that might have saved it..
Reply With Quote
  #1871  
Old 07-20-2016, 05:35 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,124
I thiknk that there was a tragic inevitability about the marriage. Charles was 30, he knew he had reached the age when he was supposed to marry... and he wasnt' really keen on the idea. He knew he had to marry a girl who was a virgin and he wasn't keen on much younger women. So I think when he met Di, and she seemed sweet and charming and pretty and eager to fall for him, he was problaby glad that he seemed to have a girl who was very lovely, pretty enough to attract him and who seemed to be falling for him. She also seemed to be willing to learn about his life, to sympathise with his problems and he thogght that even if his usual taste was for an older woman, she was not gauche or unattractive or unlovable. Everyone seemed to like her and think she was very suitable to be a Princess. She was from the right sort of family and knew the ropes, he thought.. so he was willing to "make himself fall for her". And Because of thtat, I think he was able to overlook his niggling fears that maybe she was too young and more naïve than she at first came across..and that she didn't really know much abuot his interests..
and Diana was a fragile damaged girl who had reached an age where she too wanted to get married. She had no career ambitions, she was shy with men and afraid I think of getting involved, because while she was keen ot marry and have kids, she was afraid that it might turn out badly as her mother's marriage had done.. But she had a low self esteem and believe that the only way she could fulfil herself or stand out from the crowd was to make a successful marriage, preferably to someone socially prominent...
so here was the POW paying court to her.. He had to stay married, so that was a plus. he was older and she was looking for someone to guide her and look after her..
and she made herself believe that she shared his interests and that she was willing to fit in with what he wanted of her...
so I dotn believe that either of them would have ended the relationship, even if they had had more time to court. I think they were both fixated on "I want to get married and this person is the right one for me"..
Reply With Quote
  #1872  
Old 07-20-2016, 01:59 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Or Queens. It was said that a crowd of photographers were once baying for Maxima as she and King Willem-Alexander were leaving a building after an engagement. The King left ahead of his wife, but just laughed. "Here you are, gentlemen," he said. "Here she is!" as she appeared behind him. And Maxima is known to have enjoyed tremendous popularity in the Netherlands since her marriage. There was none of that with Charles, though, he was just a very insecure character and his reaction to the media and crowds loving his wife proved it.
I don't think that C is to be blamed fro gradually becoming fed up with Diana's stealing his thunder. He had been POW for a logn time, done a lot of good work on his own, and now his young wife, who was still very much uneducated and not really doing anything but smiling and looking pretty, was getting so much attention. And I don't think he was hating it, at first. Letters that are said to prove that he was unhappy which are quoted In Bradfords Bio, seem to me to be saying the opposite, that he was worried by the adoration and press attention because he felt that no girl of 20 or so, could put up with it for long.. that the press were watching her every move and that when she slipped up, they would turn on her..
And I seem to recall his saying to some press guy when they were in Austrailia, "look at her, isn't she beautiful? I'm so proud of her." But I can understand that constantly hearing people calling for Diana and ignoring him, was bound to get to him..
He began to feel that Diana got adored for just turning up, whereas he got ignored even though he did work hard and tried to contribute something solid to the people...

Gradually too, I think thtat he began to feel that Diana was so sweet with the crowds and was adored by tehm, but they didn't see her when she was being difficult, as he and the RF did, and he felt increasingly annoyed by this.
As for her behaivor over the kiss at the polo match, she did behave badly there, and I'm not surprised he was annoyed
Reply With Quote
  #1873  
Old 07-20-2016, 06:54 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
This is why I like Berry's book. She does tell about the good times and the bad times and the ugly times but its done tastefully without denigrating either Charles or Diana. She doesn't reveal any "dirty secrets" and is chock full of amusing anecdotes of every day life around Highgrove.
Not quite. She tells some harrowing tales of the full scope of their quarreling. What is clear is Diana was a handful. Not sure many men would have survived her, though one did (James Hewitt). Seems the requisite was that she be the very center of attention, what many fault Charles for. Chalk and cheese? Maybe not in all things. Too much alike, in fact, in some respects, to be compatible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
That's just it. Its not a book which is a "tell all" that comes from authors digging up dirt and having sources that "are high up in the palace" and "close to the couple" and whatever else they use and although the book is focused around Charles and Diana's life at Highgrove, there is a lot in the book that gives good insight into just how their lifestyle was, how mischievous William and Harry were and how the royals interacted with their staff and just gives a general look at the life and times of Charles and Diana from a person that lived there. Berry was telling the story from her own perspective and her own experiences.
My understanding (from Berry herself) is that she wrote the book to counter the prevailing stories at the time that Charles was not a good parent. She was specifically writing to set the record straight about that. (She actually admits to being utterly charmed by Diana upon first meeting. In fact, I speculate that Berry was not invited to stay with Charles at Highgrove when the household was finally being broken up because Berry was seen as more Diana's servant than Charles'. Possible.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Still wrong. She signed a confidentiality agreement and broke to for money. Do you think the book woud have sold all that well had it not been for the Waleses well known marital troubles? IF it was just cute little bits about Wil and H etc.
Actually, by her own account, the book was undertaken to off-set what she saw as a grave disservice to Charles in the national press. Not money. Also, I read somewhere that the book was actually banned in the UK. Is that correct? I assume it can be gotten now (Amazon, Used Books), but in 1995 it was not available in the UK. Is that correct? Anyone know for a certainty?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
However the issue is, is she a credible source? I imagine she is, yes, fairly much so. If she didn't take sides, odds are that she's more creidble than other staff who did have one side they favoured, or had been fired/left their jobs and were at outs with Diana.
What makes her credible is that she sees both sides, not that she takes a side. She explains in detail how charming Diana was, and how decent Charles was as an employer. She is also very clear where Diana was a handful. What I found interesting was how she describes Charles, with a temper, yes, but also how decent he really was to servants (a skill-set Diana lacked, unfortunately).

Anyway, one comes away with a sense of a balanced view, but not one shorn of sympathies and antipathies. She had been a teacher prior to that posting, so her even-handedness can be explained, but like a teacher in a conference, she lets us know the unpleasant, too.

BTW, Berry was pilloried in the press at the time for writing the book, and her background was put into question. It is one of the examples of how nasty it got back then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I've just been rereading 'The Housekeeper's Diary' by Wendy Berry, having clawed it out of the bookcase of a friend who borrowed it a decade ago and 'forgot' to return it. It's amazing how little one retains of the content of such books after not reading them for years and years! I think Mrs Berry is quite balanced.[...]

Charles's consideration for others is recorded, mixed with demands for his staff to go the extra mile to the extent of having to drive 90 miles to Windsor to deliver something he'd forgotten
I feel I need to say something regarding this. Fact is, if one has the monetary means to have servants, like an assistant (for example) this is exactly the kind of errands one's assistant understands is part of the job. That's why the assistant has been hired.

Having been on both sides of the fence on this one, I do know that being set the task to take a long drive to fetch something (or whatever) is viewed as a welcome 'time-out'. I for one loved being out-and-about. And while perhaps an extreme 'perk' for the employer (when viewed from a 'have-not' position), it was one of the reasons I was hired as an assistant. I understood that and hardly 'resented' it.

As for the 'other side', when the said employer is handling multiple households, the 'problems' can be very different from someone who has one household to consider. This is really a 'have's' and 'have's not' situation.

Bottom line, these kind of comments just accentuate how different the 'worlds' are between the rich and the not-rich. JMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Diana's freezing out of staff for no conceivable reason that they knew, upsetting loyal people like her dresser terribly, the separate arrangements made for everything including meals in those last few years of cohabitation.
These, and other examples, are evidence of poor manners imo. As charming as Diana was with Mrs Berry at the hiring interview, or as charming as Diana was with all the public on her walkabouts, in her conduct in her personal life 'she was no lady', as the saying goes. She exhibited more 'entitlement' than did Charles imo. Charles is more his mother's son than some give him credit for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
The 'lets take this opportunity to read these books by my favourite philosopher so I can enjoy myself and you can be educated and enlightened and learn to share my interests' notion of Charles' was a good indicator of the huge gap between these two. They should never have married.
One can have divergent interests and still be politely respectful of one's spouse's interests. Case in point, I will never attend ComicCon (again) but I understand why it's my husband's interest and why he will forever attend without me. Yet, I enjoy our evenings together when he returns and regales me with stories. (Best way to 'attend' imo).

BTW Diana told 'us' (the public) long after the fact that she was bored on her honnymoon (pretty crass, if you ask me) and suggested all manner of impolite things about Charles. We do not know (in fact) what she was communicating to Charles at the time. To go by his smiles, my guess is Charles was bamboozled by Diana's duplicity with him.

Last bit, it is my opinion that Charles' so-named 'jealousy' (his public sober manner at the time) was a bit more complex and layered. Diana was likely causing him more substantial concerns than any superficial concern over 'popularity'. In a state of acute animus towards him as husband and father, Diana was raising Charles' heir. Enough in that alone to cause brooding.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1874  
Old 07-20-2016, 09:02 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
She stole his thunder, because she was pretty and wore beautiful clothes. No one ever credited her with anything, else at that time. But a beautiful woman in a gorgeous dress will steal the thunder of a man in a suit any day. Charles had entitlement. He never could have accepted that. Part of the problem. Not the whole thing. And Charles was no paragon of virtue. Was he a good parent. Yes. Did he see warmth given to his children he never had from their mother. Yes. Diana is dead almost 20 years. Charles has had the ability to marry his mistress and go on. So, it easy to say things about a person many here didn't know then, at that time and judge them.
Reply With Quote
  #1875  
Old 07-20-2016, 11:16 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
Yes, it was banned. In fact, that's one of its selling points as a used book: "Banned in Britain."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Also, I read somewhere that the book was actually banned in the UK. Is that correct? I assume it can be gotten now (Amazon, Used Books), but in 1995 it was not available in the UK. Is that correct? Anyone know for a certainty?
Reply With Quote
  #1876  
Old 07-20-2016, 11:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,188
Charles obtained a (British) High Court injunction against Mrs Berry in an attempt to stop her publishing her book in Britain. Because of this it was published in the US, (exported elsewhere) and banned in Britain.

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but I was regularly flitting between Australia and the U.K. in the mid-1990's and I saw it in Australian bookshops, and bought a copy. I later transported another copy back to Britain in my luggage, after a visit to New York, as I'm sure thousands of others did when returning from the US and different parts of the world. I never saw Mrs Berry's book in any bookstore in Britain.

Prince will not sue housekeeper who betrayed secrets - Telegraph

Mrs Berry, the housekeeper, not Charles's personal assistant, had to transport the forgotten item (a box of chocolates, a birthday gift to the Queen: apparently there were no confectionary shops in Windsor!) on one occasion she describes.

On another occasion she wrote about, someone else not connected with Charles's office (not a PA) had to drive all that way and back because a watercolour painting had been forgotten. IMO Charles was just as selfish and self-absorbed as Diana could be, in a lot of ways. It was just expressed differently.

I enjoyed 'The Housekeeper's Diary'. It gave an authentic view of Charles and Diana's marriage in my view, and Mrs Berry was, by and large, evenhanded. However, the reader would also have his/her mindset on Charles and Diana confirmed, I think.

If you like Diana you would point to the bad things Charles did, recounted in 'The Housekeeper's Diary'. If you like Charles you would do the same for Diana.

We, the readers,' life experiences come into this too, and, IMO, reinforce our prejudices/outlook on these two people when we read anything about the Wales's marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #1877  
Old 07-21-2016, 12:44 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,632
For anyone that is interested in hunting Berry's book down, its available at abesbooks.com for $3.47 (includes shipping within the USA).
__________________
“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
  #1878  
Old 07-21-2016, 01:52 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,702
The admiration of Diana was extremely shallow, I can understand why a man who is actually doing something of substance would get annoyed with everyone talking about what his wife wore. It wasn't Diana's fault but lookin back I can see how utterly immature and ridiculous the media was with her. The crowds were one thing I don't fault them for being dazzled they only had 5 secs to spend with a royal; but the papers who are supposed to be covering these events are another thing. I think that's probably the reason Kate has a tendency to recycle.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #1879  
Old 07-21-2016, 02:16 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,124
the media was reportng what sold. People liked Diana, I don't believe ti was shallow.. unless you think that all charm is shallow. She had a warm heart which came across in her meetings with the public. She was able to talk to people without being condescending or stiff like most royals. She dressed nicely which was expected of a royal lady.. She was shy, at first but she turned up and did her job. Yes I can understand that Charles was jealous nad that he felt that his serious work was being undermined by "what Diana was wearing" but if he and she had been able to work together better, they could have complemented each other. He cuodl do the serious talks and she could do the talking and charming people. And as she grew older, she developed serious interests herself..

absolute nonsense if Berry really said she wrote the book to counter allegations that charles was not a good parent or whathever. She wrote it for money, pure and simple

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
C
Prince will not sue housekeeper who betrayed secrets - Telegraph

M
On another occasion she wrote about, someone else not connected with Charles's office (not a PA) had to drive all that way and back because a watercolour painting had been forgotten. IMO Charles was just as selfish and self-absorbed as Diana could be, in a lot of ways. It was just expressed differently.

IWales's marriage.
well i dont really see that as selfish, perhaps thoughtless, but that's what staff are paid for. However I am sure Charles was not always easy to work for and neither at times was Diana. WIth Diana I think ti was her unhappiness and fragility that made her a bad employer at times. She wanted her staff to be freinds but then began to worry that they were taking advantage of being friends with her. She wanted to have them loving her and saw any slight difference or lack of loyalty as a sign of them NOT really being true to her and she would cut them out. So she cut off Burrell's wife, for some reason and expected him to put up with the fact that his wife who had worked for Diana was persona non grata...
I dont intend to read the book, becuase i feel Berry was completely in the wrong in writing it.. and we dont really need her stories to tell us that the marriage was unhappy and full of rows, and that C and Di were both at times selfish employers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Yes, in
Nevertheless, Charles was only 32 when he married. An old 32, yes, but nevertheless a person's friendships, attitudes, mode of life etc shouldn't be fixed in stone at that age in the way that I believe Charles's were, due to his Royal upbringing. He's never seemed to me to be a man happy and comfortable with many aspects of modern life.

Bottom line is though --Charles and Diana were chalk and cheese. Should never never have wed.
but that's the way he is. He was always old for his age, he liked older people, he was into hte past more than modern life.. Its like wishing he were another person. And DIana was volatile and very young for her age, and I dont beleive that she was mature enough to get married to anyone, much less a public man whose every move was scrutiinised..
Reply With Quote
  #1880  
Old 07-21-2016, 03:47 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
The admiration of Diana was extremely shallow, I can understand why a man who is actually doing something of substance would get annoyed with everyone talking about what his wife wore. It wasn't Diana's fault but looking back I can see how utterly immature and ridiculous the media was with her. The crowds were one thing I don't fault them for being dazzled they only had 5 secs to spend with a royal; but the papers who are supposed to be covering these events are another thing. I think that's probably the reason Kate has a tendency to recycle.
You've hit on it, I think. There was far more going on against Charles, like the overt ridicule. It's really very odd to read decades later. I'm not convinced Charles would have cared about Diana being cheered had it not come with a contrary attitude about him, often egged on by Diana herself. It was the animus directed at him that was unnerving on some level. Wouldn't you think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
the media was reportng what sold. People liked Diana, I don't believe it was shallow.. unless you think that all charm is shallow. She had a warm heart which came across in her meetings with the public. She was able to talk to people without being condescending or stiff like most royals.
Were royals really 'condescending or stiff' at the time? Is this historically accurate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Yes I can understand that Charles was jealous and that he felt that his serious work was being undermined by "what Diana was wearing" but if he and she had been able to work together better, they could have complemented each other. He could do the serious talks and she could do the talking and charming people.
I'm not convinced Charles was 'jealous'. It's an accusation that gets tossed about, but I don't see it. Rather it's an accusation that is part of the animus towards him, the attempt to demean him. I've never understood it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
And as she grew older, she developed serious interests herself.
What were those?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
absolute nonsense if Berry really said she wrote the book to counter allegations that charles was not a good parent or whathever. She wrote it for money, pure and simple
That's a pretty intense belief. But that's what it is: a belief. It goes contrary to what she herself has said, and demonstrated in her book. I believe she is a primary first-person source working against the press 'spin' at the time that Charles was an 'absent parent'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
However I am sure Charles was not always easy to work for and neither at times was Diana. WIth Diana I think it was her unhappiness and fragility that made her a bad employer at times. She wanted her staff to be freinds but then began to worry that they were taking advantage of being friends with her. She wanted to have them loving her and saw any slight difference or lack of loyalty as a sign of them NOT really being true to her and she would cut them out. So she cut off Burrell's wife, for some reason and expected him to put up with the fact that his wife who had worked for Diana was persona non grata.
Read the book. You will get some perspective on the consistency of Diana's behavior with her staff. You make a lot of assumptions. Check it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I don't intend to read the book, because i feel Berry was completely in the wrong in writing it.
Had she not done so we would not have the first person witness setting right much of what was a-swirl in the press at the time against Charles about his role as a parent. Berry is the first source (I believe) to indicate how present Charles was in the nursery with the children. (Diana did once allude to Charles in the nursery early in the marriage). We learn he was very much a hands-on parent, as much as Diana. We also learn how Diana blocked Charles from being with the children: she had meals 'on trays' with her sons that then pre-empted the family meal with their father (and mother) present.

If you are interested in the reality of Diana and Charles, I would say Mrs Berry is an important eye-witness source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
we dont really need her stories to tell us that the marriage was unhappy and full of rows, and that C and Di were both at times selfish employers.
Not having read the book you have a skewed view of the book's focus. It's a very far-ranging book. It doesn't focus on the bad imo, though it comes into play because it's part of the whole picture. It's from her book that I learned how close Charles and his sister Anne really are, that there were visits, even from the Queen, the kind of informal, impromtu visiting one would expect between family members. Even young cousins coming over, like Zara, to play. Charming.

P.S. Mrs Berry does indicate, either in the book or an extraneous article, that she knows far, far more than she revealed in the book. She made a choice not to reveal more, though I wonder if she was ever an 'un-named source' for other authors/researchers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
but that's the way he is.He was always old for his age, he liked older people, he was into the past more than modern life. Its like wishing he were another person.
I can't agree with you less here. Charles was/is very much a member of his generation. He may not have taken on the trappings of 'Mod London' at the time, for obvious reasons (the oppressive system in which he was bound to serve), but he has been cutting edge in all other ways. He had his 'goofy' side: he was a very 'silly' young man when at university (imo). But he was also a very sensitive soul (unlike the go-getter Anne), compelled to be other than his nature by a demanding father, but that does not then make him old beyond his years, just sensitive. JMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
And Diana was volatile and very young for her age, and I don't beleive that she was mature enough to get married to anyone, much less a public man whose every move was scrutinized.
Here we can agree.
__________________

__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
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 belgian state visit to japan best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style christening of prince alexander 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 fashion suggestions gothia cup grand duke jean greece hereditary grand duchess stéphanie's fashion & style 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 madeleine princess marie princess mary 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 royal fashion september 2016 sheikha moza 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 06:49 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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