Charles and Diana


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Yes, I know Royal Rob!

You would have noticed Iluvbertie, that in my post I stated that if she was interested in Jung etc she would have borrowed books, AND 'made notes on what interested her about them AND discussed various aspects with him.' I'm aware that she might have borrowed books and pretended to read them.

However, if she wasn't interested and hadn't read them, then my former observations are still pertinent. If Charles lent the books then he would have expected a response after she returned them. When he didn't get any then there was his answer. Diana wasn't interested.

I do not believe that Diana wasn't in love with Charles when they dated and then married. The position was not all important to her although it of course came in the equation. I realise you do not believe that, Iluvbertie. However, everything I've read in biographies etc point to her being in love.

However, you have stated in a former post that Diana was 'infatuated' with Charles. On his part however, Charles wasn't even that.
 
Last edited:
good point, but how can people that don't like him continue to talk about him? :whistling:

Touché !
Precisely because he's alive and she's not, and it's still unbearable apparently.
So some self-proclaimed legend keeper try to defend her memory, with mitigated success. I don't think her memory need to be defended. It's still vivid for her sons, with love and dignity.
Still some are desperate to find THE culprit in this sad story, because they need one to find some kind of meaning for her loss.
The thread has 109 pages and this discussion is defenitively a never ending story.
 
Last edited:
The majority of people, when they first start dating, bounce ideas about films, literature, art, etc off each other. With works such as Jung most people interested in the subject who believed their girlfriend was too, would ask 'Hey, what do you think of this particular point...?'

If the questioner gets a wide-eyed response and no coherent answer after the first couple of times, I think they would come to the conclusion that the young woman they were asking the question of, wasn't really interested, (however adoringly goo-goo-eyed they looked) especially if there hadn't been a 'My goodness, that's intriguing. May I borrow that book, if you you don't mind?'

.
well to be fair to Charles, he may be used to people pretending to share his interests because of who he is.. so he doesn't get clues that Dian was just being polite,. And I think she was probably enthusiastic and indicated that she'd love to know more about Jung or whatever, but she wasn't nearly clever enough to understanad it etc etc and he thought that yes she doesn't know about this stuff and she's very young but she' is keen to learn. Just as she seemed to enjoy watching him shooting and fishing. And he thought "when we have more time to spend together, I can teach her"....

Touché !
Precisely because he's alive and she's not, and it's still unbearable apparently.
So some self-proclaimed legend keeper try to defend her memory, with mitigated success. I don't think her memory need to be defended. It's still vivid for her sons, with love and dignity.
Still some are desperate to find THE culprit in this sad story, because they need one to find some kind of meaning for her loss.
The thread has 109 pages and this discussion is defenitively a never ending story.
there Isn't a culprit, so while I don't mind discussing the marriage, I think it si silly to try an apportion blame. they were both foolish and selfish, they were boht at fault, but it was an unfortunate disaster that happened because of several factors, such as Diana being a lonely fragile girl who longed for loving and also socially splendid marriage and Charles being a rather shy awkward man who was very restricted In whom he cold marry. But it wasn't an arranged marriage. There were factors such as Charles having to marry within the Upper class, and to marry a girl with no past which meant that he was likely to settle for a girl that he didn't have much in common with, but I beleive he was fond of her and a bit in love with her. and she was certainly in love iwht him. Had she not been she would have accepted his affair with Camilla.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
However, you have stated in a former post that Diana was 'infatuated' with Charles. On his part however, Charles wasn't even that.
Oh yes he was, he was absolutely besotted with his lovely and 'shy' wife. There was the gentle hand behind the her back, nipping over to bring her to meet someone (a nobody) who didn't want to be disappointed and he handled her like the finest crystal.

It is obvious that that did not last for either of them and I prefer to believe Charles statement that he was not unfaithful to her until after their marriage had irretrievably broken down, "both having tried".

That they grew apart rather than together was sad, but not a tragedy. I personally do not believe the age difference had much to do with it, rather a difference of personality and interests. That Charles was impatient with Diana and some of her friends as well as Sarah (poking people with umbrella's at Ascot) was hardly surprising as was her well documented loathing for any of his old friends of any age or sex.
 
There isn't a culprit, so while I don't mind discussing the marriage, I think it is silly to try to apportion blame. They were both foolish and selfish, they were both at fault

But not to the same degree, and that's a valid pov. Trying to equate Charles' faults with Diana's doesn't parse in my view. Vastly different universes. :cool:

but it was an unfortunate disaster that happened because of several factors, such as Diana being a lonely fragile girl

A girl? When does 'a girl' transition to being 'a woman', an adult, who is making her own decisions - at 14? 18? 19/20? Are 20 year olds 'girls'?

