Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part 1

[Elspeth]

How low have we sunk in values and sanctity when we view this all as normal, acceptable, rational behavior.......

Well, in the past the nobility and royals had to marry for reasons other than personal ones, and it was accepted that after heirs had been produced incompatible couples could find their emotional fulfillment elsewhere. As this sort of requirement was ending and marriages were being made more for love, so that it shouldn't have been necessary to find one's soulmate somewhere other than in one's spouse, the permissive society happened along and promiscuity became more the norm anyway.

I found it interesting that the Queen Mother, as Duchess of York, was friendly with Lady Furness when she was the Prince of Wales's mistress; her aversion to Wallis seemed to be that Wallis was ambitious and indiscreet, not that she was a married woman who was the Prince's mistress.

 

[Genevieve]

Oh please..give me a break. Maybe in some backward third world country it is.

I certainly can pass judgement on a person who breaks their marriage vows. I have seen it happen with my own parents.

I have no problem ignoring the person who caused all the pain from it.

If you are not adult enough to work through your marital problems, then get a divorce or anullment.

It is a little more than "Oh wow, what are going to get from Crate and Barrel?????"

So you're saying that countries or religions in which polygamy is acceptable are "backward?" That is really a very ethnocentric way of thinking. There are wonderful and different customs and traditions all around the world and one shouldn't pass judgement on them just because we are not familiar with them or don't understand them.

 

[ysbel]

Ah Lady Marmalade, the English aristocracy has always been a mystery to me. In some ways, they are more foreign than the royals. A royal expert once said on 60 Minutes that the aristocracy married the first wife to preserve the bloodlines and the second wife for pleasure.

Guys who without warning break off their marriage from their wife of 20 years to marry some stunner half their age to prove their manhood or worse run off with their wife's best friend don't get much sympathy from me. I think its disgusting. But if the marriage is bad and they found someone more supportive then I still don't like it but I understand it more. If that makes any sense. At least they left for someone they love rather than for someone who just strokes their ego. I would be really mad if my husband left me just for ego. I would be really hurt if he left me for someone he loved more but then I'd have to chuck it up to the fact that our relationship wasn't meant to be. For me, in some sense, it would be easier to get over. In other words, if he's going to leave me, he'd better have a damn good reason for doing so!

When people marry they think they love each other and that it will work out but its hard to really know a person until you're married. I don't think royal marriages are as cold-bloodedly arranged as it appears. Love is not the only consideration in any marriage: compatibility, loved ones' relationships with your family and friends, shared goals and aspirations all play a part in the marriage equation.

 

[sara1981]

Tom Parker Bowles saw both parents cheat throughout their marriage. Hopefully, he will realize this is not normal or acceptable in a marriage and won't hurt Sarah by doing this.

oh my god!

TPB saw his parents have cheat of had affair about his mother had affair with the Prince of Wales and his dad had affair with another woman! who told you about that!

Sara Boyce

 

[love_cc]

Well, in the past the nobility and royals had to marry for reasons other than personal ones, and it was accepted that after heirs had been produced incompatible couples could find their emotional fulfillment elsewhere. As this sort of requirement was ending and marriages were being made more for love, so that it shouldn't have been necessary to find one's soulmate somewhere other than in one's spouse, the permissive society happened along and promiscuity became more the norm anyway.

I found it interesting that the Queen Mother, as Duchess of York, was friendly with Lady Furness when she was the Prince of Wales's mistress; her aversion to Wallis seemed to be that Wallis was ambitious and indiscreet, not that she was a married woman who was the Prince's mistress.

I did find Camilla was in a very difficult position. She was between Charles and APB, two favourites of Queen Mother, and Princess Anne and the Queen I suppose. How can Camilla let this happen? How can she live with that? Such a tough woman!Arguably, it was the closeness of APB with royal family which created its own chance for Charles and Camilla to rekind their love. They two are really in love with each other.

