C&C love story - the early days

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

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?

Probably because I am a similar age and attended many of these balls. My comments are based, as I originally said, on experience.

I couldn't presume to know what two other women thought, knew or how experienced in the ways of anything they were.

[COUNTESS]

No one can know what anyone thinks or feels unless they tell them. It seems, though, anything, with the least criticism towards C or C, in some eyes, is always a fabrication or unknown. Bradord's book was researched by a very fine biographer, she doesn't commonly print things she thinks are idle gossip. And who knows if she questioned the very people, wther they would tell the truth?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

No one can know what anyone thinks or feels unless they tell them. It seems, though, anything, with the least criticism towards C or C, in some eyes, is always a fabrication or unknown. Bradord's book was researched by a very fine biographer, she doesn't commonly print things she thinks are idle gossip. And who knows if she questioned the very people, wther they would tell the truth?

I have often questioned some of the 2 person conversations between Diana and ? that are printed as fact. Unless the people concerned decide to tell 'their' version, we cannot possibly know whether it is true or not.

From other posts, Bradford, at least in part based her book on another authors work. She is probably a fine author but just because she married into the peerage, would not mean that everyone suddenly accepts her as one of their own and spills the beans. The main players and the majority of their closest friends have never, as far as we know and IMO, spoken to anyone. One exception seems to have been a displaced bitter ex girlfriend.

Nobody minds fair criticism, but when it is based on a vague 'I read' without a link, or the paragraph/sentence concerned, then that criticism is open to criticism.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

No one can know what anyone thinks or feels unless they tell them. It seems, though, anything, with the least criticism towards C or C, in some eyes, is always a fabrication or unknown. Bradord's book was researched by a very fine biographer, she doesn't commonly print things she thinks are idle gossip. And who knows if she questioned the very people, wther they would tell the truth?

Indeed. Bradford also states in her book that the late Diana was an habitual liar and a world class manipulator, but no one ever seems to challenge negative information said or written about the late Princess.

In the end all any author has to go on are interviews with people he or she considers reputable, as well as previously published work. In the notes it appears that the people who contributed to this book were close to one or all of the three principals and spoke only on condition of anonymity for obvious reasons.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

Indeed. Bradford also states in her book that the late Diana was an habitual liar and a world class manipulator, but no one ever seems to challenge negative information said or written about the late Princess.

Perhaps because IPO's it was true? Many people have questioned negative posts about diana, you only have to read through some of those threads to find that.

In the end all any author has to go on are interviews with people he or she considers reputable, as well as previously published work. In the notes it appears that the people who contribute to this book who were close to either of the three principals spoke only on condition of anonymity for obvious reasons.

Or they were on the edge of the set and asked for anonymity because it would not be the truth, just what they wanted people to believe was the truth.

[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.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Perhaps because IPO's it was true? Many people have questioned negative posts about diana, you only have to read through some of those threads to find that.Or they were on the edge of the set and asked for anonymity because it would not be the truth, just what they wanted people to believe was the truth.

So...the many anonymous sources who said that Diana behaved unreasonably
and childishly and carried on nuisance calls to Oliver Hoare can't be believed because they had an axe to grind?

The "anonymous source" who stated that Charles and Camilla stayed away from one another for the first two years of the Royal marriage were making it up out of an attempt to make C&C seem noble and self-sacrificing?

Or are you saying that only the people who requested to be anonymous but did not say flattering things about C and C were the ones making things up and were "on the edge of the set"...which is it?

[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

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

So...the many anonymous sources who said that Diana behaved unreasonably
and childishly and carried on nuisance calls to Oliver Hoare can't be believed because they had an axe to grind?

The "anonymous source" who stated that Charles and Camilla stayed away from one another for the first two years of the Royal marriage were making it up out of an attempt to make C&C seem noble and self-sacrificing?

Or are you saying that only the people who requested to be anonymous but did not say flattering things about C and C were the ones making things up and were "on the edge of the set"...which is it?

Let's be perfectly honest.... you would argue with anything I might write. Regarding Diana and Oliver Hoare, I believe Hoare and the police confirmed that she had in fact stalked him. As the inquest revealed, many of her 'friends' were able to confirm a great many of the allegations. This however is not a thread about the dead ex wife!

In many cases those that wish to remain anonymous have their motives open to question, I can't recall an anonymous source quoted as saying C & C did not get back together until '86 but then I don't recall any of their friends speaking out of turn.

End of reply
-----------------
IME, authors and the media are quite happy to misquote, either directly or by use of punctuation. If challenged their reply is usually, you will have to speak to the author (almost impossible) or obtain an injunction (very costly), the papers tend to say 'sue me' and if any of them print a retraction, it is so small and insignificant, nobody can read it. If the author is approached their reply is normally 'Oh, I misunderstood', so please don't tell me that reputable authors don't misrepresent anything they have been told or heard as gossip!

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

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.

Good point. Nay, a very important point. I know sometimes I am quick to judge Diana because I am so baffled by her irrationality. Yet I am now appropriately humbled. I will also add that I would not have traded places with her for all the world, and oh my, if I had been in her shoes (though the shoes themselves must have been nice to wear sometimes) I am likely to have carried out things much worse. I always say I would be the worst royal ever.