C&C love story - the early days

[Elspeth]

I think a large part of the problem with the Charles-Diana debacle was that the two of them were being used in a power struggle between the Queen Mother and Earl Mountbatten for control of Charles. As you said, Mountbatten wanted to see one of his granddaughters married to Charles to enhance the Mountbatten connection to the throne, and the Queen Mother, who didn't trust Mountbatten (partly because he'd been friendly with the Duke of Windsor half a lifetime earlier), wouldn't have been thrilled by that. It doesn't seem to be a coincidence that the granddaughter of a close friend of hers was eventually suggested as a possibility.

Either way, Camilla wouldn't have fit the bill. She'd have been the sort of person Mountbatten was referring to as someone Charles could sow wild oats with before settling down with a sweet young thing, and she wasn't the sort of fairytale princess type (to say nothing of having a mind of her own) who could be controlled by the Queen Mother.

[EmpressRouge]

Mountbatten did indeed encourage Charles to sow wild oats before settling down. In his defense, Mountbatten had a very tempestuous marriage with his wife Edwina. Even though they remained devoted to each other, they are said to have had an open-marriage, and she had affairs with Paul Robeson and Nehru. Mountbatten was probably just advising Charles to find a docile wife to avoid the drama he went through, although as we now know, Charles and Diana's marriage was far more stormy than anything Mountbatten could have imagined.

Mountbatten managed to steer Charles in Diana's direction even from beyond the grave, so to speak. Charles first took an interest in Diana when she came up to him shortly after Mountbatten's assassination and told him how touched she was and how she empathized seeing him mourn his beloved great-uncle. And I guess Charles took Mountbatten's advice to heart when he found the sweet and innocent candidate in the (then-) docile Diana.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Does anyone know why Mountbatten supposedly disapproved of Camilla? This idea never quite made sense to me. Was Camilla just not high ranking enough for Mountbatten's views of a wife for Charles? Or was it simply because Mountbatten wanted to steer Charles toward Amanda Knatchbull? Is the "mistress material" quote about Camilla true? Did Mountbatten really say that?
Does someone know the original source for the quote? I mean, obviously Mountbatten is the original source, but I mean, the first place where this quote was transcribed? The first person to claim he said that??

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

Does anyone know why Mountbatten supposedly disapproved of Camilla? This idea never quite made sense to me. Was Camilla just not high ranking enough for Mountbatten's views of a wife for Charles? Or was it simply because Mountbatten wanted to steer Charles toward Amanda Knatchbull? Is the "mistress material" quote about Camilla true? Did Mountbatten really say that?
Does someone know the original source for the quote? I mean, obviously Mountbatten is the original source, but I mean, the first place where this quote was transcribed? The first person to claim he said that??

IMO, he wanted a bride of his choosing for control purposes. It would take his family closer to the throne, the same reason IMO Spencer was so keen to push one of his daughters forward.

I think the 'mistress material', like many of these one to one conversations, is in someones imagination, after all if only Charles & Mountbatten were present, how could anyone else know? Even Bradfords book seems to have been based in some part on someone else's book, so when you try to chase down the original source, it leads back to a writer.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

Does anyone know why Mountbatten supposedly disapproved of Camilla? This idea never quite made sense to me. Was Camilla just not high ranking enough for Mountbatten's views of a wife for Charles? Or was it simply because Mountbatten wanted to steer Charles toward Amanda Knatchbull? Is the "mistress material" quote about Camilla true? Did Mountbatten really say that?
Does someone know the original source for the quote? I mean, obviously Mountbatten is the original source, but I mean, the first place where this quote was transcribed? The first person to claim he said that??

According to the Dimbleby book (p. 205), in a letter to Charles, which is now in the Mountbatten Archive, he said, "I believe, in a case like yours, a man should sow his wild oats and have as many affairs as he can before settling down. But for a wife he should choose a suitable and sweet-charactered girl before she meets anyone else she might fall for."