But again, this image created of a waif blown on the wind......

who longed for loving and also socially splendid marriage

Yes, keeping herself 'tidy'.

and Charles being a rather shy awkward man

I would disagree with the image given here. He was far from a social cripple. He was an experienced man, with a large, impressive circle of friends and string of lovers/girlfriends. He had already begun his Prince's Trust. He was not the callow, 'awkward' youth he was at his Investiture. :cool:

who was very restricted in whom he could marry. But it wasn't an arranged marriage.

Sure looked like it from the outside. The very restrictions necessitated that it was 'arranged'. He was going through an accepted 'pool' of women. Diana's number had come up. She caught his eye, was able to sustain his interest, and it went from there.

There were factors such as Charles having to marry within the Upper class, and to marry a girl with no past which meant that he was likely to settle for a girl that he didn't have much in common with, but I beleive he was fond of her and a bit in love with her, and she was certainly in love with him. Had she not been she would have accepted his affair with Camilla.

I question that (not the love, just the conclusion). I think Diana's possessiveness was a function of control, not love. Recall that she made the biggest 'public' scenes about Camilla (for an example) while she was in the thick of a years long affair with James Hewitt. A bit strange to maintain proprietary rights over Charles when she was herself in deep with her own lover. :cool:
 
Last edited:
So exactly when do you think a female child becomes a woman? 14? 18? 19? 20? As the mother of a 14, nearly 15 year old female child, I would lock her in a room before I allowed her to marry a man so many years her senior at barely 20. Particularly to one with the history of having quite a number of extramarital affairs (the 'ladies' were married) with the wives of his friends, which were not exactly a secret. It certainly did not bode well for his views on marital fidelity, did it?
 
Last edited:
Legally a girl becomes a woman at 18 but the legal age for marriage is 16 in the UK with parental consent (don't need that in Scotland).

Locking them in their room at that age would be regarded as 'false imprisonment' and is a gaolable offence in most countries (including yours of the US).

Young people are fully aware of their legal rights at much younger ages than in the past - largely because teachers are instructed to make sure that they are taught them.

Diana was an adult and made an adult decision at 19. She was over the legal age of consent (16) and of marriage (18). There was nothing her parents could do to stop the marriage (sure her father 'gave consent' to Charles when he was asked but even if he had said 'no' there was really nothing he could do to stop the marriage).

Diana did know about his relationships - one of which was with one of her own older sisters. She mixed in the same type of circles where his love life was dissected in even greater detail that was being done in the media.

She knew what she was getting into - knew the rules of the situation - but decided marriage to Charles was preferable to whatever else was going on in her life.

She was no 'shrinking violet' even if she was still 'intact'.
 
You may be of age at 18 to twenty or so but that doesn't mean that you are worldly wise at that age or that you would make the same decisions at 40 or 30 that you made then. People do an awful lot of living between twenty and thirty and learn a great deal about others.

It's debatable how much of the ins and outs Diana knew about Sarah and Charles's relationship anyway. She was at school then, for a brief time, at finishing school in Switzerland.
 
Last edited:
A teenage couple getting married is one thing ( not that I think that's at all sensible ) but a teenager becoming engaged to an 30 something who has a full on past is very different. It's all about the power in the relationship regardless of who it is.
 
:previous: What power did Charles exert to get Diana to marry him? He proposed and she said yes. He told her to think it over while she was in Australia visiting her mother and she responded that she did not need to, on top of that Diana later revealed that Charles made a "whatever 'in love' means" type comment when he proposed.

The engagement was not announced until after Diana returned from Australia which gave Diana ample time to think things over and those closest to Diana a chance to weigh in on what she was getting herself into for her to take under advisement. I doubt if Charles would have used his "power" to make Diana stay engaged to him.

Furthermore Charles' proposal to Diana was his fourth time proposing marriage, he proposed to two other women before Diana, one of whom he proposed to twice, and all three proposals were rejected. I don't recall there being pressure put upon or retribution towards the women who rejected Charles.
 
Last edited:
I have heard that he proposed to Amanda Knatchbull - never been confirmed as far as I am aware. To whom else is it rumoured he proposed?
 
Of course he didn't make her marry him. The power within a relationship if lopsided isn't heathy and can be a form of abuse. This man was older more experienced and a future king. It was a very lopsided marriage and as it turns very unhealthy
 
I have heard that he proposed to Amanda Knatchbull - never been confirmed as far as I am aware. To whom else is it rumoured he proposed?

I am wondering that, too. :ermm: And who did he ask twice?
 
Hmmm seems like I read he proposed to (I think this is her name) Anna 'Whiplash' Wallace?

I may have her name wrong...but I'm sure the 'whiplash' nickname is right.
 
You may be of age at 18 to twenty or so but that doesn't mean that you are worldly wise at that age or that you would make the same decisions at 40 or 30 that you made then. People do an awful lot of living between twenty and thirty and learn a great deal about others.

No matter what age a woman gets engaged and married and the age of her spouse, its a decision made that seems to be the right move to make at the time. Diana's expectations of what marriage should be like may have changed if she waited until near 30 to marry. Then again, it may not have. We don't know.

I married for the first time at 20 and the marriage lasted for 20 years. We grew apart. I married again at 45 and will celebrate 20 years of marriage this year and we're two comfortable old shoes. One difference I can easily point out between my two marriages is that my current one is being married to my best friend. Perhaps this is why so many things that have been reported about the Wales marriage indicate that both Charles and Diana had no real basis in close, intimate friendship before they got engaged and married and it was even billed as a "fairy tale" wedding. Romance is all fine and dandy with nights of wine and roses but without the basis of a solid friendship and compatibility, its hard to maintain a loving relationship. Other than being totally compatible in how they wanted to raise their boys, it started early on how each partner wanted their spouse to be and both of them fell short in the eyes of the other.

They both went into marriage believing that they could make the marriage work. They both tried. There were just too many differences and personality conflicts they couldn't resolve. Charles ended up with a second marriage that fits him like an old shoe like I did. Diana, unfortunately didn't live long enough to find that perfect fit. The blessing is that William took his time and married someone that started off as a good friendship and the relationship grew and I'm hoping it will be the same for Harry. Whatever Charles and Diana's differences were, the best of both of them are reflected in their sons.
 
Hmmm seems like I read he proposed to (I think this is her name) Anna 'Whiplash' Wallace?

I may have her name wrong...but I'm sure the 'whiplash' nickname is right.

I don't believe he proposed to Anna Wallace, she walked out on him in a temper one ngith because he sepnt a lot of time dacncing with Camilla..
and Charles harldy MADE Diana marry him. She wanted to.
 
I don't believe he proposed to Anna Wallace, she walked out on him in a temper one ngith because he sepnt a lot of time dacncing with Camilla..
and Charles harldy MADE Diana marry him. She wanted to.


Hmmm ok for some reason I thought he had proposed to Anna...but yeah I do remember the story about the party situation.

Who thinks Charles made Diana marry him? It was the 1980's not the 1500's.


LaRae
 
No matter what age a woman gets engaged and married and the age of her spouse, its a decision made that seems to be the right move to make at the time. Diana's expectations of what marriage should be like may have changed if she waited until near 30 to marry. Then again, it may not have. We don't know.

"in their sons.
of course that's true. And there are couples that marry with a large age difference who last and couples who are very Young when they marry and the marriage lasts.
Diana HAD to be very young Because Charles needed to marry a girl with no past. so there was bound to be an age gap. But while that might cause problems it does not HAVE to do so. And there is no way that Diana would have waited for years to marry, she wanted to marry young and make a good marriage, botht in social terms and in terms, she hoped of a man who would always love her and could not get a divorce.
Chas and Cam are a good fit because they have a long history, they have common interests but also have the ability to be happy apart, pursuing their interests that are different,,,
Diana didn't get to that stage of maturity I think with any of her boyfriends, she was still hoping for "roses round the door" and romance and romance is very nice but it isn't the solid foundation for a marriage.
 
At least one of the books I've read said that he was close to proposing to her before the relationship ended. It could have been Sarah Bradford's or Tina Brown's, as I've reread them both recently.

Hmmm ok for some reason I thought he had proposed to Anna...but yeah I do remember the story about the party situation.

Who thinks Charles made Diana marry him? It was the 1980's not the 1500's.


LaRae
 
Are you sure mermaid? Because I have Tina B and I think that she said that Anna was a mistress rather than a possible wife. She and Charles were almost caught " at it" in the heather on holiday, and there's a photo apparently - so I think if Charles saw her as his possible wife way back then, he would have been more careful...
and she was clearly a hot tempered girl who stormed out on him... so I am not sure if he would have considered her as a wife...

Hmmm ok for some reason I thought he had proposed to Anna...but yeah I do remember the story about the party situation.

Who thinks Charles made Diana marry him? It was the 1980's not the 1500's.


LaRae
I certainly don't. Good heavens how could he? Kidnap her and keep her in Balmoral till she said yes? She wanted to get married, he wanted to get married, they both made the decision. And as was usual back then, I think she was given time between the proposal and the news being announced, for her to go away (as I recall to Austraila) and to consider it before it was offically made public. If she had not wanted it, she could have said no, or "I've changed my mind."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh yes, I remember that story about the press finding them and Charles running off leaving Anna to fend for herself. ;)

I have the idea that Anna was definitely considered a possible wife. However, we're getting off-topic here.

There was someone who posted here awhile ago that Diana was likely at that ball or the one earlier that summer during which Charles was kissing Camilla in front of her husband.



Are you sure mermaid? Because I have Tina B and I think that she said that Anna was a mistress rather than a possible wife. She and Charles were almost caught " at it" in the heather on holiday, and there's a photo apparently - so I think if Charles saw her as his possible wife way back then, he would have been more careful...
and she was clearly a hot tempered girl who stormed out on him... so I am not sure if he would have considered her as a wife...
 
I certainly don't. Good heavens how could he? Kidnap her and keep her in Balmoral till she said yes? She wanted to get married, he wanted to get married, they both made the decision. And as was usual back then, I think she was given time between the proposal and the news being announced, for her to go away (as I recall to Austraila) and to consider it before it was offically made public. If she had not wanted it, she could have said no, or "I've changed my mind."


Yeah she definately wanted to marry him...all sorts of reasons. He wanted (felt pressured) to marry someone, I think he figured she would work as well as anyone else that he could marry at that time. He hoped it would work out okay.

I do think after the engagement was announced it was pretty hard for her to feel like she could back out. Famously, when she raised the issue of not going thru with it, even her own family told her to buck up, too late to back out now since her face was on the tea towels.


LaRae
 
Are you sure mermaid? Because I have Tina B and I think that she said that Anna was a mistress rather than a possible wife. She and Charles were almost caught " at it" in the heather on holiday, and there's a photo apparently - so I think if Charles saw her as his possible wife way back then, he would have been more careful...
and she was clearly a hot tempered girl who stormed out on him... so I am not sure if he would have considered her as a wife...

As amusing as this incident is, I think Charles and Diana take the blue ribbon prize for getting caught "at it". They were hot and heavy in their bedroom at Highgrove when Diana, without knowing it, accidentally hit the panic button with her foot. Imagine their surprise when RPOs burst in the room to find out what the trouble was. :ROFLMAO:
 
wel not really the same. They were a married couple in their own home.

Oh yes, I remember that story about the press finding them and Charles running off leaving Anna to fend for herself. ;)

I have the idea that Anna was definitely considered a possible wife. However, we're getting off-topic here.

There was someone who posted here awhile ago that Diana was likely at that ball or the one earlier that summer during which Charles was kissing Camilla in front of her husband.
I dont think that Charles would have been considering Anna as a wife, if he was so careless about her reputation. he and Diana were ultra careful that she was seen as a virginal young lady whom he was courting.
as for the last sentence, "Diana was likely at that dance?" We dont know. Even if she was, she might not have been around when Charles was kissing Camilla on the dance floor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Diana wasn't at the ball. The evening occured before he started dating Diana. It was an end of polo season ball. However, Anna Wallace was there. This was the occasion at which she said to him 'No-one treats me like this! Not even you!' and she left.
 
Anna Wallace is who I was referring to as the woman Charles reportedly proposed to twice. I am also aware of the story that she ended things because of Charles being more attentive to Camilla at a party the attended. I reconciled things as Charles proposed Anna twice, Anna turned down the proposals but they continued dating until the party incident but I'm not really sure, the information is sketchy. :unsure:
 
Anna Wallace was certainly beautiful: 1194079115.jpg Photo by helgerandi | Photobucket

Here is a news article that lists her as Charles' final girlfriend before Diana and states that there was a marriage proposal, though one wonders if that could be true given all the drama around a dance, etc. Doesn't sound serious to me (if the whole thing is true the way everyone reports the incident here).

I did read in one of Charles' biographies that regardless of what it looked like to outsiders (or how it was reported, or how it's 'spun') Charles was deeply hurt by the loss of Anna Wallace and the turn of events, which leads one to question exactly what was happening on the dance floor. The salacious nature of the 'reports' should not have caused Charles to question Anna's response, yet he seems to have so done, so what really happened there? :ermm:

Anna Wallace: A might-have-been. So many of those. Charles seems to have gotten hitched to Diana on the re-bound. Not a good time in his life right about then. :sad:

LINK: Prince Charles and his relationships - Telegraph
 
Last edited:
Anna Wallace is who I was referring to as the . I reconciled things as Charles proposed Anna twice, Anna turned down the proposals but they continued dating until the party incident but I'm not really sure, the information is sketchy. :unsure:

I've never heard of this. I think she was someone Charles had strong feelings for, but as I've said, I question if he would have been very obviously sleeping with her, if he saw her as marriage material. And if she was such a hot tempered lady I doubt if he would see her as Princess of Wales material. The only other woman that I've heard of C proposing to was Amanda Knatchbull and I think that that too might have been a "I have to get married, I know Amanda and she knows the RF's ways and what is required of a royal wife.." situation. Apparently she turned him down because she was not in love with him and she didn't want a public life.
 
