C&C love story - the early days

[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.

[Mirkwood Princess]

I read in wikipedia that she married Andrew only after the Prince was not allowed to marry her.... if this truly was the case, why?

[Elspeth]

Since this topic is being discussed in another thread in this forum

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...rue-17276.html

I'm closing this thread so we don't have the same conversation going on in two places.

[Duchess]

just because a source wishes to remain anonymous doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't reliable or accurate. the only way to be sure that anything we read/hear is if it come straight from one of the royals and since that's the only way then we'd have nothing to discuss and no forum.

[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.

[Menarue]

I wonder if any of you have read the book "Shadows of a Princess" written by a Mr. Jephson who was, for many years, the Princess of Wales´s private secretary and knew her extremely well. He didn´t have to quote anyone as he was there. If you really want to know more about the Princess and her character I suggest you read this book. If I remember rightly her butler was not mentioned even once..

[Elspeth]

Yes, I've read that book, and found it quite interesting. I think, like most people writing about Diana who were actually involved with her in some way, he's written the book at least partly to make himself look good, but even so, what he says does seem to tally with similar things reported by other people.

[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

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,

Surely that is what everyone bases their opinion on

especially insider knowledge, partly because (and please understand I'm not accusing you of anything here but simply making a general statement,

Again I don't believe I have laid claim to insider knowledge, I always try to abide by the simple rule that If you are unwilling to provide proof, people think you are an ass if you lay claim to being a 3rd cousin once removed, especially as it would be hard to prove

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.

I wasn't suggesting every piece of information from such books be dismissed, but do feel that we should be able to question where the author got the original tale. From the original source that you supplied, it seems logical to examine whether this was just a case of a bitter ex girlfriend making waves, after all Anna wasn't the one quoted.

As we have just seen on the Diana thread, just because a source gives their name, it may not be the truth and we should be able to give our reasons as to why we don't believe it and whether it is based on personal experiences or just a feeling.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Surely that is what everyone bases their opinion on

Not in this context, I wouldn't have thought. I mean, I don't think it's a secret that I have a pretty low opinion of the Queen Mother, but I never met her and I don't think I know anyone who did. That opinion has been based simply on reading books, magazines, and newspapers and watching TV documentaries.

Again I don't believe I have laid claim to insider knowledge, I always try to abide by the simple rule that If you are unwilling to provide proof, people think you are an ass if you lay claim to being a 3rd cousin once removed, especially as it would be hard to prove

Exactly - but as I said, this wasn't directed at you, it was a general statement. This sort of thing is particularly prevalent in the Monaco and Middle Eastern forums, where we've actually had people say that they're friends or relations of this or that royal, they KNOW FOR A FACT that this or that thing is/isn't true, and the discussion about it in the thread must STOP IMMEDIATELY as a result. If we gave in to that sort of thing, we'd be asking to have the brakes put on any conversation involving a disagreement.

I wasn't suggesting every piece of information from such books be dismissed, but do feel that we should be able to question where the author got the original tale. From the original source that you supplied, it seems logical to examine whether this was just a case of a bitter ex girlfriend making waves, after all Anna wasn't the one quoted.

Indeed; however, in this case, we have the weight of Sarah Bradford behind the story as well as Christopher Wilson. This is a bit of a poser, because if the source hadn't been named, it would have been easy to say "oh, it's just the author making it up" or "it's just a waiter at the ball trying to make a bit of money" or something. Presumably there would have been other witnesses as well as Jane Ward, and presumably, if Sarah Bradford had wanted to verify this story before including it in her book, it wouldn't have been impossible to do it. Which suggests to me that it's worth taking seriously even if you don't necessarily believe the details. I hope that if this had been a complete fabrication concocted by a scheming ex-girlfriend, it wouldn't have found its way into the Bradford book even if it did make it into the Wilson book. I might be being too generous to Sarah Bradford, but her book did seem to be trying to strive for a higher standard than that.

As we have just seen on the Diana thread, just because a source gives their name, it may not be the truth and we should be able to give our reasons as to why we don't believe it and whether it is based on personal experiences or just a feeling.

Yes, but this is where things can get a bit awkward. Something like "well, I happen to know her, and she isn't always reliable" is getting perilously close to the Monaco and Middle Eastern examples I quoted above. I mean, if a well-regarded and reputable author believes a story enough to include it in a book or article, especially if the source of the story stands by it enough to be quoted by name, then it does need to be taken seriously enough to not be dismissed without good reason. I agree that there are sometimes good reasons for doing so, but some of the challenges to some of these stories - on both sides of the Charles&Camilla vs Diana issue - do seem to be based on nothing very much more than a desire to place all the blame on the other side.

There's one other factor here too. If a person is going to challenge every last little assertion by one side of the issue but give equivalently suspect assertions on the other side a free pass, then it starts to look more like prejudice and harassment than a genuine desire to get at the truth. We've seen this with certain late unlamented ex-members who couldn't stand the thought that Diana didn't have wings and a halo, and I'm afraid we're beginning to see it again now, only this time applied to Kate Middleton and Camilla as well as Diana. It really makes for an uncomfortable atmosphere, and we've been getting enough complaints recently that we're trying to encourage moderation and fairness on this issue.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

If a person is going to challenge every last little assertion by one side of the issue but give equivalently suspect assertions on the other side a free pass, then it starts to look more like prejudice and harassment than a genuine desire to get at the truth.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my post. Although I brought up the Diana thread, I don't for a moment believe the story in The News of the World, Burrell may have said it but if so, IMO, it was just wishful thinking on his part.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by 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!

I lost my connection to the internet; a lot has been discussed since then.

I agree with you that its most probable the Charles Camilla relationship started as a friendship. For a man like Charles, I suspect that friends are far more important than lovers. He's had a core group of friends that have pretty much remained friends throughout their adulthood. I think Charles was both fortunate and unfortunate in that he had so many close female friends; fortunate because a lot of men don't have the pleasure of women as friends without being lovers, but unfortunate because having such a number of close female companionship, I imagine Charles' preference would have been never to marry but to enjoy the companionship of his closest friends. Friends don't make demands on a man like lovers do. But that never was going to do for the heir to the throne.

Charles in his interviews before his marriage was not a romantic; he always stressed that his future wife had to understand the job and that he had to choose carefully because people would expect a lot from the woman he married. He did like the contemplative life in the country and chose for his friends those who shared the same interests and inclinations as he did. Diana appeared at first to enjoy that type of life and she grew up in it. It appeared his approach to Diana was the same as his approach to other women who appeared to share his interests. She was a lot younger than his other women friends which made it hard for her to fit in even if she had had the same interests.

I think that Charles knew this and that is why he said, "I feel lucky that she is willing to take me on" because he knew that the woman he married would not only take on him but his lifestyle, his position, and his circle of companions and friends. That's also why he said that he told her before a trip to Australia when they would be separated so that she would have a few weeks to think it over. Diana confidently said she didn't need time to think it over and said yes.

Arranged marriage? I wouldn't go that far but Charles and the Royal Family did consider the position of his wife as a job. From the time I started to watch the British Royal Family, there seemed to be no place for romance in the search for Charles' bride. It seemed so obvious that its amazing that anyone would have taken his liaison as a fairytale romance or anything other than finding the perfect girl for the job. I think the Royal Family and Charles could have been forgiven for expecting Diana's grandmother, the lady-in-waiting to the Queen Mother, and her father, the equerry to the Queen to fill Diana in on what exactly was expected of her rather than having to tell her themselves. According to Bradford, Diana's grandmother had been the lady-in-waiting who first took the young Princess Elizabeth in hand and taught her how to behave as a young Princess in public in the years before she became Queen. This was the whole reason they chose an aristocratic girl from a closely allied noble family so that her family could guide her as needed.

I think for Charles it was not so much one woman he refused to give up but he refused to give up his lifestyle and his circle of friends which forced any woman that married him to succeed in that company of friends or else be shunned by them and by her husband. Any wife of Charles who could not hold her own among that very assertive and confident group of people was bound to be in trouble.

[COUNTESS]

Mostly it was boy met girl, boy went to sow his "wild oats, girl married another. Boy and girl got together after a period of time passed and continued their relationship. Boy was "forced" to marry proper girl. He did thus. Boy expected to continue doing whatever he pleased. Boy was a Prince. Wife created havoc when finding boy had another girl. Life became untenable. Boy and wife divorced. Wife is killed. Boy decided if he was a prince he could do anything and demanded to marry girl. It didn't much matter as they had two "pure" heirs. And, boy and girl lived happily ever after.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Charles in his interviews before his marriage was not a romantic; he always stressed that his future wife had to understand the job and that he had to choose carefully because people would expect a lot from the woman he married. He did like the contemplative life in the country and chose for his friends those who shared the same interests and inclinations as he did. Diana appeared at first to enjoy that type of life and she grew up in it. It appeared his approach to Diana was the same as his approach to other women who appeared to share his interests. She was a lot younger than his other women friends which made it hard for her to fit in even if she had had the same interests.

I think part of the problem was that there were contradictions with respect to Charles. In at least one of the interviews he said that although marrying a princess would be advantageous from the point of view of his wife knowing ahead of time what sort of life to expect, he'd really rather like to marry an English girl (and then there was that "or possibly Welsh" afterthought when he remembered where he was supposed to be Prince of, but whatever). And that's what he ended up doing, which made it appear that he'd put love before practicality (because back then we didn't know about Camilla lurking in the background).

Also, it was fairly well known even before he had his whinge at Dimbleby that he wasn't quite the same sort of hardened he-man as his father but was more sensitive and romantic altogether, which again gave the idea that he was more likely to marry for love.

So he goes and marries this pretty young English girl, and of course the newspapers played up the "love match" business to the hilt, and it seemed to be at least somewhat consistent with the facts. There wer