The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1961  
Old 08-12-2016, 02:13 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,189
Yes, I believe at one point, when Henry was near despair, he did think seriously about legitimising the Duke of Richmond. He of course, a bit like Henry's brother Arthur and later Henry's son Edward, didn't survive his teens, so I suppose it would have ended badly anyway. However, we've surely moved on since Tudor times!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1962  
Old 08-12-2016, 04:24 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
The Treason offence would not apply to charles' affairs, only to Diana's. however it is completey absurd to think that the RF would be so foolish as to treat her affair as "treason". They would be laughed off the throne.
Yes she was foolish to engage in affairs with married men, while complaining about Chas having an affair.. but IMO her mistake was mainly in complaining about C and going public about his affair. If she had remained quiet, or if she did really want a divorce, still refrained from "going public" about C's behaviour, she could have kept her own relationships under the radar. I can see though that given the strength of the RF's/Queens trying to insist that the couple remained married, she may have felt that she was not going to get free without a dramaitc going public.

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 !
I dont relentlessly blame Charles and Camilla, and in any case if you're talking about Diana, I think that like 99% of us, she saw the situation from her own POV. She believed, wrongly but it was her view, that Charles' affair with Cam was the main reason for her marriage failing..
I think she' would have been better to stay married, and put up with Camilla, and found a boyfriend of her own that woudl be a private companion for her. I dont beleive it did her any good to make the public fuss, if anyting, in the end it benefitted Charles...(though I am glad that he's found happiness iwht Cam).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrianna View Post
I ry.
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.
A
Thanks for your reply...
I think that if Lady F made this public, she was doing so in a nasty spirit against her granddaughter, and Im sceptical. IF she did this, I think it was a way of saying that SHE had made some attempt to put the marriage off, but hadn't been able to really do much, and she did it because she was so adoring of the RF and Charles and the QM that she felt uneasy that her grand daughter had behaved so "Unroyally."

John Spencer and Lady F could not actually STOP Di from marrying Charles.. what were they going to do? Tell Charles that they did not think that she was suitable?? he woudl not listen and would probalby have told them where to get off.
I think he had made his mind up and if anyone, like the Romseys told him that they didn't think Di was right for him, he refused to heed it..
I think if Di's father had felt that Di was wrong for Charles and told her this, she would have been annoyed and probalby sulked a bit,but I hardly think she would have made his life hell.. She would have gone on and married C and maybe sulked a bit with her father for a time...but she'd have cooled down, as she would have gotten what she wanted, ie marrying C...
Anyway sorry but to me, the whole thing is nonsense at least as far as J Spencer's part in it is told.. AFAICS he was delighted that his daughter was marrying the POW.
As regards Diana, she had to admit to an affair I think, if she did the interview. There were questions.. Hewitt had been very indiscreet and if she admitted to that one affair, she could avoid questions about other lovers.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1963  
Old 08-12-2016, 04:59 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 3,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
The Treason offence would not apply to charles' affairs, only to Diana's. however it is completey absurd to think that the RF would be so foolish as to treat her affair as "treason". They would be laughed off the throne.
Yes she was foolish to engage in affairs with married men, while complaining about Chas having an affair.. but IMO her mistake was mainly in complaining about C and going public about his affair. If she had remained quiet, or if she did really want a divorce, still refrained from "going public" about C's behaviour, she could have kept her own relationships under the radar. I can see though that given the strength of the RF's/Queens trying to insist that the couple remained married, she may have felt that she was not going to get free without a dramaitc going public.
Even if they were that foolish, by the time Diana admitted her affair in 1995 there was nothing to be done. Treason has a statute of limitations. Charges cant be brought after 3 years have passed since it ended. It ended in 1991 so no treason charges could have even been contemplated. Whether intentional, she kept it private long enough to keep her safe. Charles may have fully known, but he was going to make it public.
Reply With Quote
  #1964  
Old 08-12-2016, 06:53 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,189
I didn't mean in my previous posts that I believed that Mrs BP would be prosecuted under the Treason Act for sleeping with Charles. I didn't and don't. Just as Charles could have faced sanctions for sleeping with the wife of a fellow officer. But of course he didn't face anything.

What I do believe would have happened, had Hewitt been charged, was that the world would have thought it huge ridiculous joke, and the British media, which was pretty well on Diana's side at that time, would have joined in, leaving the BRF and Charles with egg on their faces. Also, Charles's motives for backing such a move, and his and Camilla's relationship, would have come under intense scrutiny and criticism.

In fact there would have been so much ridicule, so much criticism, so much contempt for such a legal action, that the monarchy might well have been imperilled. It's moot anyway, as I don't believe Charles would ever have considered such a move.
Reply With Quote
  #1965  
Old 08-12-2016, 08:51 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I didn't mean in my previous posts that I believed that Mrs BP would be prosecuted under the Treason Act for sleeping with Charles. I didn't and don't. Just as Charles could have faced sanctions for sleeping with the wife of a fellow officer. But of course he didn't face anything.

W
In fact there would have been so much ridicule, so much criticism, so much contempt for such a legal action, that the monarchy might well have been imperilled. It's moot anyway, as I don't believe Charles would ever have considered such a move.
its beyond beleif that the RF would think of such things. However Curryong it is rare in the British Army that sexual "conduct unbecoming" is acted upon unless there are other issues. I think that in the US army it is more likely to cuase action to be taken.
And also since Hewitt is a brother officer of Charles, he too would be guilty of a similar "offence"..
Anyway, there was no way that the RF woudl have ever considered such a nonsensical proceeding as to use the "Treason act" against Diana.
Reply With Quote
  #1966  
Old 08-12-2016, 10:46 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 240
I'm asuming the whole treason laws are still in place? ..... although rediculous that anyone would loose their head in this day and age for having an affair!

The role of the monarchy has changed completely since the times of Henry VIII etc., it is ornamental / pagentry not political.

To change the laws of treason (where relationships at least are concerned) could be put forward as a change to meet the current role of the monarchy.

In such a way as to not present it as an Ok to cheat on your husband or wife!
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #1967  
Old 08-12-2016, 11:57 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Yes, I believe at one point, when Henry was near despair, he did think seriously about legitimising the Duke of Richmond. He of course, a bit like Henry's brother Arthur and later Henry's son Edward, didn't survive his teens, so I suppose it would have ended badly anyway. However, we've surely moved on since Tudor times!

One would think we have...but at times I am not so sure!


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1968  
Old 08-12-2016, 01:57 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
I'm assuming the whole treason laws are still in place? ..... although rediculous that anyone would loose their head in this day and age for having an affair!
Yes, they are, though the death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
To change the laws of treason (where relationships at least are concerned) could be put forward as a change to meet the current role of the monarchy.

In such a way as to not present it as an Ok to cheat on your husband or wife!
The Treason Act was changed by the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013. It is still "judged Treason" to "violate" the wife of a male heir, but not the husband of a female heir.

Quote:
The 1351 Act made it a treasonous act to “violate” the wife of the “son and heir” to the throne.

Under the Bill's changes, that protection will apply to the wife of the eldest son “if the heir”. The husband of a female heir will not be covered, parliamentary documents reveal.
Treason Act 1351
Succession to the Crown Act 2013
Kate Middleton's daughter to be protected by treason law - Telegraph
Reply With Quote
  #1969  
Old 08-12-2016, 03:37 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,929
A reminder that discussion concerning Diana and James Hewitt and concerning Charles and Camilla can be found in the following respective threads:

Diana and James Hewitt

Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #1970  
Old 08-12-2016, 05:56 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
I'm as
To change the laws of treason (where relationships at least are concerned) could be put forward as a change to meet the current role of the monarchy.

In such a way as to not present it as an Ok to cheat on your husband or wife!
IMO it is nonsensical to try and bring about any kind of "legal disapproval" for infidleity.
I still think it would be very bad for a royal wife to have children by another person, who were in line for the throne...However I dont believe that's ever happened.
The Monarchy is ceremonial and also has a role of charitable work and generally trying to "be well behaved" at least in public...
I think that as with other archaic laws, it should certainly be abolished but then there are loads of laws that are not enforced because they are so out of date. I beleive that there is a law that you can't use a car on Christmas Day, but that's not enforced..But there are better things that Parliament should be getting on with than getting rid of archaic laws...
Anyway to return to Charles and Diana, I dont blame ether of them for having affairs. Both of them were lonely and unhappy, but having embarked on having relationships, i think that they both should have looked the other way about the other person's relationships and kept their own discreet. I think that C didn't care much about Diana's affairs, and was willing to just ignore them...

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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.
I agree it was foolish of her to do the interview. But she wasn't clever and she was hurt. But I think it is harldy right to blame Charles for living and having an OK life, just because very sadly Diana died. He is Still alive, and I'm sure he wishes Di were.. but he's hardy going to refuse to marry the woman he loves because his ex wife is dead.

IMO if she had stayed in the marriage, it would not have been perfect..but she had a nice life, in many ways. She had an interesting job, she had her children, she had hr friends and her looks and was attractive to many men.. and the RF clearly were willing to turn a blind eye to a discreet love life.
SHe didn't have to spend much time with Charles, just show up and be pleasant to him. I think she wold have been a lot better to have done that than to go public or try and break the marraige. I think when push came to shove and the queen ordered a divorce Diana panicked and was not really up for the idea.
Perhaps if they had tried to stay apart but together and overlooked each other's relationships, and concentrated on the children, they might have developed a friendship as they grew older...and she would have been respected and have the protection of her PPOs and not been dead at 36...
Reply With Quote
  #1971  
Old 08-13-2016, 12:43 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,636
Thanks to a signature of a friend of mine who has posted in the Diana threads quite a bit, I've been rereading a very good book called "The Road Less Traveled" once again. When reading the section that discusses and defines "love", I had to think of this ongoing discussion here of Charles and Diana's courtship and marriage.

When we fall "in" love, its not real, true love but more based in physical attraction and being drawn to another person. It makes us feel really, really good and we revel in the fact that we're no longer alone but part of an "us". We strive to build on the us and that mostly involves liking what the other person likes, agreeing with the other person's point of view on things and even dressing and presenting oneself to be pleasing in the other person's eyes. This never lasts and its end is usually termed as "the honeymoon is over".

Real love begins when individuality can be expressed within the relationship with the other person wanting and embracing the other's differences enough to allow that person to grow to be the best possible person they can be. It takes a lot of work, communication and trust for this to happen. How many times when we hear of a partner that is stepping out, we hear "my wife/husband just doesn't get me"?

In the beginning, I do think Charles and Diana had a pretty good "us" going and they were happy in it and reveled in it and produced two beautiful sons. It was when the work was needed to support and encourage each other in the differences they had that the marriage failed miserably. Hence, why they felt they needed to move on and find someone that actually "got" them for a support system.

It happens. Its human nature.
__________________
“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
  #1972  
Old 08-13-2016, 02:56 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
I don't think they had a good "us". Maybe not as bad as they both made out at a latter stage. I don't think that Diana was making suicide attempts, for example.. but all the same she was self harming, she was bulimic.. that's not normal behaviour. Right from very early on, they weren't really on anyting like the same page. They did not IMO have any real foundation, to build on and help each other to grow. Diana said that charles squashed her when she tried to grow, and there's probably some truth in that. I think she was so young and undeveloped at first, and when she did develop a bit she wasn't growing in ways that fit in with the RF's demands and expectations.
She was a townee type, they were country loving. She looked to the future and was modern minded, Charles was a romantic reactionary. She was from a family that enjoyed dramas and were always arguing, but his family are much more buttoned up. She was more natural and open with the children, I think that he half agreed but was conscious that they had to be seen behaving perfeclty in public, and didn't agree with her wholly about how to bring them up.
Apart from music, skiing and the kids they had nothing much in common.
And She had psychologicial problems.. I think with a private life and perhaps a marriage to an ordinary guy, they might have remained dormant but with a husband she really did not understand, who didn't understand her, and who had had a mistress he loved and was happy with, who was very different, Diana's problems came to the fore.. when you couple that with the enormous public attention and the very big "in law problem"..
and her social positon then made it harder for her to get effective help for her problems. Shrinks could not guide her to take time off, or suggest that she might need to consider the option of leaving her husband because a lot of the problems were probably related to her marriage. And I think the RF were very worried about it getting out that she was seeing psychiatrists, at a very early stage. I think that that secrecy about getting help added to the natural secrecy of the bulimic and so she did not discuss her bulimia for a long time.
Reply With Quote
  #1973  
Old 08-13-2016, 11:36 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,870
In King Charles III, Anthony Holden the author expressed that Princess Diana had, in short, a cruel penchant for upstaging her spouse.
Reply With Quote
  #1974  
Old 08-14-2016, 12:33 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,189
If you consider warmth with the public and natural charisma a penchant, then yes!

Of course she did try to upstage him, later on in the marriage when the couple were at daggers drawn, and afterwards, during the separation. The media loved Diana until those last few months of her life, and all she needed to do really was turn up to an event in a glamorous new gown at a time when Charles was due to make a speech on a serious subject elsewhere. The report of Charles's speech would end up on page 4 and photos of Diana were front page.

I don't know that you could call it cruelty, however, though she certainly did that sort of thing deliberately on several occasions. It's more an illustration, I think, of how an increasingly visual medium operates, of the nature of the media and popular culture that Charles never really got to grips with ie that an attractive woman in a beautiful gown or dress will beat a man in a suit every time, however worthy that man is.
Reply With Quote
  #1975  
Old 08-14-2016, 12:37 AM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 3,950
How many women married at age q20 could cope with their husbands mistress?.
Reply With Quote
  #1976  
Old 08-14-2016, 12:45 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,189
Probably one in a hundred thousand, Frelinghighness.
Reply With Quote
  #1977  
Old 08-14-2016, 12:55 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Probably one in a hundred thousand, Frelinghighness.
And that one lone woman would most probably be in the marriage for her own ulterior motives and not care what the husband did.
__________________
“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
  #1978  
Old 08-14-2016, 02:37 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
If you consider warmth with the public and natural charisma a penchant, then yes!


I don't know that you could call it cruelty, however, though she certainly did that sort of thing deliberately on several occasions. It's more an illustration, I think, of how an increasingly visual medium operates, of the nature of the media and popular culture that Charles never really got to grips with ie that an attractive woman in a beautiful gown or dress will beat a man in a suit every time, however worthy that man is.
Hardly cruel. I think yes she did deliberately upstage him but it was one of her weapons, and she used it in the later years.. just as he, as some biographers have pointed out, used his intellectual superiority to put her down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
How many women married at age q20 could cope with their husbands mistress?.
but she wasn't being asked ot cope with her husband's mistress. I'm not saying his continuing affection for Cam wasn't part of the problem, but it was only one.. and not really the biggest part. There were loads of issues between them and Charles had IMO given up Camilla. he was still friends with her, but Diana had know prior to the marriage that he was still friends with her.. after all she stayed in Cam's house durng her courtship.. And she knew that she would be living near to Camilla in Highgrove..
the problems were much more to do with her own mental problems and her difficulties with "fitting in" to the royal lifestyle and the RF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
In King Charles III, Anthony Holden the author expressed that Princess Diana had, in short, a cruel penchant for upstaging her spouse.
I didn't know that Holden wrote "King Charles III"? and he was generally speaking a fan of Diana's. I have just checked and King Charles III was written by a Mike Bartlett...?
Reply With Quote
  #1979  
Old 08-27-2016, 10:42 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
Would you say that the courtship of Charles and Diana was too brief?
I think Charles and Diana were as close to the modern version of an arranged marriage as could be gotten. They didn't really 'date', they had 'getting to know you' sessions. I am also of the opinion that they both knew exactly what they were doing. Neither of them went into the marriage blind, say what Diana may have said ten years later. (My bias must be clear).

The question by the reporter that elicited the famous (or infamous, thanks to Diana's spin on it) 'whatever love is' reply, was (when you really think about it) peculiar. Did any reporter ask a similar question of any other royal couple? Carl Gustav and Sylvia? There was something intrusive, and very knowing, about the question, putting the couple on the spot, and revealing something obvious. Of course they weren't 'in love', but they liked each other 'enough', and the rest would come (I'm sure they, and the BRF, believed).

That's what I think.

P.S. I also think that there is a lot about the situation that has achieved the status of myth. One element being this notion of the surprise mistress (whoever it was, if it was). If there was anything Diana knew was part of the deal imo it was the notion of side interests. I would say she even relied on that accepted element.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1980  
Old 08-27-2016, 11:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,189
If she knew about 'side interests' going into the wedding, then it's extremely surprising don't you think, that Diana became so upset when she found out, before the wedding, about the bracelet Charles intended to give Camilla before the ceremony in which he was to be married to another woman?

If she knew and accepted the deal, why did she confront Charles about Camilla during the engagement, and why did he, according to Jonathon Dimbleby (whose biography of Charles is near to an authorised one) assure her that Camilla and others had been confidantes and friends but that had all now finished. That seems an extraordinary statement if Diana knew that he was going to have side interests and Charles knew that his young fiancée would accept it all.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

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


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (1 members and 2 guests)
Mermaid1962
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 e-mail fashion poll 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 prince bernhard prince charles princess beatrice hats princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia cocktail dresses queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathilde in jordan queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion royal wedding september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden swedish royal family summer portraits 2016 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 time travel


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 07:37 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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