The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1881  
Old 07-21-2016, 04:47 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
I have no intention of reading hte book. I dont agree with her or other servants writing books about Diana.. and All I can say is, that if she DID write it to defend Charles from being attacked, he must be a very ungrateful person because he clearly was annoyed about the book and it was banned
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1882  
Old 07-21-2016, 05:19 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
It seems that everyone in the royal arena who writes a book does so "to set the record straight". That was supposed to be Ken Wharfe's and Paul Burrell's justification as well.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1883  
Old 07-21-2016, 05:22 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
And It is no justification. They all know when they work for the RF that they are not supposed to talk about the people they wrork for. and they certainly are not supposed to write books oar articles about them. Whether they sign a legal agreement or not, there is an honour bound thing that they are not supposed to reveal the secrets of their bosses' lives.
James Hewitt said that he was writing HIS books to tell about his lvoe affair with Diana, and that she wanted him to do it.. Nonsense. He did ti for money and attention. Same with these other people like Wharfe or Berry..
Reply With Quote
  #1884  
Old 07-21-2016, 07:37 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,702
The media didn't talk about her charm they spoke about her outfits and her hair. I did state that the public would be wowed by her and her charm but thay is what they are there for; they are just one of thousands who have to get as Much from a brief meeting as possible. The shallowness came from having access to ask Prince Charles important questions and instead asking him how his wife liked dancing with John Travolta.
Lady Nimue you made many good points in your post, I am interested in hearing what Berry has to say and I am grateful to anyone who works against the negative spin...but I also feel reading her book would be like supporting Paul Burrell.
__________________
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
  #1885  
Old 07-21-2016, 09:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Charles is not the leading light in world affairs. And if he came alone, few cared. Yes, when he was single, they thought he was eligible, like he'd marry a shop girl. He couldn't marry Camilla, she was beneath their expectations. And, yes, they were stiff. Like bricks. Rarely smiles, no one touched anyone. They were too sacred. That stopped. Diana opened the door. It couldn't be closed.
Reply With Quote
  #1886  
Old 07-21-2016, 10:26 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,455
I haven't really thought this out, but...

Charles had seen one marriage up close (his parents'). He saw (I assume) that the outsider (DoE) had majestically served HM and had been self-effacing in many ways that enabled the marriage to work as well as it has. Perhaps he believed that Diana would be like Philip, a devoted and unselfish helpmeet, always ceding the spotlight to his spouse. The age difference made that well-nigh impossible. It was sad for all concerned.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #1887  
Old 07-21-2016, 11:34 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,886
Do you believe that if Prince Charles and Princess Diana had not had a child so early, Diana would have had more time to learn about royal duties?
Reply With Quote
  #1888  
Old 07-22-2016, 01:12 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
I don't understand all the closed eyes; I think if Diana and Charles had not had a baby so soon, they might have formed a better relationship and might have stuck together. Pure speculation, of course, but if they had grown together, instead of apart, they might still be together.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #1889  
Old 07-22-2016, 02:30 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
The media didn't talk about her charm they spoke about her outfits and her hair. I did state that the public would be wowed by her and her charm but thay is what they are there for; they are just one of thousands who have to get as Much from a brief meeting as possible. The shallowness came from having access to ask Prince Charles important questions and instead asking him how his wife liked dancing with John Travolta.
supporting Paul Burrell.
sorry but what important questions are tabloid reporters going to ask Charles? He is officially not supposed to take part in politics. If he gave a speech on architechture the serious papers might report it but the tabloids would nto give it much attention. And sorry but you are wrong, the papers DID speak of Diana's charm, her natural manner, her sweetness, her way with kids and old people.. of course they mentioned her clothes, they did so even when later on, she was doing more serious engagements, travelling to Africa to do a hard and rough tour on landmines. Diana got more attention for her charity work than Charles did because she was charming, she was pretty and dressed nicely and worked hard at doing the speaking nicely to people... He was seen as fusty, out of touch and often speaking about things he didn't know much about...
If he had been more secure and DIana had been older and more mature when she married him, I think that he and she could have worked togeheter, with him doing the speeches and her doing the hand shaking and charm, bt he was insecure, to an extent it was understandable, but IMO it was because they got on each other's nerves in private that he found it hard to relax and make use of Diana's good points, of being able to win and please people, in his own work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I don't understand all the closed eyes; I think if Diana and Charles had not had a baby so soon, they might have formed a better relationship and might have stuck together. Pure speculation, of course, but if they had grown together, instead of apart, they might still be together.
Agree I don't understand the closed eyes either?
I don't know if there was much that could have been done to save the marriage. Sad but I think that there just seemed to be a constant jarring of the 2 of them against each other...
I think that MAYBE if Di had not had the kids so early, she and C might have had time to get to know each other better, to work out a way of being married..
But I think the problem was that they really weren't compatible, they would have had to be different people, to manage to find a way of working together. I think they would have needed marriage guidance and therapy and say spending 2 or 3 years on "lighter royal duties" till Diana was acclimatised to the RF and to married life and till Charles had adjusted as well.
But I think the facts that they were so popular as a couple, or that Diana was so adored, meant that the RF were keen to "put them out there" to meet the public, and would not have been keen on them not doing too much work...
And the fact that they had realised that they weren't very much in tune with each other perhaps pushed them towards starting a family soon.. to give them something in common...but it was putting a huge strain on the marriage and particularly on Diana when her heatlh was undermined by her bulimia.. to have two children so soon.
and I think that when Di was having children, she was worrying about "Is Charles going to find me sexy when I'm fat and pregnant", and worrying "is he maybe seeng Camilla because I'm looking awful or I'm not well enough to go out..." and problaby the more she got annoyed and upset about the Cam issue, the more annoyed Charlres got and perhaps in the end he DID feel he might as well go back to Cam since he was getting shouted at anyway

There was no "animus" against Charles. It was simply that he was not as attractive to the press or public as Diana was.. and at first she didn't use her charm and looks against him... though she did later. he got sulky about it.. understandable perhaps but it made him look bad. And gradually it began to look to the press and public that She was the warm loving mother, he was the dull guy who was always banging on about issues that he either didn't know much about, or wasn't supposed to talk about, such as politics. she did her charity work with warmth and people believed, I think correctly that she did care about people and wanted to touch and help them.
He came across as caring about buildings, while she cared about kids and people.
Stories were leaking out about their marriage not being very happy, and I thin that that DID make Charles more annoyed and in public he focussed more and more on "issues" and trying to make a difference, admirable in many ways but many of the issues he chose were "cold ones".. like architechture or conservation.. and since the public liked Di better, they were going to blame the marital problems, if any, on Charles, as the older of the 2.
and I think that while he loved the boys, he didn't come across as someone who was all that comfortable with little kids.. I think that he did his best and when they were very small, he was in the nursery a lot but as they became nosiy toddlers, and he and DI got on worse, he gradually left them more to Diana.. and as young kids I think they preferred her company... it was later that they began to find the meida circus that followed her stressful..
So no, there was no animus against Charles, if he was getting some bad press there was good reason for it... it had nothing to do, in the early years, with Diana "havig a go at him."
Reply With Quote
  #1890  
Old 07-26-2016, 11:15 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,886
For their sixth wedding anniversary in 1987 Prince Charles and Princess Diana went their separate ways. Charles was in Cornwall. Diana was in Tidworth.
Reply With Quote
  #1891  
Old 07-27-2016, 11:12 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,886
Would you say that the courtship of Charles and Diana was too brief?
Reply With Quote
  #1892  
Old 07-28-2016, 12:10 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,633
I've known people that took much longer to decide on what house to buy and where to move to than Charles and Diana took before they married. If I'm not mistaken, they had relatively short amounts of "dates" to get to know each other before announcing an engagement.

Sometimes people know within minutes that they've found the perfect partner and the marriage lasts "until death do us part". Sometimes people date for years before marriage and it falls apart afterwards. There really is no guarantee going into a marriage that it will be a forevermore kind of marriage. Marriage takes day to day maintenance and work and compromise. Unfortunately for Charles and Diana, the marriage had more pitfalls and troubles than most and it didn't work.
__________________
“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
  #1893  
Old 07-28-2016, 10:20 PM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 372
Diana's popularity with the press wouldn't have lasted forever. The press aren't kind to older women and they would have turned in Diana sooner or later - press barons are as keen on knighthoods and titles as everyone else and alienating the future king is no way to go about getting one...
Reply With Quote
  #1894  
Old 07-28-2016, 10:31 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by WreathOfLaurels View Post
Diana's popularity with the press wouldn't have lasted forever. The press aren't kind to older women and they would have turned in Diana sooner or later - press barons are as keen on knighthoods and titles as everyone else and alienating the future king is no way to go about getting one...
I'm not sure what you mean. Yes D's popularity was beginning to fade at the later 90s, not because she was getting older but because the story had run and run, she had had a long run of being very popular, and now it was running out. Nobody is popular ALL the time. And the public who read the stories were getting sick of the war of the Waleses. It had been a great story but it had gone on for a long time and People were tired of it.. and they were also beginning to feel that it was high time that both C and Diana sorted out their problems, got on with their lives and stayed out of the headlines so much. but at that time, while Di's popularity was going down C's was about as low as it was possible to be. IMO it wasn't 100% clear that he was going to become King. OK the queen did not want him out of the succession but he himself was stil insisting on keeping up his relationship with Camilla which was the big sticking point. It was likely that he'd be king in the end, but it was still IMO problematic. So IM not sure what you mean by supporting her being likely to alienate the future King. THe press didn't care about her anyway, what they wanted was a story, and that was all that they cared about with Diana. For a long time, she was more popular with the public and hence the Press supported her and Chas was largely disliked, but it wasn't IMO til after her death and very gradually that Charles began to come back up the ratings from his very very low point.
Reply With Quote
  #1895  
Old 07-28-2016, 10:43 PM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 372
Charles was strongly disliked to put it mildly but in reality there wasn't any real question of tinkering with the succession as doing so was a legal nightmare it wouldn't have just been the uk parliament but some 16 others as well - remember the Aussie referendum was two years after Diana was killed and although this was about Australian politics first and foremost it was also a verdict on the Windsors as well as a RF - a vote of no confidence in Oz would it have done queen or Charles any good. The legal can of worms was huge. Also this was when "New labour" was in full flight - Blair had already made clear that he wanted to undertake some major constitutional reform and it was always possible the monarchy may well have ended up on the chopping block if the Govt was determined enough to make that the case. Blair himself was pro monarchy as was Gordon Brown but there has always been a strong republican strain in Labour and tinkering with the line of succession could well have given them an opening. This wasn't 1936 where the media was self censoring and Baldwin got away with deposing E8 in a very swift efficient and fortunate coup. As much as I like to rag on Bliar he did save the RFs bacon back in 1997 and they behaved very poorly towards him esp Charles who had a grudge over his support for Diana - Charles is a very strong grudge holder and although Murdoch was fine with Royal disapproval, the others not so much.
Reply With Quote
  #1896  
Old 07-28-2016, 11:06 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
I dont believe that it would have led to a republic, but that's rather OT. but I think it was maybe just possible that chas would have been pushed out, if the RF felt it was better to sacrifice him.
But Diana's popularity had taken a dip, there's no denying but that was because the story had had its very long run and now the public were bored and I think a little disgusted. So it was approaching a point where neither of them could have "played the papers" against each other...
I HOPE that given time, they would have gotten over this terrible low point in their relationship for the sake of their boys.
Reply With Quote
  #1897  
Old 07-28-2016, 11:07 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,886
When they were dating, did Prince Charles take Lady Diana to any of the places that she wanted to go to?
Reply With Quote
  #1898  
Old 07-28-2016, 11:15 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Diana was a private citizen in 1997, albeit the ex wife of the Prince of Wales. She was also the much-loved mother of two boys who adored her and she them. That, IMO, cannot be separated from her role as Princess of Wales.

I wonder whether Diana's sons would agree with you that her death ensured everyone in the BRF was better off without her (and that includes them, remember) because it finished 'the upheavals of the 1990's'.

the subject.
Diana could be hard to deal with, but IMO she had by 1997 worn out with fighting. She had achieved a positon as an "Ex princess" and a good financial settlement and she was still doing "royal work" in her landmines campaign.
I think that she'd reached a point where she still was angry, but she wasn't going to fight or seriously try to upstage the RF.
IF the press still wanted to photograph her, that was something that was going to happen, and I dont think she could help still being more charismatic than Charles was... I think the terms of her divorce stopped her from giving interviews about the marriage and she would have gradually gotten on with her life, as a private citizen, as the mother of the 2 princes and as Diana Princess of Wales, who still did charity work.
So I dont believe the RF had that much to worry about, and I hope that they didn't see her death as "a way of stopping her being a problem."
And I think that Charles at least HAS shown that he's learned something from his ex wife, since her death. I think he always loved the boys but he didn't perhaps spend as much time with them as he might have, and now he has tried since she died, to be there for them, to be a good father and to show them affection. And as he said to one of his aides, Diana showed him how to talk to children, to "get down to their level",
I would hope that while the marriage was a terrible mistake, he has still some affection for her...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
When they were dating, did Prince Charles take Lady Diana to any of the places that she wanted to go to?
Where do you think she wanted to go?
Reply With Quote
  #1899  
Old 07-29-2016, 01:09 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I dont believe that it would have led to a republic, but that's rather OT. but I think it was maybe just possible that chas would have been pushed out, if the RF felt it was better to sacrifice him.
But Diana's popularity had taken a dip, there's no denying but that was because the story had had its very long run and now the public were bored and I think a little disgusted. So it was approaching a point where neither of them could have "played the papers" against each other...
I HOPE that given time, they would have gotten over this terrible low point in their relationship for the sake of their boys.
To be honest, I think it would have been next to impossible to "push" Charles out of the line of succession. It would have taken a very long, very involved legal battle involving Parliament. It was total chaos when Edward VIII abdicated of his own free will and if you check the abdication thread, there's a lot of information on the back and forth of it all and the ins and outs.

The RF couldn't just decide to "sacrifice" Charles. It doesn't work that way. Charles is/was the legal and rightful heir to the throne. Public opinion plays no part in succession.
__________________
“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
  #1900  
Old 07-29-2016, 01:37 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,190
Yes, the royal succession in the last few centuries has been sacrosanct. Look how unpopular the Prince Regent/King George IV was. The essayist Leigh Hunt went to prison for libelling him as 'a fat Adonis of forty' in response to all the cloying comments about his charm, good looks etc.

He and his estranged wife Caroline were virtually at war throughout most of their married life (a little like Charles and Diana) and she received an enormous amount of support from sectors of the populace (just like Diana). Sometimes Royal history does show up some remarkable parallels.

George couldn't have been more unpopular as Prince and King if he'd tried. He was criticised for his extravagance and treatment of his wife and daughter, (like Charles with Diana and the neglectful father accusations) and the press had a field day when he was Prince Regent.

Yet he was the eldest son of George III and there was no doubt that short of a revolution, he would succeed his father. Caroline made a scene outside the Abbey during the Coronation ceremony to which she was barred. At least Charles won't be faced with anything like that!

Caroline died soon after, and George completed a short and rather inglorious reign of ten years. People gritted their teeth, he wasn't really wanted, he didn't make a good monarch, but the succession laws were adhered to, to the letter.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales, princess diana


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charles and Diana Picture Thread Josefine Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 434 08-12-2015 06:00 PM
Charles and Diana: Visit to Italy - 1985 jun5 Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 57 09-02-2012 10:35 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge duchess of cornwall's fashion e-mail fashion poll germany grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week poland state visit to norway prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen juliana queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania in oslo royal fashion september 2016 spencers 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 09:08 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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