C&C love story - the early days

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Thinking back to the 1970s and the speculation about a possible bride for Charles, foreign royals were mentioned sort of in passing (most papers were talking about Princess Caroline despite the religion issue, possibly because she was the only princess that most of the tabloid readers would have ever heard of), but the serious candidates were all members of the aristocracy.

I don't think Camilla Shand would have really been given serious consideration even if the papers had picked up on the fact that she and Charles were serious about each other for a while, because she wasn't the daughter of the Duke of This or the Earl of That and because she had - horrors! - a "past." The existence of a previous serious boyfriend heralded the end of Davina Sheffield's chances, and it doesn't seem as though it'd have been hard to find a similar skeleton or three in Camilla's closet.

IMHo what really changed the view on marriages of an Heir to the Throne was the statement of Crown Prince Haakon of Norway that as in a constitutional monarchy the people can decide against him becoming king anytime by voting against the monarchy, he at least can decide whom to marry and that he chose Mette-Marit, despite her having a "past".

I really think this statement told exactly how nowadays the Royals view her job. They work for their country because they are Royals but they are free when it comes to their private life. Just like their "subjects" are free to choose when it comes to their private life.

As for Charles: not only was he heavily influenced by Mountbatten and the QM but there was still the opinion in his family that it is simply not done to marry out of love and to hell with the consequences. The people most affected by the duke of Windsor's decision to do exactly that were still around and able to influence Charles' way of thinking.

Plus I agree with Skydragon: I believe there were many people around who had a vivid interest in discouraging Camilla and show her that whatever Charles might feel for her, he would not offer for her. People who probably convinced her that the best thing for her was to make a suitable marriage herself and go on with her life. Andrew Parker Bowles was not such a bad choice. He is one of the Macclesfield Parkers and a grandson of Sir Humphrey De Trafford, he gave Camilla a suitable social position and two children and when the times had changed, he gave her a genteel divorce while still being supporting to his former wife and their family.

People who entertain the idea that Charles would have offered for Camilla if she had only waited for him IMHO have no idea how many pressures were on Charles back then not to marry her.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by MARG

Thinking back on Military Balls back then, much the same thing happened here, although tonsillectomies on the dance floor were definitely not the going thing. Myself, I have always thought that part of the story smacked of good old fashioned spite and malice.

Military, Hunt and Polo Balls all run along the same lines, try having even a chaste kiss and someone would probably knock you flying! Like you, I always thought it was a case of malice.

Would that be:

a. A woman without her man, is nothing, or (my personal favourite)

b. A woman, without her, man is nothing!

Precisely, everyone reads the same line differently, especially when taken out of context.

[Jo of Palatine]

Maybe as an add-on to the discussion: in 2003 Rebecca Tyrrel wrote the book Camilla: An Intimate Portrait (published by Short Books) where she quotes friends of Camilla among others like former servants. The Times published an excerpt:

'If she has a problem, rather than see a therapist, she will go foxhunting, come back and pour rum in her tea' - Times Online

In it of course the relationship with Charles is featured. The excerpt ends:

"Would Wallis Simpson have hung around all those years unmarried, not officially recognised, compared to a horse and a haddock? Which proves just one thing, whatever kind of person Camilla Parker Bowles is — adorable, as Jilly Cooper says, good fun, as so many of her friends say, a good mother, an excellent sex-motherer, manipulative, unfeeling, scheming, raunchy, all those things — she is also constant."

I personally did not read the book and don't know how reliable Tyrrel is as a writer but the excerpt was interesting.

[agatha1939]

Well, I was not really thinking about the lines of her "waiting for him" until he proposed, but more that, IMO they were NOT in love when they met. They obviously had a good rapport, got along well and became friends/lovers, but not necessarily in love and considering marriage. At least, I don't think SHE was in love with Charles, I always had the impression that she wanted APB, was dating him and wanted to marry him.

I still believe that later, after many years of strong and deep friendship, their relationship became love and then it was impossible for them to get married. Charles would never never never be allowed to marry a divorced woman, so he had to settle down with Diana ou whoever else. But IMO, he was deeply in love with Camilla when he got married and his marriage would not and did not change that. That's why I believe he should have been honest and had had a convenience marriage from the start, telling Diana (or whoever else) everything - she could have said yes or no, but she would know she was not entering a normal marriage. But this a discussion for another thread!

I do have to agree though, that at that time, BP and other royals would make very clear to everybody - including C&C - that Camilla was not "wife material" and maybe that had some influence on Charles, maybe that's why he went away without proposing or talking to her about a future together. But I still believe - IMO - that Camilla was not in love with Charles at that time, she married the man she wanted and loved and only later her feelings changed.

I wish I could know the truth, OMG I am so nosy!

[MARG]

Originally Posted by agatha1939

I wish I could know the truth, OMG I am so nosy!

My dear, you and everybody else. Welcome to the worldwide club.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

IMHo what really changed the view on marriages of an Heir to the Throne was the statement of Crown Prince Haakon of Norway that as in a constitutional monarchy the people can decide against him becoming king anytime by voting against the monarchy, he at least can decide whom to marry and that he chose Mette-Marit, despite her having a "past".

I really think this statement told exactly how nowadays the Royals view her job. They work for their country because they are Royals but they are free when it comes to their private life. Just like their "subjects" are free to choose when it comes to their private life.

That may be the case in some countries, and it may be more the case in Britain now, but the Prince of Wales is the heir to the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and until the 1990s the Church had a fairly blanket prohibition on marriage of divorced people. I realise that Camilla wasn't divorced back in the 1970s; I'm just saying that the CofE aspect of the monarchy has, at least until recently, meant that there are other considerations at play in terms of who the Prince of Wales may marry. Taking that together with the traditionalism, the legacy of the Duke of Windsor and the abdication, and the influence of the very old-fashioned Queen Mother and Lord Mountbatten on Charles, and you can see a lot of factors involved which work against just marrying for love.

Because of the changes in the Church of England ruling on divorce and remarriage, as well as the example of Charles himself and simply the fact that we live in somewhat different times now, the same constraints won't apply to William. Although if he does decide to give up Kate and take up with a divorcee or a single mother, it'll be interesting to see what happens. I have a feeling the Daily Mail will get quite hot under the collar.

[EmpressRouge]

Also, Lord Mountbatten was scheming to put his descendants on the throne. He was hoping for a match between his granddaughter Amanda Knatchbull and Charles. I've also read he was the one that kept pushing Queen to change the (future) family name to Mountbatten-Windsor.

Interestingly, many assume that Charles' admiration for Earl Mountbatten was because of Philip's closeness with the Earl. This is not true as Philip has claimed that his other uncle George, 2nd Marquess of Milford Haven was more influential even though the Marquess died early in 1938. His son David, 3rd Marquess was Philip's best man at his wedding. The Queen Mum, the other big influence in Charles' life, was not fond of Mountbatten and did not approve or enjoy his dynastic scheming. It was the Queen who admired Mountbatten, especially since he was the one who was most enthusiastic about Philip and Elizabeth's marriage.

[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.

[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.

[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??

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Diana had the same chance as Amanda Knatchbull and Jane Wellesley.

I disagree. Amanda Knatchbull and Jane Wellesley were not sheltered inexperienced teenagers who had fallen in love with a man(in this case the Prince of Wales) and were pinning all of their hopes and dreams on having that love returned to them...in FULL, not knowing the extent of his sexual attraction and love for another woman.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Thank you Elspeth for the passage and information, I had presumed that CaliforniaDreamin had the book with her when she said "and I quote".

Their behavior may have been shocking for some of the older guests, but everything the young did shocked back then (times haven't really changed). I have always challenged this account, purely based on my recollections of Polo & Hunt Balls. Yes he probably ignored Anna to some extent, she was possibly not as good a dancer or conversationist, and she did storm out, (they didn't call her whiplash for nothing), IMO.

