Charles and Camilla - The Early Years (1970s)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Camilla's past was no more checkered that Anna Wallace's and Charles proposed to her. I think the whole thing about Charles marrying a woman with no past was more about PR and taking the path of least resistance (or so they thought) rather than if he wanted to marry a woman who had "a past" that the Queen and / or Parliament would refuse permission.

I think it boiled down to Charles was drawn to Camilla but was not ready to marry and he did not get the opportunity to get to the point of pursuing marriage with Camilla because Camilla, being more drawn to / in love with Andrew Parker Bowles along with not being interested in becoing part of the BRF and all that entailed, did not waity around for him.
 
That's it in a nutshell. Camilla had pursued APB for years before she married him and was totally taken in with him. I've no doubt that her relationship with Charles before she married was a good, strong friendship but it wasn't something they ever though could or would lead to marriage.

The one thing that resulted from their relationship in the very beginning was a good, solid friendship that was to last through the decades through both Camilla's and Charles' marriages to other people. They connected at a level that Charles never really connected with anyone else other than maybe Dale "Kanga" Tryon.

Perhaps the way that things happened with C&C's relationship over the decades was, in the long run, the best way. When they did eventually marry, their relationship had already been on several levels, tested and tried and had its ups and downs and was on a very good, solid foundation before they said their "I dos". Its why the relationship is such a happy one today.
 
Camilla's past was no more checkered that Anna Wallace's and Charles proposed to her. I think the whole thing about Charles marrying a woman with no past was more about PR and taking the path of least resistance (or so they thought) rather than if he wanted to marry a woman who had "a past" that the Queen and / or Parliament would refuse permission.

I.
No it was not about PR. it was a real concern. Othterwise given tat Charles preferred slightly older women who DID have experience and made him feel more comfrotable, why would he have chosen a much younger girl like Diana.
and Charles never proposed to Anna Wallace, that I've heard of. he proposed to Diana and to Amanda Knatchbull.. and obviously to Camilla later. That's all.
 
Charles also proposed to Anna Wallace and according to some reports he proposed to her twice.

It may have been a "real concern" in that the BRF does not like to make waves nevertheless I stand by my point that it was not at the level that it was a given that a woman with "a past" would have not gotten the approval of the Queen or Parliament. My point being that if Camilla and Charles wanted to marry each other in the 1970s that Camilla having a past would not have been on par with Camilla being a Catholic or a divorcee. It was a PR thing, and supposedly when Louis Mountbatten was establishing the "no past" criterion, the rationale was that if a candidate had "a past" and the press got wind of it then they would run stories about the previous lovers / relationships, i.e., it was a PR problem.
 
Just to clarify things. Camilla was never in her life Roman Catholic. She and Andrew married in a Catholic church and her children were raised Catholic but Camilla, herself, never converted from the Church of England.

Uncle "Dickie" Mountbatten was the person Charles listened to most when it came to relationships. Camilla and Charles spent quite a bit of time together at Broadlands back when they first met but Mountbatten didn't think that Camilla was "bride material" for Charles but rather good for sowing the wild oats.

The point is moot anyways because even if Charles had gone the "non negotiable" route back in the 70s with Camilla, the chances of Camilla turning down Charles' proposal was good. She had her cap set at Andrew PB.
 
Charles also proposed to Anna Wallace and according to some reports he proposed to her twice.

It may have been a "real concern" in that the BRF does not like to make waves nevertheless I stand by my point that it was not at the level that it was a given that a woman with "a past" would have not gotten the approval of the Queen or Parliament. My point being that if Camilla and Charles wanted to marry each other in the 1970s that Camilla having a past would not have been on par with Camilla being a Catholic or a divorcee. It was a PR thing, and supposedly when Louis Mountbatten was establishing the "no past" criterion, the rationale was that if a candidate had "a past" and the press got wind of it then they would run stories about the previous lovers / relationships, i.e., it was a PR problem.
I don't know what you mean by a PR problem. of course the reasoning behnd the idea was that if a woman had a sexual past, tthe press would get hold of it, and it would run stories and be embarrassing. As we know from Davina Sheffield's boyfriend tattling to the papers..
which was why it was unlikely that a woman with a sexual past, like Cam would have been accepted by the queen as Charles' wife.
if she was a divorced woman the same would have applied because as the future governor of the C of E, Charles could not, then have married a divorced woman because it would look bad..and the C of E would be unhappy with it.
I have never heard of Charles' proposing to Anna Wallace. where did you read this story... because I don't believe that if he considered her as a serious candidate for his wife, he would have been so careless abuot her reputation that he would almost have been caught with her, in a semi naked state, outdoors.
 
Just to clarify things. Camilla was never in her life Roman Catholic. She and Andrew married in a Catholic church and her children were raised Catholic but Camilla, herself, never converted from the Church of England.


The point is moot anyways because even if Charles had gone the "non negotiable" route back in the 70s with Camilla, the chances of Camilla turning down Charles' proposal was good. She had her cap set at Andrew PB.

yes Camilla wasn't a Catholic,. APB Was.
 
I don't know what you mean by a PR problem. of course the reasoning behnd the idea was that if a woman had a sexual past, tthe press would get hold of it, and it would run stories and be embarrassing. As we know from Davina Sheffield's boyfriend tattling to the papers..
which was why it was unlikely that a woman with a sexual past, like Cam would have been accepted by the queen as Charles' wife.
if she was a divorced woman the same would have applied because as the future governor of the C of E, Charles could not, then have married a divorced woman because it would look bad..and the C of E would be unhappy with it.
I have never heard of Charles' proposing to Anna Wallace. where did you read this story... because I don't believe that if he considered her as a serious candidate for his wife, he would have been so careless abuot her reputation that he would almost have been caught with her, in a semi naked state, outdoors.

In all the sources I've read, there's been no mention of Charles proposing to Anna "Whiplash" Wallace. It was Anna that got overly fed up with Charles' behavior at times and stormed off on him.

The way Charles was raised and with people around him always conforming to what the prince wanted, Charles was rather an egocentric type of a person to date. Everything went according to his schedule and his pleasure and he couldn't fathom why Anna would get upset with him if he took her to a ball and danced with her once and spent the rest of the time dancing with Camilla.
This was a pattern he was to follow throughout all his relationships and most probably still figures into his relationship with Camilla today. Camilla knows Charles well enough to accept him as he is and is happy with the way things are and that's why it works so well for them.

He did propose to Amanda Knatchbull and she wisely turned him down. Although they got along good together and had a good relationship, as Amanda was known to have said, "there were no sparks there". I think that proposal came about mostly because Charles knew that it would have pleased Uncle Dickie.
 
I have readt that it was her mother who said there was "no spark". I didn't think that Amanda would be likely to say that overlty.
I thought that her reason for turning him down, was parltly that there was no real romantic relationship ever between them and it had all been pushed by Uncle Dickie and also because Am had no desire for a public life esp after her grandfather was killed.
I agree that Charles could be selfish at times, of course he was likely to be. however from what Ive read, the first time he took Anna to a ball and danced with her and then with Cam, he was also dancing with other partners, which was proper formal party behaviour (not to be with one woman even your date) but Anna was displeased. the second time it happened, he was dancing or talking more with Camilla and Anna got really mad and stormed off and there was no reconciliation..
but I don't believe that Charles was intending to propose to Anna... She was stormy and hot tempered.. fine for a mistress but not for a future Queen.
 
I've never read in any published biography of Charles that he proposed to Anna Wallace. However, reports that he did have popped up periodically in newspapers, such as the one below,

Prince Charles and his relationships - Telegraph

Also I remember reading years ago that a couple of Anna's friends blabbed to others that Charles had discussed marriage with her more than once, and that story appeared ages ago in a blog called royalfavourites, which specialises in little known facts and tales about the royals. It's set up in such a way though that my little iPad can't easily access the site.

You have to scroll down. Good luck!

https://royalfavourites.blogspot.com.au/2016/09/princes-princesses-of-wales-lovers.html
 
Last edited:
I can't get that to work, it keeps jumping!! but I'd question these sorts of reports. it does seem pretty indisputable that Chas was almost caught making love to her outside at Balmoral or somewhere by press photographers.
So I realy doubt if he saw her as wife material, if he was that careless about her
 
..... I know that even I would find it uncomfortable to be married to someone who had an already existing close circle of friends that I found not only totally different from myself but one my husband felt very at home with. It helps me to understand why Di had a huge "me vs. them" attitude when it came to Charles' free time and his friends.

That is an exellent observation!

Throw in the family she was marrying into (and the constant media attention that came with it), the 13 year age gap (which shouldn't matter if the situation is right), engagement at 19 and a husband whose emotional ties lay elsewhere, she did quite well to last as long as she did!

Diana came from the right background and was expected to conform with the reality of life at that level. She didn't and the rest is history.
 
Just to clarify things. Camilla was never in her life Roman Catholic. She and Andrew married in a Catholic church and her children were raised Catholic but Camilla, herself, never converted from the Church of England.
I was not saying that Camilla was Catholic, I was making an illustration, I also included being a divorcee in my illustration and Camilla was not a divorcee in the 1970s.

Uncle "Dickie" Mountbatten was the person Charles listened to most when it came to relationships. Camilla and Charles spent quite a bit of time together at Broadlands back when they first met but Mountbatten didn't think that Camilla was "bride material" for Charles but rather good for sowing the wild oats.
To be sure Charles put a lot of stock in what Louis Mountbatten / Uncle Dickie thought and his advice but he was not a complete submissive. Fast forward to the late 1970s, that's when Charles was carrying on with married women like Camilla and Kanga Tryon, which distressed his great uncle tremendously because he feared that Charles could end up like his other great uncle, Edward VIII, and he did not mince words in the letters he sent Charles over the matter, nevertheless Charles continued on with his relationships with married women.

The point is moot anyways because even if Charles had gone the "non negotiable" route back in the 70s with Camilla, the chances of Camilla turning down Charles' proposal was good. She had her cap set at Andrew PB.
I agree. IMO Camilla setting her cap for Andrew Parker Bowles is really what torpedoed Charles and Camilla, Parte Une.


I don't know what you mean by a PR problem. of course the reasoning behnd the idea was that if a woman had a sexual past, tthe press would get hold of it, and it would run stories and be embarrassing.

That's called a PR problem.


As we know from Davina Sheffield's boyfriend tattling to the papers..
which was why it was unlikely that a woman with a sexual past, like Cam would have been accepted by the queen as Charles' wife.
Queen who? Queen Elizabeth II? The woman who married a man that no one approved of. Come to think Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are a good illustration, just like with Charles, there was a sort of checklist of who would be a suitable mate for the then Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip did not meet the criteria, and yet the marriage took place.


if she was a divorced woman the same would have applied because as the future governor of the C of E, Charles could not, then have married a divorced woman because it would look bad..and the C of E would be unhappy with it.
My point, which it seems like you disagree with, is that marrying a woman with a past was problematic in that it posed a PR problem, but it was not on par with marrying a divorcee or a Catholic.

I have never heard of Charles' proposing to Anna Wallace. where did you read this story... because I don't believe that if he considered her as a serious candidate for his wife, he would have been so careless abuot her reputation that he would almost have been caught with her, in a semi naked state, outdoors.
It was reported by in the The Telegraph and the Daily Mail to name two. When I have seen write ups about Charles and Anna Wallace, I have seen more references to him proposing to her than references to the incident where they were nearly caught in an intimate moment.
 
Last edited:
well if you really think that the queen would have approved of the marriage to Camilla, I can't argue.
I've never seen any ref to Charles proposing to Anna, just refs to their rows about his dancing iwht Camilla and the incident where a photographer apparently managed to snap her where they had been making out, outdoors. I don't believe that the press would have metntoned that "embarrassing photo" if it didn't exist and I tend to like to see something in a book rather than the papers.
I wouldn't say that no one approved of Philip, clearly the King must have been ok with the match, or he would not have given permission. My impression was that some of the Palace old courters and some of the RF didn't like him because Phil was young and brash.. but that the Kings main objection was that his daughter was rather young..
But he was royal, related to the queen and knew what Royal life was like. He was intelligent and he was committed to the UK and had served in the armed forces... and the King was OK with him and gave permission.
I don't believe the queen would have agreed to Charles marrying a woman like Camilla in the 70s.
 
Last edited:
IIRC the 'courtiers' actively pushed titled Englishmen at Princess Elizabeth and strongly opposed her marrying a penniless/homeless foreigner. Her father wasn't too keen about it either except he knew Phillip made her happy and so he gave in.


LaRae
 
That is an exellent observation!

Throw in the family she was marrying into (and the constant media attention that came with it), the 13 year age gap (which shouldn't matter if the situation is right), engagement at 19 and a husband whose emotional ties lay elsewhere, she did quite well to last as long as she did!

.

She didn't really have a choice though Dee Anna. I have read that Diana talked about leaving C when Will was just a baby, that she was really unhappy that early on. however realistically, I think she knew that she could not walk out of this marriage in the way she could have, had Charles not been the POW.
I think that she problaby DID talk about leaving him, at least somewhere in the mid 80s at least and was probably told that it could not happen, that the marriage had to keep going.
I agree that yes she did find the Charles circle daunting, and after a bit of an effort to get on with them she soon returned to her old circle of friends and the two circles never really met. But IMO that even need not have been a problem or not a big one, had she and Charles not had an almost complete lack of meeting of minds.
 
I think we're getting off track here. Lets leave the C&D discussions to the appropriate threads? This is a good discussion and I'd hate to see it derailed and the mods close the thread.

Charles' circle of friends certainly were a closed knit bunch though. The friends he made, he kept and they remained fiercely loyal to him. They all enjoyed the same country pursuits, had round robins of house parties and Charles grew to depend on their advice quite a bit.
 
I think we would be getting OT if we go on about C's friends even! I don't know if Charles really depended on their advice that much. Reputedy, he asked friends what they thought of Diana and a few felt that she wasn't right for him and said so. But he still married her. Like most people, I think he does what he wants to.. even if he asks for advice. but yes I think they are loyal to him, they don't usualy talk to the media much, and they helped to conceal his affair with Camilla.
 
I remember seeing the picture in the paper of C and C at the tree initial carvings. I thought then (as a teen) this is the one. And then life took its course. Camilla has withstood more than I can imagine. I hope she gets the the proper title when the time comes I doubt it would happen but I’d love to see them go back to that tree for their Christmas card picture
 
I remember seeing the picture in the paper of C and C at the tree initial carvings. I thought then (as a teen) this is the one.
..... I doubt it would happen but I’d love to see them go back to that tree for their Christmas card picture

I can't see that happen and definitely not this year, Diana's 20th Anniversary! :lol:

Nor I imagine would William and Harry be too impressed with the merging of the two relationship lifespans.
 
I can't get that to work, it keeps jumping!! but I'd question these sorts of reports. it does seem pretty indisputable that Chas was almost caught making love to her outside at Balmoral or somewhere by press photographers.
So I realy doubt if he saw her as wife material, if he was that careless about her

Careless? “When little head gets big, big head gets little.”
 
Careless? “When little head gets big, big head gets little.”

Charles wasn't sexually involved iwht Diana, and he was careful with her, to ensure that nothing compromising happened.. I don't believe that reporters ever got a pic of them together till they were engaged.
He was sexually involved with Anna, and clearly didn't worry about the possibility of their being snapped fooling around. which seems to me to indicate that he saw her as a mistress, not a wife.. and I don't know of any convincing evidence that he proposed to her.
 
Charles wasn't sexually involved iwht Diana, and he was careful with her, to ensure that nothing compromising happened.. I don't believe that reporters ever got a pic of them together till they were engaged.
He was sexually involved with Anna, and clearly didn't worry about the possibility of their being snapped fooling around. which seems to me to indicate that he saw her as a mistress, not a wife.. and I don't know of any convincing evidence that he proposed to her.

Lets put it this way. Charles and Diana were careful that nothing compromising ever made its way to public knowledge. :whistling:

I've read in several sources where Diana was driven back to London from Highgrove early in the morning quite disheveled and glowing before the wedding. It really doesn't matter really. Remember the big story about the blond and the train? That mystery has not been solved to this day. Some say it was Camilla. Some say it was Diana and some swear there was no one that night on the train.
 
What sources?
yes there was the Royal Train story, but the point about that was that when it looked as if It was "Diana on the train", the RF went into "defending her honour" mode..
I don't believe anyway that Charles and Diana were sexually involved before the wedding. There is a quote in Tina B's biography, which although it is not from a named source, seems to me to be a bit ungallant but possibly true.. that Charles said that the "first night was nothing special, that it was nice but Diana was very naïve".
 
What sources?
yes there was the Royal Train story, but the point about that was that when it looked as if It was "Diana on the train", the RF went into "defending her honour" mode..
I don't believe anyway that Charles and Diana were sexually involved before the wedding. There is a quote in Tina B's biography, which although it is not from a named source, seems to me to be a bit ungallant but possibly true.. that Charles said that the "first night was nothing special, that it was nice but Diana was very naïve".

If memory serves me right, Stephen Barry who was Charles' valet, knew of the nights they spent together at Highgrove. So did members of the protection squad at the time. With the amount of people constantly in and around both Charles and Diana from the get go, it would have been impossible to have kept it a secret.

It doesn't matter anyhow and talking about Diana in this thread is going off topic. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom