The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1941  
Old 08-10-2016, 08:30 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 7,014
And to add what Nico has said, there isn't really a source for new information as the person being written about has been dead for 19 years. She still sells.
__________________

__________________
“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
  #1942  
Old 08-11-2016, 02:24 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Omaha, United States
Posts: 1,711
Yep, it's Aug. and time to bring out some new and previously written articles about Diana, especially the Daily Fail. Richard Kay started about 6 weeks ago, reminding all the readers that he and Diana were "besties" and now Ken Wharfe is dredging his book up again for more income. ;-).
I was cleaning a closet out earlier today and came across Sarah Bradford's book about the Queen. There was the section about Charles and Diana. It stated that Charles inner circle of friends generally approved of his courting Diana and them marrying. The only friends that didn't were Lord and Lady Romsey, they felt Diana wouldn't fit in with the Royal Family and was unsuitable for royal life.
Diana's grandmother, Lady Fermoy was completely against the marriage, she felt Diana and Charles were completely incompatible. In an interview very late in Lady Fermoy's life, she stated she spoke to Johnny Spencer in order to try to have him discourage Diana from any thoughts or plans to marry Charles. Johnny supposedly told his mother-in-law that if anyone ever attempted to discourage Diana or deter her from doing what she had her mind and sights set on, she was horrible to live with and the "terror" went on and on.
Lady Fermoy also stated that she thought of speaking to Charles about the situation and her concerns, but stated she didn't because Charles had made up his mind to ask Diana to marry him and he wouldn't be talked out of it.
I can't state that the above is totally true, but it blows the story of Lady Fermoy and QEQM conspiring to marry off each of their grandchildren to one another.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1943  
Old 08-11-2016, 03:03 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,146
Really? It does not give a very nice portrait of Diana does it that her own father apparently said (AND to his mother in law) that if Anyone tried to stop her doing something she was impossible to live with and it seems a holy terror that they were all afraid of.
All rather sounds liek the "Diana was a loony" slant.
I certianly dont believe that the Spencers or Lady F conspired or tried to push teh marriage, becuase I think that the Spencers didn't care enough and Lady Fermoy probably was mildly in favour but hardly PUSHING for it. But I dont believe in these stories that came up years and years later that "Oh we told C that it wasn't a good idea" or "We tried to stop Di marrying him but we couldn't or felt we couldn't."
These stories have been around, that Lady Ferm thought her granddaughter was not suitaible or was a downright crazy person, and "wanted to stop it" but didn't or did try and couldn't, or wished that she had tried...
And I dont beleive that the QM did anything much, I think she hoped for Charles to get married, and probalby thought that Di was a nice girl but I dont beleive she was very active..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
What's going on? This book is old. Why is it being re-issued? Is there new material in this version?

I'm the first to enjoy a good account of Diana's affairs and her hypocrisy, but I don't understand why the same material is being repeated now, so many years later.
why is it hypocrisy? If Charles was having an affair, i dont see why she should not. I'd agree it was foolish of her to get involved with married men, or rather to get involved in affairs that became public knowledge..
Reply With Quote
  #1944  
Old 08-11-2016, 03:13 PM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
why is it hypocrisy? If Charles was having an affair, i dont see why she should not. I'd agree it was foolish of her to get involved with married men, or rather to get involved in affairs that became public knowledge..
Well the hypocrisy was "we were three in this marriage", as they were, obviously, a bit more ...
Reply With Quote
  #1945  
Old 08-11-2016, 03:59 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,251
If you believe Diana's view that Charles left the marriage first seeking outside companionship...then it is a legitimate statement. She admitted to her own affairs in the same interview.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1946  
Old 08-11-2016, 04:05 PM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,187
I'm sure from her point of view that was her truth at the time..
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #1947  
Old 08-11-2016, 05:58 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
why is it hypocrisy? If Charles was having an affair, i dont see why she should not. I'd agree it was foolish of her to get involved with married men, or rather to get involved in affairs that became public knowledge..
A very simple reason why she should not have an affair. Read the Treason Act.

Unless she cried rape she was actively aiding and abetting men in committing treason. She, as the wife of the heir to the throne, agreed to a different standard to every other woman (bar the wife of the monarch who has the same standard). The Treason Act is very clear - the wife of the monarch and the wife of the heir to the throne can only sleep with their husbands. It is why Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard were executed - treason by having affairs, why the wife of George I was locked away for years and years and why George IV wanted to prove his wife was having an affair.

She committed treason - and even admitted it when she admitted having an affair.

Quite simple really.

There was even talk of taking Hewitt to trial based on her evidence but they also realised that she would have to stand trial as well so dropped that possibility.
Reply With Quote
  #1948  
Old 08-11-2016, 06:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,327
I hardly think that Diana (or Hewitt for that matter) was thinking of the Treason Act, or of centuries old double standards with regard to Kings and their consorts, when they were falllng in love.

If the authorities had evoked the Treason Act with regard to Hewitt they would not only have caused Charles and the BRF to be the butt of world-wide ridicule, (Anne Boleyn, give me a break!) but may very well have exposed Charles's activities with Mrs PB and his sleeping with the wife of a fellow officer. Not the favourable outcome they would have wished for!
Reply With Quote
  #1949  
Old 08-11-2016, 06:39 PM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,673
We can say that the Hypocrisy is also in the the fact that Charles and Camilla are relentlessly blamed for their affair, Charles maligned for breaking his vows BUT Diana more or less gets a free pass for breaking the same vows, because "she was in love" and "your husband is an adulterer so let's go girl".
Double standard big time folks !
Reply With Quote
  #1950  
Old 08-11-2016, 07:25 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 7,014
If there is one thing that I wish that both Diana and Charles had as the marriage disintegrated, it would be that they could call it quits and end the marriage like just about everyone else in the world.

Staying together for crown and country is as bad as staying together for the sake of the children. It just makes everyone miserable. A lot of problems and affairs and agony could have been avoided if there was a Royal No-Fault Divorce package back then.
__________________
“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
  #1951  
Old 08-11-2016, 07:31 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
We can say that the Hypocrisy is also in the the fact that Charles and Camilla are relentlessly blamed for their affair, Charles maligned for breaking his vows BUT Diana more or less gets a free pass for breaking the same vows, because "she was in love" and "your husband is an adulterer so let's go girl".
Double standard big time folks !
Agree Nico.

I also find it hypocritical for Diana to bat her lashes at the camera and complain about there being three in her marriage when she had no such qualms about being the third person in the marriages of Oliver Hoare or Will Carling (and yes, I do believe she had an affair with Carling).
Reply With Quote
  #1952  
Old 08-11-2016, 08:09 PM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 316
There are three sides to every marital story ..... his, hers and the truth!

Although the presence of Camilla was very obvious from the outset .... down to attending polo matches / outdoor persuits Charles was taking part in with Diana back in 1980 .....
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #1953  
Old 08-11-2016, 08:43 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Omaha, United States
Posts: 1,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Really? It does not give a very nice portrait of Diana does it that her own father apparently said (AND to his mother in law) that if Anyone tried to stop her doing something she was impossible to live with and it seems a holy terror that they were all afraid of.
All rather sounds liek the "Diana was a loony" slant.
I certianly dont believe that the Spencers or Lady F conspired or tried to push teh marriage, becuase I think that the Spencers didn't care enough and Lady Fermoy probably was mildly in favour but hardly PUSHING for it. But I dont believe in these stories that came up years and years later that "Oh we told C that it wasn't a good idea" or "We tried to stop Di marrying him but we couldn't or felt we couldn't."
These stories have been around, that Lady Ferm thought her granddaughter was not suitaible or was a downright crazy person, and "wanted to stop it" but didn't or did try and couldn't, or wished that she had tried...
And I dont beleive that the QM did anything much, I think she hoped for Charles to get married, and probalby thought that Di was a nice girl but I dont beleive she was very active..


why is it hypocrisy? If Charles was having an affair, i dont see why she should not. I'd agree it was foolish of her to get involved with married men, or rather to get involved in affairs that became public knowledge..
I think the point Bradford was trying to make was to debunk the story put out by the media during the heady days before and long after the Wales marriage that Lady Fermoy and QEQM were behind the entire Charles and Diana matchmaking and subsequent marriage. I've never read about the true source of that story.
I tend to think that Diana could be a real bearcat if she was denied or questioned about her choices. I included Bradford because I tend to find her more credible than some of the other authors especially one I cannot mention because if she reads criticism of her works, she has her lawyer notify forum Administrators that she will sue for defamation.
As for Diana's hypocrisy, she did do herself a great deal of harm, by admitting on Panorama that she did have affairs also. Up until that time she was the beautiful young mother with two adorable sons who was betrayed by her husband with his mistress despite his wife's love and devotion. After her admission to having affair(s), it made her statement of three in their marriage to "there was 3/4 in our marriage". I remember sitting back in my chair and shaking my head. My phone rang and it was my late mother saying, "Diana just did a very stupid thing." Again, her staff told her not to do the interview on Panorama and she didn't listen and went ahead. I always view that interview as a real disaster for her.
Reply With Quote
  #1954  
Old 08-11-2016, 09:02 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
A very simple reason why she should not have an affair. Read the Treason Act.



Unless she cried rape she was actively aiding and abetting men in committing treason. She, as the wife of the heir to the throne, agreed to a different standard to every other woman (bar the wife of the monarch who has the same standard). The Treason Act is very clear - the wife of the monarch and the wife of the heir to the throne can only sleep with their husbands. It is why Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard were executed - treason by having affairs, why the wife of George I was locked away for years and years and why George IV wanted to prove his wife was having an affair.



She committed treason - and even admitted it when she admitted having an affair.



Quite simple really.



There was even talk of taking Hewitt to trial based on her evidence but they also realised that she would have to stand trial as well so dropped that possibility.

We still are seeing Hewitt as Harry's father comments 20 years later. Imagine if William was a girl and Harry is the direct heir. It was okay for the Royal men to sleep around because any illegitimate child wasn't in the line of succession but for the Royal wife it was a no no because that child would be a Royal. DNA testing is a recent thing.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1955  
Old 08-11-2016, 09:03 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,825
You are right, Diana should have never done the interview. She wanted to garner sympathy, but opened the door for criticism. What everyone misses here, is Charles was in love with Camilla. He needed a wife that was acceptable to the archaic ways of the RF. He like Diana, she was young, pretty and fun. He hardly knew her. "Whatever love is". She married him expecting a husband, she got a partial one. Those who believe Camilla was out of his life then, are quite gullible. He was then, he is now in love with the woman he has married. Diana wasn't fighting against an affair, she was fighting for a husband. Her affairs were foolish and hurt her. She never used her brain when it came to these things. But, from beginning to end Charles had his way. 20 years later, when she could hardly defend herself, since she is dead, his life is just fine.
Reply With Quote
  #1956  
Old 08-11-2016, 09:04 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
We can say that the Hypocrisy is also in the the fact that Charles and Camilla are relentlessly blamed for their affair, Charles maligned for breaking his vows BUT Diana more or less gets a free pass for breaking the same vows, because "she was in love" and "your husband is an adulterer so let's go girl".
Double standard big time folks !
No-one is denying that Diana had affairs with married people, and she behaved badly in so doing. So did Charles and Camilla, both of whom were married.

However Iluvbertie pointed out that Hewitt (a single man) could have been brought to trial under the Treason Act. If we are discussing hypocrisy, then if Hewitt had ever been brought to trial (ridiculous in the modern age) then questions would surely have been asked by the media as to why Mrs Parker Bowles shouldnt have been subject to the same treatment. That was probably the reason, if such a charge was ever seriously discussed in Hewitt's case, it was dropped.
Reply With Quote
  #1957  
Old 08-11-2016, 09:22 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,487
Charles and Diana

Camilla was not going to mess up the Royal succession. Say Charles is Laura Parker Bowles's real father it doesn't affect the succession to the crown. There are tons of Royal illegitimate children through history. Another man being William's father is a problem


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1958  
Old 08-11-2016, 10:00 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,327
By the time Hewitt was around Diana the heir and spare had been born already. Charles knew Hewitt wasn't Harry's father (or anyone else's child) or he would have separated from Diana immediately the baby was born.

I do know the reasons for the Boleyn trial. At that time Henry VIII had no living male heir. That was hardly the case with Charles when Diana first met Hewitt.

One can understand, perhaps, there being doubt and confusion centuries ago with regard to adulterous Queens (though there were far fewer than adulterous Kings) as the monarch had to have legitimate offspring. However, just as with Harry, Charles knew that William was his, born in the first year of marriage.

There was absolutely no need to put Hewitt or Diana on trial, which would have been going back to a custom of previous centuries, nor do I believe that Charles ever contemplated such an action. As I've said before all it would achieve would have been ridicule and the media pointing to Mrs PB, something Charles would not have wanted.

The media would have known, as do I, about Royal succession/legitimacy issues. However, there is far more public consciousness nowadays about what is considered bad behaviour by BOTH partners in a marriage, and that's what the media would have focused on.

Regardless of the stupid jokes of DM commentators, I have no doubt at all that William and Harry's DNA has been tested and is stored safely, as is the DNA of every other member of the BRF, in case of terrorist bombs or other disasters.
Reply With Quote
  #1959  
Old 08-12-2016, 12:01 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrianna View Post
. . . . . In an interview very late in Lady Fermoy's life, she stated she spoke to Johnny Spencer in order to try to have him discourage Diana from any thoughts or plans to marry Charles. Johnny supposedly told his mother-in-law that if anyone ever attempted to discourage Diana or deter her from doing what she had her mind and sights set on, she was horrible to live with and the "terror" went on and on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Really? It does not give a very nice portrait of Diana does it that her own father apparently said (AND to his mother in law) that if Anyone tried to stop her doing something she was impossible to live with and it seems a holy terror that they were all afraid of.
All rather sounds liek the "Diana was a loony" slant.
This information has, of course, been around for a long time. I don't think it shows Diana as looney, more of a spoilt brat who had been overindulged. By her own words, she spoke of throwing herself down the stairs while pregnant with Harry 'to get Charles attention'. That was not the act of a rational adult but once again like a spoilt brat. A witness later reported it was only a step but it was still a tantrum. So yes, I could see an unpleasant time for everyone if Diana was thwarted. I can also see the woman who pushed her step-mother down the stairs and stuffed all her clothes and possessions in rubbish bags and tossed them out the door. There is a saying 'beauty is only skin deep, but ugly cuts to the bone'. Diana seemed to epitomise that with the cruel things she said and did to people she considered had crossed her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
why is it hypocrisy? If Charles was having an affair, i dont see why she should not. I'd agree it was foolish of her to get involved with married men, or rather to get involved in affairs that became public knowledge..
Umm, are you intimating the only problem with Diana's affairs was them becoming public knowledge? That they did become public was entirely on the head of Diana, she chose to write about them (Diana Her True Story) and speak about them (Various tapes and Panorama interview).
. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
Well the hypocrisy was "we were three in this marriage", as they were, obviously, a bit more ...
Well Ken Wharfe has her cheating on her lovers so that makes 5 in the marriage at least!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
We can say that the Hypocrisy is also in the the fact that Charles and Camilla are relentlessly blamed for their affair, Charles maligned for breaking his vows BUT Diana more or less gets a free pass for breaking the same vows, because "she was in love" and "your husband is an adulterer so let's go girl".
Double standard big time folks !
Yes, it has always been a double standard. Diana is always talked about as the poor wee nineteen-year-old that married Charles, she never gets credited with actually ageing like the rest of we mere mortals. As for Charles? I believed him when he said he remained faithful until his marriage has irretrievably broken down. I watched him as he followed Diana looking like a besotted, but loveable, fool. There was much love there and he was absurdly proud of his wife, shepherding her first, introducing her to those who waited with such pride.

That the marriage didn't last is sad but the separation and divorce didn't need to be as acrimonious as it was. The public anger and hate engendered lies at Diana's door and her spiteful machinations with her book and later, her interview and tapes. I think she could even have retained the older royals support if she had not intimated that Charles was unfit to succeed his mother and worse, to say she didn't care about being not being Queen, and just wanted to be Queen of people's hearts'. It was an enormous slap in the face for HM, after all it is the Queen who should be Queen of Hearts.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1960  
Old 08-12-2016, 01:11 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post

I do know the reasons for the Boleyn trial. At that time Henry VIII had no living male heir. That was hardly the case with Charles when Diana first met Hewitt.

.


Hmmm well he did have offspring that could of been made into heirs. The Duke of Richmond was still living at the time. Plus children with other women as well.

He had no qualms about changing things around as it suited him. Look what he did with Mary and Elizabeth...first they are legitimate then they aren't etc.



LaRae
__________________

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 princess mary crown princess mary fashion current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grahamm greece infanta elena fashion kate middleton king abdulah ii king abdullah ii king abdullah ii current events king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy movies new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince alexander of sweden prince charles princess charlene fashion princess marie princess mary princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen anne-marie queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima gowns queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit queen rania daytime fashion queen rania eveningwear queen rania fashion rohan royal september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark stockholm 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 tiara


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 08:08 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises