Charles and Diana

[Mbruno]

I don't buy that it would have been an arranged marriage. Even if it was, arranged marriages are still the norm in many societies. Charles had been in love with Camilla, but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't eventually moved on. A marriage can be happy even if the parties aren't in love in the beginning. .

So you are basically saying that, when a man cheats on his wife, the wife is the one to be blamed because she was not able to make "her man" fall in love with or be interested in her ? Or she was not understanding and accomodating enough to save her marriage ? In other words, men cheat because their wives are not good enough to them ? How typical !

 

[Lady Nimue]

So you are basically saying that, when a man cheats on his wife, the wife is the one to be blamed because she was not able to make "her man" fall in love with or be interested in her ? Or she was not understanding and accomodating enough to save her marriage ? How typical !

I think you have massively mis-read what Royal Watcher wrote. Nothing of the kind was suggested. You have 'read into' some text what is not there. Royal Watcher did not write what you claim.

You are assuming that no matter who Charles married he would have cheated with Camilla. That's a huge leap.

 

[Mbruno]

I think you have massively mis-read what Royal Watcher wrote. Nothing of the kind was suggested. You have 'read into' some text what is not there.

You are assuming that no matter who Charles married he would have cheated with Camilla. That's a huge leap.

Royal Watcher said that, even though Charles was in love with Camilla, he might have moved on if he had married Amanda because Amanda would have been a better wife/ better match for him than Diana. The logical implication of that rationale is quite obvious to me, i.e. Diana is the one to be blamed for not being able to make Charles forget Camilla. Quite frankly, I find that line of reasoning preposterous and demeaning to women. And I say that as someone who happens to be male.

 

[Gawin]

Charles didn't love Amanda as he didn't love Diana. It would be just another arranged marriage and there is no reason to believe it would be a happy one. Amanda might have put up with Charles' infidelity though in a way Diana did not, because of her royal ancestry.

There's no reason to believe it would have been an unhappy one. And there's also no reason to believe he would have returned to Camilla.

I think Charles did intend to give his marriage a chance. It failed because he and Diana had nothing in common, no shared interests on which to build a closer relationship. With Amanda things may have been different.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

So you are basically saying that, when a man cheats on his wife, the wife is the one to be blamed because she was not able to make "her man" fall in love with or be interested in her ? Or she was not understanding and accomodating enough to save her marriage ? In other words, men cheat because their wives are not good enough to them ? How typical !

It's obvious that you don't have an answer if you have to resort to mischaracterizing the other person's words. I wasn't talking about an affair, and you know it. I don't think there was an affair at first. Charles was obviously not in love with Diana, but she was not in love with him either.

Regardless, it could have worked out if both of them had committed to working it out. They didn't. Both of them had affairs--no one knows who strayed first. I doubt if Charles knows for sure when Diana started to sleep with others (including married men).

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Not so. Charles and Amanda were well known to each other (across years) and in many ways, that being the case, they had a foundation upon which to build a loving marriage (the same as Elizabeth and Philip, or Victoria and Albert). Friendship is important in marriage, I have found, and sustains. Friendship means there is respect and goodwill. One cannot equate Amanda and Diana. The most relevant objection to the Amanda/Charles match that I have read was that the two were more like brother/sister, meaning very good friends. In my book that could have blossomed into something more. However, it didn't and the rest is history.

[P.S. These statements about 'love' have almost become code. What is love, after all? Caring, wanting the best for someone, tenderness, sharing, humor: these things go far to create the ambiance in which love can grow.]

Keep in mind that Diana very happily put up with Charles' infidelity for an entire decade. Plus Charles' infidelity (when it finally happened) was with (in the end) only one woman. It's not like Charles was out there playing the field, siring babies, and having wild parties. His indiscretions were so discreet that to this day we have very little knowledge of what took place, whereas with Diana she was so indiscreet that the tabloids were going to blow the whistle on her, and did.

Where I disagree with you is that I don't think it was somehow better that Charles was actually in love with Camilla. There was a study many years ago that found that men cared more about physical infidelity and women care more about emotional infidelity.

I believe Charles when he said that he was faithful until the marriage irretrievably broke down. However, I think that before that point, Charles began using Camilla for emotional support, rather than Diana. (I also think that he may have assumed that she was sleeping with Barry Manakee and decided that the marriage was over.)

The lack of emotional intimacy must have been painful for Diana. On the other hand, Diana was so insecure, she couldn't give Charles the support he needed. They both wanted someone to take care of them, but neither were wired that way. They were simply incompatible.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Regardless, it could have worked out if both of them had committed to working it out. They didn't. Both of them had affairs--no one knows who strayed first. I doubt if Charles knows for sure when Diana started to sleep with others (including married men).

We have evidence that he did know about the Barry Manakee situation. He definitely knew about James Hewitt. It is likely Charles knew about everything simply because of his position: it would have been reported to him. JMO.

We have no evidence that he confronted Diana about any of it, though on one thread it was suggested that according to Diana she and Charles discussed their liaisons with each other. (Hmmm...) I view that little bit as Diana's canny way of inserting that she obtained Charles' 'permission' to have affairs, thus absolving her of the technicality of having committed treason (very archaic but there you go, Diana had no way to know how the establishment would come down on her for her indiscretions). I'm not sure I believe Diana on this one bit but I also have found that though Diana lied her lies tended to have the contours of truth. It may be so that Charles and she reached a point where they did openly discuss their lives, which makes her betrayal of those confidences all the more cutting.

 

[Gawin]

Royal Watcher said that, even though Charles was in love with Camilla, he might have moved on if he had married Amanda because Amanda would have been a better wife/ better match for him than Diana. The logical implication of that rationale is quite obvious to me, i.e. Diana is the one to be blamed for not being able to make Charles forget Camilla. Quite frankly, I find that line of reasoning preposterous and demeaning to women. And I say that as someone who happens to be male.

No, that is NOT a logical implication. It wasn't that Diana was to blame, it was simply the fact that they weren't right for one another and their unhappiness brought out the worst in both of them.

Charles and Diana were incompatible with no common interests. In addition, neither one could satisfy the other's emotional needs or even understand what made the other one tick. Neither was to blame for not being what the other wanted/needed in a spouse. They barely knew one another when they married and both went into the marriage with both eyes closed. If Charles had married another woman who shared some of his interests the two could have used that to build a closer relationship that eventually may have developed into love. With Diana that wasn't going to happen.

If anyone deserves blame, I vote for Charles for choosing Diana in the first place. He once stated that choosing a wife would be one of the most important decisions he would ever make. Well, he certainly blew that one.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Where I disagree with you is that I don't think it was somehow better that Charles was actually in love with Camilla. There was a study many years ago that found that men cared more about physical infidelity and women care more about emotional infidelity.

I am not sure where in my text you see me saying that. Have I said that?

I believe Charles when he said that he was faithful until the marriage irretrievably broke down. However, I think that before that point, Charles began using Camilla for emotional support, rather than Diana. (I also think that he may have assumed that she was sleeping with Barry Manakee and decided that the marriage was over.)

Recall that Diana had Charles banish his circle of friends (which included Camilla) which he did. He complied with her wishes to the point of his dismissing his dog. Good grief! (Though if the dog was growling at her or being disagreeable in some other way, I could see doing that myself, especially when children are involved ).

The lack of emotional intimacy must have been painful for Diana. On the other hand, Diana was so insecure, she couldn't give Charles the support he needed. They both wanted someone to take care of them, but neither were wired that way. They were simply incompatible.

How do we know there was a "lack of emotional intimacy". Serious question. I know we have fairly decent evidence that they had a pretty rousing sex life in the early years. They certainly argued and that requires intimacy.

That is the key: Diana was insecure. She had one relationship she was able to sustain across years, the one with James Hewitt. That's it, and it's longevity had more to do with Hewitt's loyalty than hers. As loyal and devoted as he was, she was still not able to maintain loyalty to him, cheated on him (for goodness sake) and in the end kicked him to the curb. Not a good reference point. Her template for a successful relationship seems to be to perhaps have utter loyalty from the man while she played the field. Then she could feel secure.

Now look at Charles: he evidences considerable loyalty to friends and discretion with lovers: plus he has never spoken ill about Diana to this day.

 

[Mbruno]

No, that is NOT a logical implication. It wasn't that Diana was to blame, it was simply the fact that they weren't right for one another and their unhappiness brought out the worst in both of them.

Charles and Diana were incompatible and neither one understood what made the other one tick. Neither was to blame for not being what the other wanted/needed in a spouse. They barely knew one another when they married and both went into the marriage with both eyes closed. If Charles had married another woman who shared some of his interests the two could have used that to build a closer relationship that eventually may have developed into love.

If anyone deserves blame, I vote for Charles for choosing Diana in the first place. He once stated that choosing a wife would be one of the most important decisions he would ever make. Well, he certainly blew that one.

If they were incompatible, he should not have married her in the first place, as he did on his own free will. One doesn't marry another person on the hope that their potential "shared interests" might eventually "develop into love" (whatever love means). Marriage is not to be taken that lightly.

In the end, all the previous posts are a rehashed variation of the same usual anti-Diana theme: Charles could never have loved her because she was not right for him. Other more aggressive posters would go further and add "because she was mentally disturbed", or "because she was unfaithful herself".

The broader picture is that, for hundreds of years, women have put up with unfaithful husbands and felt guilty about it on the premise that, if their husbands were having extra-marital affairs, it was because they were not good enough wives to please their men. It is unfortunate that this PoV resurfaces again, from time to time, even in the 21st century.

 

[Lady Nimue]

No, that is NOT a logical implication. It wasn't that Diana was to blame, it was simply the fact that they weren't right for one another and their unhappiness brought out the worst in both of them.

Charles and Diana were incompatible with no common interests. In addition, neither one could satisfy the other's emotional needs or even understand what made the other one tick. Neither was to blame for not being what the other wanted/needed in a spouse. They barely knew one another when they married and both went into the marriage with both eyes closed. If Charles had married another woman who shared some of his interests the two could have used that to build a closer relationship that eventually may have developed into love. With Diana that wasn't going to happen.

A good summary of the dilemma.

If anyone deserves blame, I vote for Charles for choosing Diana in the first place. He once stated that choosing a wife would be one of the most important decisions he would ever make. Well, he certainly blew that one.

Have to agree with you 100%. If ever there was a cautionary tale regarding how important it is to choose one's marital partner judiciously, it is Charles choosing Diana. What a mistake!

What's interesting to consider is a might-have-been, which I don't think is realistic, but consider if it did occur: Charles never married. That would mean that it would be Edward's son who would be the next heir, not so? King James.

 

[Lady Nimue]

The broader picture is that, for hundreds of years, women have put up with unfaithful husbands and felt guilty about it on the premise that, if their husbands were having extra-marital affairs, it was because they were not good enough wives to please their men. It is unfortunate that this PoV resurfaces again, from time to time, even in the 21st century.

This pov has not surfaced in this most recent conversation except in your posts. Fact is we cannot know who strayed first (though we have good evidence pointing to how it may have unfolded). We know what Diana claims. That is all. That is what she used to justify her own rather energetic extra marital career. It was absolutely essential that she convince the public that she was the victim of an unfaithful husband. She succeeded wildly. But what is true? Who knows.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I am not sure where in my text you see me saying that. Have I said that?

Sorry, I was trying to condense my remarks and it came out wrong. I think that the reason Charles didn't have a string of affairs is because he was in love with Camilla and didn't need to look farther.

Recall that Diana had Charles banish his circle of friends (which included Camilla) which he did. He complied with her wishes to the point of his dismissing his dog. Good grief! (Though if the dog was growling at her or being disagreeable in some other way, I could see doing that myself, especially when children are involved ).

As I said in an earlier post, Charles did try to make his marriage with Diana work. As you indicated, he made some major changes in his life in effort to please her.

How do we know there was a "lack of emotional intimacy". Serious question. I know we have fairly decent evidence that they had a pretty rousing sex life in the early years. They certainly argued and that requires intimacy.

That is the key: Diana was insecure. She had one relationship she was able to sustain across years, the one with James Hewitt. That's it, and it's longevity had more to do with Hewitt's loyalty than hers. As loyal and devoted as he was, she was still not able to maintain loyalty to him, cheated on him (for goodness sake) and in the end kicked him to the curb. Not a good reference point. Her template for a successful relationship seems to be to perhaps have utter loyalty from the man while she played the field. Then she could feel secure.

Now look at Charles: he evidences considerable loyalty to friends and discretion with lovers: plus he has never spoken ill about Diana to this day.

I don't think that sex indicates that they were truly intimate. Diana was very insecure and I don't think that she was able to offer the emotional support he needed. At the same time, he couldn't offer her the support she needed. The difference is that I don't know that anyone could have provided enough support for her--she was suffering from a serious mental illness.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

If anyone deserves blame, I vote for Charles for choosing Diana in the first place. He once stated that choosing a wife would be one of the most important decisions he would ever make. Well, he certainly blew that one.

He should have weathered public disapproval and broken it off. I think his in a difficult situation. The only way for him to avoid looking like a complete jerk would have been for her to dump him or for him to fall in love with her. But he is the one who asked her out in the first place.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Sorry, I was trying to condense my remarks and it came out wrong. I think that the reason Charles didn't have a string of affairs is because he was in love with Camilla and didn't need to look farther.

Understood. We do know (anecdotally) that there were other lovers for Charles once the marriage broke down. It appears it was not Camilla whose arms he fell into at once (though that is the myth). Once Camilla came back into his orbit they 'settled down' with each other but they were only together for a couple of years when Diana was about to be thrown under the bus by the tabloids. She needed a scapegoat, and there was Camilla (the former supporter and confidant).

I am one of the few who believes Diana basically created her worst fear: by destroying Camilla's marriage (and Diana did do that) she assured that Charles would circle the wagons around Camilla. I think the touted 'true love' came about through the adversity of those years dealing with Diana's public war against Camilla. Charles would not abandon Camilla after that and the 'true love' myth was well-and-good sealed. I am not saying they are not 'in love', but that love took years to come to, and was forged in the very adversity Diana fomented. It has it's irony.

I don't think that sex indicates that they were truly intimate. Diana was very insecure and I don't think that she was able to offer the emotional support he needed. At the same time, he couldn't offer her the support she needed. The difference is that I don't know that anyone could have provided enough support for her--she was suffering from a serious mental illness.

You are correct: sex and love are distinct. Yet good sex can open up the portals to true love, I believe. It happens. So I just meant they had some openings but it never took hold.

As for the last bit: sadly, yes. People stressing that 'if only' Charles had immolated himself 110% Diana would have been 'okay' and the marriage would have succeeded (especially that Diana would not have strayed) are missing the point that with some imbalances nothing 'works'. Highly doubt Diana would not have strayed even had Charles taken Holy Orders and taken to the mountain top in sack cloth and ashes. Diana was blissed out on her effect on men: in her status position, the wine was heady and went to her head. She hadn't the centeredness to resist the game. JMO.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Understood.

People stressing that if only Charles had immolated himself 110% Diana would have been 'okay' and the marriage would have succeeded (especially that Diana would not have strayed) are missing the point that with some imbalances nothing 'works'. Highly doubt Diana would not have strayed even had Charles taken Holy Orders and taken to the mountain top in sack cloth and ashes. Diana was blissed out on her effect on men: in her status position, the wine was heady and went to her head. She hadn't the centeredness to resist the game. JMO.

I don't know that Diana would have strayed if Charles hadn't been confiding in Camilla. She probably suspected they were sleeping together, even if they weren't. But, regardless, even if they had both been faithful, the marriage wouldn't have worked out. Not only were they too different but Diana was suffering from depression and bulimia. Charles was not able to handle that.

And for those who will jump up and say that she was only depressed and bulimic because of Charles, the evidence is against that. Diana's sister had similar problems and her brother married a woman with similar problems. Her issues probably had more to do with her family growing up than with Charles.

 

[Missjersey]

Understood. We do know (anecdotally) that there were other lovers for Charles once the marriage broke down. It appears it was not Camilla whose arms he fell into at once (though that is the myth). Once Camilla came back into his orbit they 'settled down' with each other but they were only together for a couple of years when Diana was about to be thrown under the bus by the tabloids. She needed a scapegoat, and there was Camilla (the former supporter and confidant).

I am one of the few who believes Diana basically created her worst fear: by destroying Camilla's marriage (and Diana did do that) she assured that Charles would circle the wagons around Camilla. I think the touted 'true love' came about through the adversity of those years dealing with Diana's public war against Camilla. Charles would not abandon Camilla after that and the 'true love' myth was well-and-good sealed. I am not saying they are not 'in love', but that love took years to come to, and was forged in the very adversity Diana fomented. It has it's irony.



You are correct: sex and love are distinct. Yet good sex can open up the portals to true love, I believe. It happens. So I just meant they had some openings but it never took hold.

As for the last bit: sadly, yes. People stressing that if only Charles had immolated himself 110% Diana would have been 'okay' and the marriage would have succeeded (especially that Diana would not have strayed) are missing the point that with some imbalances nothing 'works'. Highly doubt Diana would not have strayed even had Charles taken Holy Orders and taken to the mountain top in sack cloth and ashes. Diana was blissed out on her effect on men: in her status position, the wine was heady and went to her head. She hadn't the centeredness to resist the game. JMO.

Spot on for me!

 

[sndral]

...
What's interesting to consider is a might-have-been, which I don't think is realistic, but consider if it did occur: Charles never married. That would mean that it would be Edward's son who would be the next heir, not so? King James.

Not quite. Assuming Charles had had no children, then the next oldest brother - Andrew and his line would be next - and since Andrew has no sons it would have been Queen Beatrice.
If Andrew had had no children then it would have been Edward followed by his son James.
If Edward had had no children then it would have been Anne followed by her son Peter.
If you look at Queen Elizabeth’s father, George VI had surviving younger brothers Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester who had 2 sons and Prince George, Duke of Kent who had 2 sons - yet Elizabeth II became Queen before the sons of her father’s younger brothers.
Now it’s all changed and there’s no shuffling Princesses to the back of the line behind their brothers.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What's interesting to consider is a might-have-been, which I don't think is realistic, but consider if it did occur: Charles never married. That would mean that it would be Edward's son who would be the next heir, not so? King James.

No - Andrew and then his girls before Edward, James and Louise.

Andrew is the Queen's second son and Edward the third.

Just because Andrew's children are girls doesn't mean they are behind Edward and his son in the line of succession.

If Charles has no children then the line would be:

Charles
Andrew
Beatrice
Eugenie
Edward
James
Louise
Anne
Peter
Savannah
Isla
Zara
Mia
David
Charles
Margarita
Sarah
Samuel
Daniel
Richard - Duke of Gloucester (who, if the idea that if there was a male in the line he would take precedence of girls would be the monarch as in 1952 his father was the first male (not descended from a female) in the line of succession.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I think people who look at this marriage and lament Charles' inconstancy, or inability to be unpriced [good grief: what was the word I was trying to type before auto-correct took over? ] to love in the face of the 'beautiful Diana', I think they are the romantics of all romantics. Dear Hearts!

They want Charles to have been as W. Somerset Maugham wrote in 'The Painted Veil'. When love hits it's very much like this. Love is very rare. But what is love? Is it this?

“ 'I had no illusions about you,' he said. 'I knew you were silly and frivolous and empty-headed. But I loved you. I knew that your aims and ideals were vulgar and commonplace. But I loved you. I knew that you were second-rate. But I loved you. It's comic when I think how hard I tried to be amused by the things that amused you and how anxious I was to hide from you that I wasn't ignorant and vulgar and scandal-mongering and stupid. I knew how frightened you were of intelligence and I did everything I could to make you think me as big a fool as the rest of the men you knew. I knew that you'd only married me for convenience. I loved you so much, I didn't care. Most people, as far as I can see, when they're in love with someone and the love isn't returned feel that they have a grievance. They grow angry and bitter. I wasn't like that. I never expected you to love me, I didn't see any reason that you should. I never thought myself very lovable. I was thankful to be allowed to love you and I was enraptured when now and then I thought you were pleased with me or when I noticed in your eyes a gleam of good-humored affection. I tried not to bore you with my love; I knew I couldn't afford to do that and I was always on the lookout for the first sign that you were impatient with my affection. What most husbands expect as a right I was prepared to receive as a favor.”

With such a bar, can we say Diana loved Charles? I think not.

We will always have Charles' prescient statement: 'Whatever love means."

I am always amazed at how personally people take Charles' failure to abide with Diana, however difficult.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Thank you, sndral and Iluvbertie!

 

[Curryong]

Diana did not destroy Camilla's marriage, Lady Nimue. Camilla destroyed her own marriage by committing adultery. From this came Charles 'outing' the marriage in the TV programme with Jonathon Dimbleby, mentioning her name before hundreds of thousands of viewers.

Andrew Parker Bowles had not moved in the direction of a divorce until after that programme. There is evidence, (and it's in Penny Junor's biography of Camilla,) that Camilla's friends felt angry on her behalf that Charles had ripped open the facade and 'dropped Camilla in it' so to speak.

The Junor book (pro Camilla) infers that the open marriage situation suited both Camilla and Andrew and they had no wish to divorce. However, after the whole world knew of the Charles/Camilla affair, (and there was apparently a call at Ascot of 'Mr Simpson' in APB's direction) APB couldn't stand the public humiliation and wanted a divorce.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

So you are basically saying that, when a man cheats on his wife, the wife is the one to be blamed because she was not able to make "her man" fall in love with or be interested in her ? Or she was not understanding and accomodating enough to save her marriage ? In other words, men cheat because their wives are not good enough to them ? How typical !

Talk about misinterpretation and putting words into someone's mouth.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Straying a bit from Charles and Diana by pulling in Camilla, but just to respond briefly here.

Diana did not destroy Camilla's marriage, Lady Nimue. Camilla destroyed her own marriage by committing adultery. From this came Charles 'outing' the marriage in the TV programme with Jonathon Dimbleby, mentioning her name before hundreds of thousands of viewers.

Camilla's marriage was purring along just fine. It was Diana's outing that caused the tabloids to start to stalk Camilla's house making life miserable for that family, necessitating the divorce. It was the only solution to what had become an intolerable situation.

Charles never spoke Camilla's name publicly that I am aware. He simply admitted that he was unfaithful to his wife "but not until his marriage had irretrievably broken down, they both having tried." Who he may have been unfaithful with when the marriage broke down was not stated. People were left to interpret but because Diana had already sown the seeds there was a leaping to the obvious conclusion that it had been Camilla all along (when it well might not have been).

Andrew Parker Bowles had not moved in the direction of a divorce until after that programme. There is evidence, (and it's in Penny Junor's biography of Camilla,) that Camilla's friends felt angry on her behalf that Charles had ripped open the facade and 'dropped Camilla in it' so to speak.

The Junor book (pro Camilla) infers that the open marriage situation suited both Camilla and Andrew and they had no wish to divorce. However, after the whole world knew of the Charles/Camilla affair, (and there was apparently a call at Ascot of 'Mr Simpson' in APB's direction) APB couldn't stand the public humiliation and wanted a divorce.

Admittedly I was alive during that time but not at all following the drama. Too young to care. However, from what I can garner from my reading, the affair was outed by Diana and the problems were already afoot prior. I believe Diana referred to Camilla as the 'Rottweiler'? It is possible that Charles' admission of straying let the hounds lose in a wilder way but the hounds had been baying prior.

Because of Diana's actions that marriage became doomed because of the impossible day-in-day-out craziness the family was subject to. It was their only way out of getting clear of the madness. Diana helped with that. If you will notice all players remain friends to this day. (Includes Anne, APB's former lover).

 

[Missy-]

Diana did not destroy Camilla's marriage, Lady Nimue. Camilla destroyed her own marriage by committing adultery. From this came Charles 'outing' the marriage in the TV programme with Jonathon Dimbleby, mentioning her name before hundreds of thousands of viewers.

Andrew Parker Bowles had not moved in the direction of a divorce until after that programme. There is evidence, (and it's in Penny Junor's biography of Camilla,) that Camilla's friends felt angry on her behalf that Charles had ripped open the facade and 'dropped Camilla in it' so to speak.

The Junor book (pro Camilla) infers that the open marriage situation suited both Camilla and Andrew and they had no wish to divorce. However, after the whole world knew of the Charles/Camilla affair, (and there was apparently a call at Ascot of 'Mr Simpson' in APB's direction) APB couldn't stand the public humiliation and wanted a divorce.

Well said Curryong! I have no problem believing that Camilla vetted Diana and gave her approval thinking Diana would honor the aristocratic code of conduct which was (is?) that after the heir and spare are born and the title secured that each party could go their separate ways as long as they did so discretely. Diana came from a long line of royally connected people, her father was an equerry to the queen. Discretion is their creed, so C&C would have felt that a young woman of 19 would basically follow the crowd. Well, Diana had other ideas. Here is how I imagine it happened:

Charles is being pressured to find a bride and Diana seems a likely candidate (even though apparently her own grandmother, Lady Fermoy, expressed serious doubts about her suitability). Camilla gets to know Diana under the guise of giving her advise and companionship, all the while vetting her suitability. After vetting, Charles proposes (in the PB's garden of all places), taking for granted that Diana will go along with the program. I've often wondered if he might even have been out front with Diana from the beginning, stating that after the heir and the spare they would each be free to do whatever they liked. Diana, being an inexperienced young lady may have gone along with it, thinking that there was no way a housewife in her 30s would be any competition.

But, once the heir and the spare came along and Charles went back to Camilla, Diana started her own affairs as part of the arrangement. She was indiscreet as she wasn't as used to subterfuge as C&C were, and this hurt Charles' male ego. No man wants to appear to be cuckolded, especially someone as proud as Charles. When Hewitt came into the picture Charles finally couldn't stand it anymore and gave up on the marriage. At that point it collapsed, and no cajoling from HM could keep them together.

Charles, Camilla and Andrew took advantage of a young, naive woman who read romance novels. Three thirty-somethings against a 19 year old, she didn't stand a chance. Was she totally innocent, of course not, but I do believe she was a victim while the other three were definitely not.

 

[Curryong]

Andrew saw his future second wife and Camilla saw Prince Charles while the Parker Bowles were still married. It was an arrangement that suited them both.

In June 1994 came the Dimbleby TV interview and then the Dimbleby bio on Charles which damaged his public image. Camilla's name appears in both the book and TV interview. The Parker Bowles divorce came on 3rd March 1995.

Andrew asked for a divorce weeks after the book and Dimbleby programme occurred and Junor avers that 'Andrew's hand was forced'. His brother made a statement criticising the POW.

Andrew was chronically unfaithful throughout the marriage but had stayed with Camilla during the years she and Charles were seeing each other. Junor writes that Camilla was 'devastated' by Andrew's request for a divorce.

In other words she (Camilla) was quite happy about her husband playing away from home and she being the Prince's mistress as well as continuing the outer role as a 'respectable' married woman, until her lover outed her to the world and she was subsequently divorced.

And Camilla apparently called Diana 'mad cow' as well as 'that ridiculous creature'.

 

[Denville]

Andrew saw his future second wife and Camilla saw Prince Charles while the Parker Bowles were still married. It was an arrangement that suited them both.

In June 1994 came the Dimbleby TV interview and then the Dimbleby bio on Charles which damaged his public image. Camilla's name appears in both the book and TV interview. The Parker Bowles divorce came on 3rd March 1995.

Andrew asked for a divorce weeks after the book and Dimbleby programme occurred and Junor avers that 'Andrew's hand was forced'. His brother made a statement criticising the POW.

Andrew was chronically unfaithful throughout the marriage but had stayed with Camilla during the years she and Charles were seeing each other. Junor writes that Camilla was 'devastated' by Andrew's request for a divorce.

In other words she (Camilla) was quite happy about her husband playing away from home and she being the Prince's mistress as well as continuing the outer role as a 'respectable' married woman, until her lover outed her to the world and she was subsequently divorced.

And Camilla apparently called Diana 'mad cow' as well as 'that ridiculous creature'.

I don't think that andrew was really upset to have the chance to divorce. He was fond of Camilla and he stayed iwht her, because if he had split up with her while there were rumours swirling round about her affair with Charles, she would have been "exposed" as the other person in the C and D marriage. but I think he was probably relieved to get out of the marriage, once Charles had admitted there was an affair.. as it meant he could leave Camilla to Charles, and marry the lady he was by then in love with.

 

[Curryong]

No I don't think Andrew was upset about the divorce. It was the humiliation in front of others that HE objected to. However, Junor describes Camilla as being 'devastated' and with 'her future unsure' at his decision.

 

[Denville]

No I don't think Andrew was upset about the divorce. It was the humiliation in front of others that HE objected to. However, Junor describes Camilla as being 'devastated' and with 'her future unsure' at his decision.

I don't think you can balme him for being annoyed by the manner of the "outing".. however, the fact is that it freed him. But for Camilla, it was uncertain. Charles loved her, but it wasn't clear, at that point, whether he wuodl be able to marry her.. and she probably felt that she had lost the security of her marriage, without any certainty that she and Charles would be abel to marry....

 

[Tsaritsa]

Camilla's marriage was purring along just fine. It was Diana's outing that caused the tabloids to start to stalk Camilla's house making life miserable for that family, necessitating the divorce. It was the only solution to what had become an intolerable situation.





Because of Diana's actions that marriage became doomed because of the impossible day-in-day-out craziness the family was subject to. It was their only way out of getting clear of the madness. Diana helped with that. If you will notice all players remain friends to this day. (Includes Anne, APB's former lover).

"Camilla's marriage was purring along just fine" Really? Superficially so, it probably was. I suppose if we accept that each was content to turn a blind eye to the other's extra-maritals, as many such marriages "purr along" that's true, but the fact remains that had they not engaged in such in the first place there may have been a stronger foundation for keeping the marriage together. It seems likely that the marriage had become one of polite companionship and convenience. No reason for them to be any less friendly if they parted.
I'm a strong believer in that ANY marriage can be made to work if the two people in it are determined enough to make it work. It probably requires a HUGE degree of pretense from both. In this module, however, love -or whatever it means- isn't a prerequisite. Any problems and underlying cracks will only reveal themselves when one party meets someone who they don't have to put on an act with. Someone who has empathy with them. Someone with whom lust and affection combine to create LOVE. Not until such occurs may they recognize what's been missing for them.
I read massive vitriol against Diana. Allegedly, so it appears to me, not only is she responsible for the break-down of her own marriage -having hooked him by having the temerity to empathize with him about the death of his uncle. SUCH cunning!- she is also being held responsible for the break-up of a long established marriage!!! She may not have been truly 'in love' with him -"whatever that word mean"- but at 19 and maybe not having previously felt more than a crush it's a little more understandable than he, at 33, saying of being in love "Whatever that word means".
Having once been a huge Diana fan, I totally concur that she was the wrong one for Charles but it wasn't her fault that she was never going to be the wife he needed. He'd already met the woman who'd have fulfilled the role.