When did your opinion of Diana change and why?

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well, I agree with you Elspeth, I think it's alot to do with society putting parameters on things it really shouldn't but what I also wonder is whether sex outside of marriage/partnership is an insecurity thing. Diana was insecure, Charles was insecure and so one lover telling them it was going to be alright just wasn't enough, they both needed adoration. Charles got it from Camilla and Diana got it from her fan club. You see it alot on the gay scene, people being very promiscuous because generally we tend to be made insecure by out backgrounds whereas it's rare to find a gay couple who have been totally faithful to one another. Does insecurity breed the nessecity for more than one sexual partner? (And have I turned into Carrie Bradshaw?).

WELLLL, I have been monogamous to my gay mate since August 2003, I have been married to him since May 2005. :) I would NOT have it any other way. I expect that our marriage vows will be honored until one or both of us tells the other that a divorce is wanted. But maybe we are different?

[BeatrixFan]

Well no, because although I said it's rare to find a monogamous gay couple I didn't say they don't exist. And you may be totally secure too. I was just saying that in my experience, gay people tend to be insecure and so we tend to seek encouragement in the guise of various partners. I know I do. I just think that that was the same for Charles and Diana. Charles hadn't been encouraged or nurtured well by his parents, Diana felt replaced by Raine and so they both went into the relationship looking for the other to encourage. As we saw from Camillagate, Camilla does encourage Charles and so it's obvious why he kept going back to her - because he was insecure and he needed her style of love. Diana on the other hand wanted that from Charles who couldn't give it and so ended up going to various other men in the same way I think alot of gay men (and possibly straight women) do.

[COUNTESS]

On the mark, again, Beatrix Fan. Camilla is the "great loving mother" figure for Charles. The Mom he never had. Both Charles and Diana needed the same thing, which neither to give to the other.

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well no, because although I said it's rare to find a monogamous gay couple I didn't say they don't exist. And you may be totally secure too. I was just saying that in my experience, gay people tend to be insecure and so we tend to seek encouragement in the guise of various partners. I know I do. I just think that that was the same for Charles and Diana. Charles hadn't been encouraged or nurtured well by his parents, Diana felt replaced by Raine and so they both went into the relationship looking for the other to encourage. As we saw from Camillagate, Camilla does encourage Charles and so it's obvious why he kept going back to her - because he was insecure and he needed her style of love. Diana on the other hand wanted that from Charles who couldn't give it and so ended up going to various other men in the same way I think alot of gay men (and possibly straight women) do.

I think age has alot to do with that as well. My mate was in his mid thirties and I in my later forties when we met. I certainly was looking for a total and permanent relationship and he was too. How do I put this delicately, at almost 52, I would rather post to this board or read a good book 99% of the time as opposed to being "private" with someone. LOL

[sthreats]

Sorry. I don't buy Camilla as the 'all loving mummy'. I too have read the Camillagate transcripts and I see two people still very passionate and sexual about each other after more than 20 years. Camilla talks about needing Charles 'desperately, desperately, desperately' and needing him so she can cope with her week. There are also the crude in-jokes and yes words of encouragement. I think (reflecting on my 21 years of marriage and my parents 45)--it's the 'za za zu' that brings you together and keeps you together thru all the trials. IMO Charles and Diana just never had the 'za za zu'.

[COUNTESS]

Yes, there has to be fire in the bed, but she also panders to him. "Her greatest achievement was to love him" quote from the same tape. He needs to feel important, so did Diana. You're right. I don't think that Charles and Diana ever had anything really igniting their togetherness.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well, I agree with you Elspeth, I think it's alot to do with society putting parameters on things it really shouldn't but what I also wonder is whether sex outside of marriage/partnership is an insecurity thing. Diana was insecure, Charles was insecure and so one lover telling them it was going to be alright just wasn't enough, they both needed adoration. Charles got it from Camilla and Diana got it from her fan club. You see it alot on the gay scene, people being very promiscuous because generally we tend to be made insecure by out backgrounds whereas it's rare to find a gay couple who have been totally faithful to one another. Does insecurity breed the nessecity for more than one sexual partner? (And have I turned into Carrie Bradshaw?).

I don't think Charles or Camilla needed 'adoration' from each other. What they wanted and what they got was a loving willingness to put the other person first. To compromise, but also to be 'there' for one another.

It is the same with the husband who comes home from work and tells his wife the sort of awful day he has had and by the telling, they can laugh about it and if they can't laugh it off, there is the absolute knowledge that at the very least, they have each other. The same husband takes the time to listen to what she has been up to.

Diana perhaps wasn't able/willing to compromise or understand that, her news was always going to be more important. She imagined that her life would now read like a Barabara Cartland book automatically. Marriage/partnerships take work from both sides, with both people aiming for the same goal. Far from either of them being insecure, they were both used to getting their own way.

There is hope for you yet BeatrixFan, friends of ours met the partner of their dreams (each other) and are celebrating their 30th anniversary soon. They don't know it yet, but they are having a party rather than the quiet dinner they think they are coming for!

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sthreats

I think (reflecting on my 21 years of marriage and my parents 45)--it's the 'za za zu' that brings you together and keeps you together thru all the trials. IMO Charles and Diana just never had the 'za za zu'.

Novice! definitely there has to be za za zu!

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by sthreats

Sorry. I don't buy Camilla as the 'all loving mummy'. I too have read the Camillagate transcripts and I see two people still very passionate and sexual about each other after more than 20 years. Camilla talks about needing Charles 'desperately, desperately, desperately' and needing him so she can cope with her week. There are also the crude in-jokes and yes words of encouragement. I think (reflecting on my 21 years of marriage and my parents 45)--it's the 'za za zu' that brings you together and keeps you together thru all the trials. IMO Charles and Diana just never had the 'za za zu'.

Yeah, this is true and the "za za zu" is a funny way of putting it, but as I said, true. Or I buy it anyway. I do think that Camilla gives Charles a lot of nurturing, tenderness, and reassurance. But obviously, they have a great chemistry and fit together perfectly. I also remember from the Dimbleby biography, how they clicked immediately when they met, roughly in 1971, and they could almost instantly read each other's thoughts, finish each other's sentences, and always laughed hysterically at the same things for the same reasons. Dimbleby said they shared the same kind of "Goon Show" humor. They have that kind of enduring love where they can get through the bad days and enjoy the good ones.

As for the thing about insecurity mentioned in other posts, I have to say that I believe Diana was truly insecure. the thing is, insecurity combined with emotional/mental imbalance, I believe, caused all her inability to maintain a stable and loving marriage and happy life. When she could not deal with her lot in life, she coped with bulimia, and she even later talked about how she got the bulimia "high" and it made her feel all better, but it was a temporary fix.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Alright, so you understand why they did it. But do you condone their affair?

I'm neither god nor a judge of morals nor their child or Diana's. What have I to condone? I have an opinion, right. I have always stated that I believe that while Charles and Camilla were friends on the day of his marriage to Diana, they were not (maybe not longer) lovers. I have believed Charles when he claimed that his marriage was irrevocably broken before he started his affair with Camilla. I'm convinced that at that point in his life if he had been "Mr. Ordinary" he would have asked Diana for a divorce and married Camilla. That was not possible in his situation. But I'm sure he tried to talk to Diana and come to some sort of agreement. "For the sake of the country", maybe, but still. He never humiliated Diana in public as far as I know. Camilla never appeared in public as the "new love" as long as Charles was married to Diana.

So I believe they tried their best. Okay, they had an affair but what could they do under the circumstances? Charles, besides being a prince, is a human being and we all need love. Camilla obviously gave him that love and received his love in return. As for Diana... that conversation she said she had had with Camilla at Annabel Goldsmith' house comes to mind.

Camilla allegedly ask Diana what she wanted, as she had all:title, position, kids. And Diana answered: I want my husband.

Now - you can't get a human being only because you married the other. People have to want to stay with their spouse. So for me it sounds as if Diana wanted to own Charles and was not interested in what he had found with Camilla, she simply wanted her husband, as if she had bought him on a slave market. No wonder Charles prefered to make his own choice.

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I don't think Charles or Camilla needed 'adoration' from each other. What they wanted and what they got was a loving willingness to put the other person first. To compromise, but also to be 'there' for one another.

It is the same with the husband who comes home from work and tells his wife the sort of awful day he has had and by the telling, they can laugh about it and if they can't laugh it off, there is the absolute knowledge that at the very least, they have each other. The same husband takes the time to listen to what she has been up to.

Diana perhaps wasn't able/willing to compromise or understand that, her news was always going to be more important. She imagined that her life would now read like a Barabara Cartland book automatically. Marriage/partnerships take work from both sides, with both people aiming for the same goal. Far from either of them being insecure, they were both used to getting their own way.

There is hope for you yet BeatrixFan, friends of ours met the partner of their dreams (each other) and are celebrating their 30th anniversary soon. They don't know it yet, but they are having a party rather than the quiet dinner they think they are coming for!

Well this brings me to my next point, some people don't want that long haul relationship. I think it's fair to say that Charles was told he'd be going into an open casual relationship and when he didn't get that, it was a shock to all concerned. In the few short years I've been in relationships, I've always made it clear that I prefer an open arrangement, by which I mean that a partner is there until something better comes along or if someone pretty makes an offer, I at least want to sample the new line. Generally, I've been with people who can accept that but for others it was a huge no no and they couldn't cope. I think that's exactly what happened here. Charles was told by Uncle Louis that Diana would bear the kids and look good on the arm and he could have other partners (Camilla) as was his birth right. Diana was told that she'd be well compensated with a luxury lifestyle and what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander and she could have other partners as well. Unfortunately, no one seemed to listen to what Charles and Diana wanted, that being Camilla and a devoted long haul partner respectively. Any relationship that doesn't start with clear goals surely has to fail?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

As for the thing about insecurity mentioned in other posts, I have to say that I believe Diana was truly insecure. the thing is, insecurity combined with emotional/mental imbalance, I believe, caused all her inability to maintain a stable and loving marriage and happy life. When she could not deal with her lot in life, she coped with bulimia, and she even later talked about how she got the bulimia "high" and it made her feel all better, but it was a temporary fix.

I don't think she was insecure at all, she felt very sure of her position and in the belief that divorce would be out of the question and therefore she could get away with all sorts of unacceptable behaviour. Many women in the public eye, have coped with an 'out of love' marriage. But then again many women seem to have this 'need' to show who has the upper hand, by driving the partner away.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well this brings me to my next point, some people don't want that long haul relationship. I think it's fair to say that Charles was told he'd be going into an open casual relationship and when he didn't get that, it was a shock to all concerned...... I think that's exactly what happened here. Charles was told by Uncle Louis that Diana would bear the kids and look good on the arm and he could have other partners (Camilla) as was his birth right. Diana was told that she'd be well compensated with a luxury lifestyle and what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander and she could have other partners as well. Unfortunately, no one seemed to listen to what Charles and Diana wanted, that being Camilla and a devoted long haul partner respectively. Any relationship that doesn't start with clear goals surely has to fail?

While I agree that some people don't want to commit to someone else, I don't think that was the case with Charles and Diana. Although the marriage was arranged, I believe they both took their wedding vows seriously, to start with. Charles was too much a 'gentleman' to enter into a marriage with the view to having an affair, Diana too young to consider having umpteen sexual partners as long as she was discreet. I have no doubt that Diana was in love with The Prince of Wales, she just didn't realise that underneath that title, was a living breathing man, with hopes and dreams. Charles was incredibly fond of the young woman and probably thought they would grow to have a full and deep love for one another.

It is very easy in the first flush of romance to only see what you want to see in the other person. Any doubts are easy to brush aside as nerves, differences as getting to know one another.

We have all 'wanted' something or someone, only to be seriously disappointed when we got it! On the other hand, I had a female friend who separated from her husband but kept interferring in his life. When asked why, she said she didn't want him but she didn't want him not to want her.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I don't think she was insecure at all, she felt very sure of her position and in the belief that divorce would be out of the question and therefore she could get away with all sorts of unacceptable behaviour. Many women in the public eye, have coped with an 'out of love' marriage. But then again many women seem to have this 'need' to show who has the upper hand, by driving the partner away.

But her outlandish behavior is the reason one can see she was insecure. It is only people who are insecure who feel they have to show their strength by pushing others around, trying to emotionally bully someone into making things a certain way. Secure people do not feel this kind of drive. They are comfortable with themselves enough to allow others to be themselves too.