Anna Wallace is who I was referring to as the woman Charles reportedly proposed to twice. I am also aware of the story that she ended things because of Charles being more attentive to Camilla at a party the attended. I reconciled things as Charles proposed Anna twice, Anna turned down the proposals but they continued dating until the party incident but I'm not really sure, the information is sketchy. :unsure:
'More attentive' is not how the evening has been discribed in multiple biographies. I am traveling today, but I will look up the quote when I get back to the US.
 
It's not nearly as simple as an affair.

People like to classify it as just an affair, but the dynamic between Andrew Parker Bowles, Camilla, and Charles was not an affair.

There is a longstanding tradition in the British upper classes of men and women marrying based on status, then having extramarital relations with individuals that they were actually attracted to - both men and women did this. There is also a longstanding tradition of Princes of Wales having mistresses who were married; this ensured that the mistress wasn't likely to expect to marry the PoW, provided a "father" for any children from the relationship, and reduced the scandal to the woman (she wasn't an unmarried woman sleeping with a man). The husbands provided a degree of cover for the wives within society, and typically benefited from their wives' status.

Also, reducing Camilla to the status of simply being Charles' friend's wife completely ignores that she had a friendship and sexual relationship with Charles that predated her marriage. Andrew wasn't a friend who's wife Charles was sleeping with, Andrew was the man who was married to the woman Charles had a relationship with.

Camilla's relationship with Charles and Andrew, through the 1970s and up to her divorce, could very likely be described as a Poly one, where in she was with Andrew as a "primary" partner, but with Charles as a "secondary" partner, that in time lead to Charles becoming the primary in what we assume is now a monogamous relationship.

Hey well, that whole 'long-standing tradition' got totally blown out of the water with the advent of the Diana and Charles saga! Not only were our perspectives on fairytale royal romance and happily-ever-after royal marriage changed forever, the British Royal family was rocked a hard one and almost ripped asunder. Thousands of years of royal tradition prevailed but with a vastly different outlook on royal marriage, divorce, crafting a successful public image, dealing with the press, inter-familial relationships, intimate cell phone conversations, how to prep and groom a royal bride, etc.

Of course Charles' relationship with Camilla became a long-standing 'affair,' which began as a youthful dalliance when they were both single. Over time, what started out as a flirtatious attraction grew into a deep and lasting bond of love and friendship. And let's not underestimate the power of Camilla's sexy, savvy, aggressive come-on personality mixed with maternal devotion. Charles did want to marry Camilla when they were both young and free, but her background with other men nixed her chances during that 1970s still old-fashioned outlook on what constituted a suitable royal bride. Charles was not confident and savvy enough to mount a campaign to get his way and wrangle a marriage with Camilla. She got tired of waiting and decided to marry her army officer, Andrew Parker-Bowles.

Charles went on to romance and date others but he never got over Camilla. Eventually he and Camilla reconciled and took up where they'd left off prior to her marriage. In the royal tradition, her husband made no objections. The sticky wicket later on is that Charles chose a young bride who was loathe to go along with these 'long-standing' upper-class and royal British traditions surrounding acceptance of royal husbands having affairs while the wife remained quiet, passive and long-suffering.

One of the problems was the huge difference in age between Charles and Diana, as well as their different interests. They were both needy and selfish romantics, vastly unsuited for each other. Another problem was the antiquated matchmaking notions of their respective maternal grandmothers. The biggest problem, of course, was Charles' deep, long-term love for another woman. Of course Diana had begun to have uneasy suspicions about Camilla well into the engagement, but her sisters had advised her that it was too late for her to back out of marrying. Diana did not become fully aware of the detrimental extent of Charles' emotional attachment to Camilla until the honeymoon cruise.

Fortunately, the one thing that Charles and Diana did manage to do well together was to conceive, cherish, love and nurture their two sons.

Diana, Princess of Wales paid a heavy price for her innocence and her fairytale outlook on love. On the other hand, her rebellious spirit as well as her deep love for her children and her caring for humanity helped change the royal family in many ways for the better.
 
Back
Top Bottom