Given that he was trying to promote his granddaughter Amanda as the suitable and sweet-charactered girl in question, it's possible that he would have considered any other suitable and sweet-charactered girl to be highly unsuitable. But Camilla didn't fit the bill of "before she meets anyone else she might fall for," by the sound of things.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

According to the Dimbleby book (p. 205), in a letter to Charles, which is now in the Mountbatten Archive, he said, "I believe, in a case like yours, a man should sow his wild oats and have as many affairs as he can before settling down. But for a wife he should choose a suitable and sweet-charactered girl before she meets anyone else she might fall for."

Given that he was trying to promote his granddaughter Amanda as the suitable and sweet-charactered girl in question, it's possible that he would have considered any other suitable and sweet-charactered girl to be highly unsuitable. But Camilla didn't fit the bill of "before she meets anyone else she might fall for," by the sound of things.

Yes, very true. Thank you for reminding me of this letter. It does put context into it. Yes, indeed, Camilla was a very jolly and popular young person by all accounts, and probably her infatuation with APB, even in the early part of the first half of the 70s, was widely understood in the polo crowds in which they moved. That was a very clever, concise answer to my many questions.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

...Given that he was trying to promote his granddaughter Amanda as the suitable and sweet-charactered girl in question, it's possible that he would have considered any other suitable and sweet-charactered girl to be highly unsuitable...

i've read about mountbatten pushing for a marriage between his granddaughter and charles a number of times over the years and was always under the impression that mountbatten wouldn't have considered any other sweet-charactered girl suitable...he wanted it to be her. perhaps after he realized it wasn't going to happen THEN he considered other girls suitable.

[normalil]

Following Camilla's marriage to APB, Charles wrote to a friend of his loneliness and pain, and said that he supposed it would eventually pass. Times certainly change, and I am convinced that, because Camilla had a "past," it was deemed impossible for her and Charles to marry. I also think that Camilla was in love with Andrew when she married him, never considering Charles because of who he was. I'm sure that she never wanted to be Queen, but I do hope that she is one day.

[Rebafan81]

This is probably not the right thread for this but I have to ask, please move if needed, why did the QM hate the Duke of Windsor so much? If he had not abdicated, she would always just be the Duchess of York instead of Queen and her children would just be like Princess Margret's children, cousins of the ruling monarch. I just wondered because without his abdication, she would probably just be a footnote in history.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Rebafan81

This is probably not the right thread for this but I have to ask, please move if needed, why did the QM hate the Duke of Windsor so much? If he had not abdicated, she would always just be the Duchess of York instead of Queen and her children would just be like Princess Margret's children, cousins of the ruling monarch. I just wondered because without his abdication, she would probably just be a footnote in history.

It was Wallis she hated, not David. Even though David was the one who was besotted, Wallis seemed to be the focus of a disproportionate amount of the blame. You should be able to find some more information in this thread:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...sor-10245.html

[Rebafan81]

Thank you Elspeth for your answer

Originally Posted by Elspeth

It was Wallis she hated, not David. Even though David was the one who was besotted, Wallis seemed to be the focus of a disproportionate amount of the blame. You should be able to find some more information in this thread:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...sor-10245.html

[Elspeth]

Would you two please turn down the heat? It's possible to address what other people say without having to get personal about it.

Thank you.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Would you two please turn down the heat? It's possible to address what other people say without having to get personal about it.

Thank you.

Elspeth, I am sorry. I don't believe I am the one who has gotten personal here. I am only trying to figure out the rules...when is a quote or source a lie, when can we believe it, etc.

I am not a fan of C&C but I am also not...uninformed enough to accept that there was only one villain in this very sordid and sad debacle.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

.....I am only trying to figure out the rules...when is a quote or source a lie, when can we believe it, etc.

I am not a fan of C&C but I am also not...uninformed enough to accept that there was only one villain in this very sordid and sad debacle.

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want, some of us prefer to use personal knowledge, experience and judgment rather than rely on the views of someone trying to sell a book.

As already discussed, the reason I (and I can only speak for myself) ask for the full quote, as written or the source is because 9 times out of 10, when you read the article for yourself, you find that it is based on unnamed sources, rumour and gossip or has been misinterpreted by the other person. Repeat rumour and gossip enough and people forget that it has no basis in fact.

I don't believe there were any villains in this sad tale and I don't believe myself to be uninformed, but as I have said I don't have to rely solely on what I have read in a few books.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want, some of us prefer to use personal knowledge, experience and judgment rather than rely on the views of someone trying to sell a book.

As already discussed, the reason I (and I can only speak for myself) ask for the full quote, as written or the source is because 9 times out of 10, when you read the article for yourself, you find that it is based on unnamed sources, rumour and gossip or has been misinterpreted by the other person. Repeat rumour and gossip enough and people forget that it has no basis in fact.

I don't believe there were any villains in this sad tale and I don't believe myself to be uninformed, but as I have said I don't have to rely solely on what I have read in a few books.

Exactly so as I agree. To put it even more simply, for anyone who may have remaining doubts or questions, take for example the LETTER FROM MOUNTBATTEN TO CHarles, cited in Dimbleby, which Elspeth kindly brought to my attention before. This letter is the PRIMARY SOURCE. Dimbleby only cited this primary source. Another example is Andrew Morton's Diana: Her True Story. We now know that Morton quoted Diana directly, so many of his quotes can be called primary sources, as they came from the horse's mouth. But as Sky points out, there are too many newspaper articles where the cited primary source is "unnamed friend of the prince" or something like that. I think it is acceptable to use almost any kind of info. as long as you specify where it comes from, even if you think the source is questionable, just say "this came from a tabloid, so and so, with unidentified source," so at least one can know it. Then everyone reading the forums can judge for themselves if it's worth believing, or half-believing, or whatever.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want, some of us prefer to use personal knowledge, experience and judgment rather than rely on the views of someone trying to sell a book.

Originally Posted by Elspeth

by posters ("I can't tell you how I know, but they aren't telling the truth in that book").

Elspeth, I was claiming that I have personal knowledge (much as MARG has also spoken about) of balls of the type being discussed and base my opinion on the experience of such balls.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Elspeth, I was claiming that I have personal knowledge (much as MARG has also spoken about) of balls of the type being discussed and base my opinion on the experience of such balls.

Yes, I understand that (especially the comments you were making about the older generation and the younger generation).

However, there are a couple of issues here. First is that, as stated in one of the forum FAQs, we don't encourage too much use of personal experience, especially insider knowledge, partly because (and please understand I'm not accusing you of anything here but simply making a general statement, which was the original reason for this rule, which I think has been in place for long than you've been a TRF member) we have no real way of knowing that people really do have the insider knowledge they claim to have. We've seen cases all over the forum where someone will come along and try to stop a conversation dead with a comment along the lines of "I don't care what the newspapers say, I happen to be a friend of Her Highness, and I know she doesn't do that/think that/believe that." It may be true, but it also may not be, and we can't tell one way or the other.

The other thing is that, as Ashley said, written information comes in all flavours from highly reliable to outright fantasy. The particular case here is where Sarah Bradford, who's written a well-researched and well-balanced biography, repeated some information from another book which gives an eyewitness account of something. That's close to being as high-quality a source as we can get. Your experience of these balls might very well be different from this one, but if we're going to dismiss eyewitness accounts described in weighty biographies by highly reputable authors, that doesn't leave a lot.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Would you two please turn down the heat? It's possible to address what other people say without having to get personal about it.

Thank you.

My apologies Elspeth, I for one accept that I am 50% to blame.

[Mirkwood Princess]

Why was Charles not allowed to marry Camilla before Diana? What was the impediment?

[Count]

Because Camilla Shand at that time was married with Andrew Parker Bowles.