This sentence sums up why I ask for links and full quotes - A woman without her man is nothing -

C & C were not THAT young...the Prince of Wales was approaching thirty-two and Camilla was a year or two older still. In other words they weren't horny teenagers at a school dance...they were adults well past thirty who behaved disgracefully and with no regard for others.

Whether or not Ms Wallace was a good dancer or conversationalist is hardly the point. He was her boyfriend and her date. Why bother to bring her if she was a ditz who couldn't converse or dance?

Charles has many good and admirable qualities, but there is no excusing his behavior during this particular period of his life.

[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.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

I disagree. Amanda Knatchbull and Jane Wellesley were not sheltered inexperienced teenagers who had fallen in love with a man(in this case the Prince of Wales) and were pinning all of their hopes and dreams on having that love returned to them...in FULL, not knowing the extent of his sexual attraction and love for another woman.

I don't see how Diana cannot have had indications of Charles feeling more than friendship for Camilla. By her own admissions, Diana seemed to have several hints. She chose to ignore the hints probably because she was like many immature women in thinking she could change it. If it had been me, I'd have said, shoot, he can have whoever he wants, but he can marry that other person, not me. There is no way I would have married him with the kind of hints Diana confessed herself to have had.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

I don't see how Diana cannot have had indications of Charles feeling more than friendship for Camilla. By her own admissions, Diana seemed to have several hints. She chose to ignore the hints probably because she was like many immature women in thinking she could change it. If it had been me, I'd have said, shoot, he can have whoever he wants, but he can marry that other person, not me. There is no way I would have married him with the kind of hints Diana confessed herself to have had.

She had some intimation of what was going on VERY late in her engagement. When she went to her sisters about a week before the wedding and told them that she had doubts about Charles they made the famous comment "too late Duch, your face is on the tea towels".

Also keep in mind that Diana was 19-20 years old. She had every reason to believe that Charles would love her and commit only to her, which I believe he did. Just not the way she loved him. It's very easy to for those of us who were not the principals to sit back and say "oh I would have done this or that" if I had been her. But I remember what it was like in the spring and summer of 1981...the whole world seemed obsessed with this wedding and this "fairy tale". Mugs had been sold, heads of state had been invited...and her face was indeed on the tea towels. I have no doubt in my mind that if Diana had realized the extent of the Charles/Camilla relationship in Jan-Feb 1981 there is no way she would have married the man. But she did not really find out until it was too late.

The people who WERE in the know and who could have warned her did not.

".....only the perspicacious Princess Margaret foresaw the breakers ahead...the rock on which the marriage would founder. To a friend who said how delighted they must be with the wedding she replied 'We're extremely relieved but SHE(Camilla Parker Bowles) has no intention of giving him up' "

pgs 87-89 paragraph #2 paperback edition of DIANA by Sarah Bradford.

Also from the same book a quote from couturier Victor Edelstein..." the essential basis of that tragedy was that she was in love with him when she married him..." Pg #91...chapter 6.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

C & C were not THAT young...the Prince of Wales was approaching thirty-two and Camilla was a year or told older still....... ...they were adults well past thirty who behaved disgracefully and with no regard for others.

Clearly you have never been to one of these dances, where anyone under the age of 50 is considered a youngster!

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

I disagree. Amanda Knatchbull and Jane Wellesley were not sheltered inexperienced teenagers who had fallen in love with a man(in this case the Prince of Wales) and were pinning all of their hopes and dreams on having that love returned to them...in FULL, not knowing the extent of his sexual attraction and love for another woman.

And you know this how? Or is this just IYO?

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

And you know this how? Or is this just IYO?

I know this the same way YOU know all the info that you post, Skydragon. Like the comment that "all young people behave" like Charles and Camilla did at the Cirencester Ball. How would you know that...is that just IYO?

Seriously, have YOU ever read anything suggesting that Anna Wallace was a naive virgin teenager? Or Amanda Knatchbull, for that matter?

[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.