It is said in somewhere that Charles resented Andrew because he made Camilla miserable in her marriage with Andrew because Andrew's flings are usually Camilla's friends. That was very painful.I think Jilly Copper mentioned that as well. So Charles may help Camilla heal her wounds in Andrew's philanding which finally led to their commitment to each other. I believe this because Camilla was really deeply in love with Andrew when she was young. I heard you can tolerate your friends's philanding but not your lover's philanding. I guess Charles is quite commited to Camilla since his youth.

 

[ysbel]

I just wanted to add that I do respect true love and companionship between people and I support it because I think its very rare. In a sense, Charles marriage to Camilla confirms the power of love because they do love and support each other and are finally together. It would have been great if Diana had taken that example and found someone who loves and supports her as well as Camilla loves and supports Charles.

Lastly, I think life is too short and there is too much unhappiness in the world to begrudge someone else some happiness just because you both made a mistake when you married. For better to be relieved that at least someone found some happiness and go out and find some love and happiness of your own.

So I am a softie - I do believe in true love.

 

[branchg]

Elspeth made a very important point here, which is the tradition in extremely wealthy families, the nobility/aristocracy and among royal families was to marry for reasons other than love. It doesn't matter what country or culture we can point to, it happens in all Western cultures, including the USA.

Diana came from one of the most aristocratic and ancient families in the English peerage. The Spencers have long married for titles, power, ambition or to bring themselves closer to the Sovereign. This is very much a tradition among the British peerage and is hardly unacceptable or unusual. Diana certainly understood that long before she ever met and married Prince Charles.

Both Diana and Charles were very attracted to each other from the start and they both have made clear they were in love. While, on the surface, it certainly looks like an arranged marriage, it most certainly was not. Yes, it's true Diana was a perfect candidate in terms of her background and bloodlines to marry the Prince of Wales. Yes, it's true Prince Charles needed to settle down, get married and have children. But, they both made the choice to marry of their own free will because they were in love.

It is well-documented that both Lady Fermoy and the Queen had reservations from the start. The Queen wasn't sure if Diana was too young to become Princess of Wales and assume a lifetime of public duty. She also had concerns that Charles and Diana had nothing in common and their passion would wear off. Lady Fermoy felt Diana was too immature and naive to marry into the royal family and warned her of the immense responsibility that came with the marriage.

I don't believe for a moment that Charles had any intention of continuing his relationship with Camilla after marrying Diana. Nor do I believe the Princess simply decided one day to start having affairs. The marriage began to break down because they never had much in common, Diana had serious mental health issues, the unrelenting spotlight and pressure of the media caused them both to lose perspective and their respective courtiers drove a wedge between them over time.

 

[corazon]

Diana had serious mental health issues,

and Charles was totally innocent?
charles used to diana for have children, never loved her,diana yes loved him innocently. She was very immature and Charles was an unmarried who did not have interest in a marriage.. the end of that marriage was fault of both.
he deceived her, and she in her desperation looked for other men. Charles always loved camilla , had a marriage with her in the '70 and much pain and scandals had not happened.
now, diana is death and for charles she never existed. Diana no was crazy, onle was a rejected women.
No victim charles. no victim diana. The monarchy's image was a victim and, of course, wills and harry.
Diana (no had chance to re marry, to have more children and finally to be happy) death and charles and camilla are alive.
But the end of this history not written.

 

[ysbel]

Both Diana and Charles were very attracted to each other from the start and they both have made clear they were in love. While, on the surface, it certainly looks like an arranged marriage, it most certainly was not. Yes, it's true Diana was a perfect candidate in terms of her background and bloodlines to marry the Prince of Wales. Yes, it's true Prince Charles needed to settle down, get married and have children. But, they both made the choice to marry of their own free will because they were in love.

Branchg this is so true. I think Charles and Diana had some things in common that attracted them to each other. Unfortunately, these similarities weren't the type that make for a strong and lasting marriage.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

So you're saying that countries or religions in which polygamy is acceptable are "backward?" That is really a very ethnocentric way of thinking. There are wonderful and different customs and traditions all around the world and one shouldn't pass judgement on them just because we are not familiar with them or don't understand them.

I am not and do not twist my words around and do not label me, my dear.

In a society where marriage vows should be taken with your whole heart, soul, mind and everything else, you should do everything in BOTH your powers to try and make it work. If it does not work, and you have tried every means to fix it with exhaustion, then get a divorce.

I am talking about the modern day world here.

Oh yeah..it is so cool, isn't it..to cheat on our spouses...just the height of absolute chic.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Ah Lady Marmalade, the English aristocracy has always been a mystery to me. In some ways, they are more foreign than the royals. A royal expert once said on 60 Minutes that the aristocracy married the first wife to preserve the bloodlines and the second wife for pleasure.

Guys who without warning break off their marriage from their wife of 20 years to marry some stunner half their age to prove their manhood or worse run off with their wife's best friend don't get much sympathy from me. I think its disgusting. But if the marriage is bad and they found someone more supportive then I still don't like it but I understand it more. If that makes any sense. At least they left for someone they love rather than for someone who just strokes their ego. I would be really mad if my husband left me just for ego. I would be really hurt if he left me for someone he loved more but then I'd have to chuck it up to the fact that our relationship wasn't meant to be. For me, in some sense, it would be easier to get over. In other words, if he's going to leave me, he'd better have a damn good reason for doing so!

When people marry they think they love each other and that it will work out but its hard to really know a person until you're married. I don't think royal marriages are as cold-bloodedly arranged as it appears. Love is not the only consideration in any marriage: compatibility, loved ones' relationships with your family and friends, shared goals and aspirations all play a part in the marriage equation.

I agree. I think you and I know the difference between right and wrong.

I will say this. I sincerely believe had it not been for the type of marriage Diana and Charles had, I wonder how many other crown princes, married since 1999, would have been able to marry the kind of women they have.

I give these men credit. They are real men. Marrying women they love, strong, no bs kind of women, wholly and exceptionally educated, outspoken in a wonderful way, and I suspect would not roll over kindly to the mistress if there would ever happen to be one.

These are women not to be messed with and, unless these crown princes are exceptional actors with Oscars on the horizon coming their way, they all married for love, real, unquestionable love.

 

[love_cc]

Branchg this is so true. I think Charles and Diana had some things in common that attracted them to each other. Unfortunately, these similarities weren't the type that make for a strong and lasting marriage.

I just wonderd how many people truly believe that Charles loved Diana when he got married? I don't. In my idea,Charles hoped that he can have a peaceful marriage with Diana because he regarded her as a sweet-character girl like what Lord Mountbatten said and other people around him had similar views. He believed in what Diana said about her ideas about marriage, children and supporting husband in the Veggie land before the propose. Charles is such an idealist and he assumed that he can grow to love Diana after marriage and build a strong bond with Diana through children and shared duty.He had his reseves about his marriage but he hoped that everything would be all right once they got married. I would say, he liked Diana not truly loved her before his marriage.

According to Penny Romesay(Wife of Norton Romesay),Charles lacked intensity of love in Diana before his marriage because he was still deeply in love with Camilla. But he chose to accept marriage and decided to be faithful to Diana for the sake of his duty, his family and the country. In other words, he decided to sacrifice his love (for camilla)for his country and his duty. He would bury his love for Camilla again in his heart and just wanted to retain pure friendships. These were confirmed through Dimbleby's interview and Dimbleby's book about Prince Charles in 1994.

It still sounded really bad for Prince Charles because he proposed to Diana even he did not love her under the name of DUTY. It turned out to be a big mistake. Charles and Diana were really poor matched. "Charles and Diana were Two demanding egos but unable to support the other" and moreover they had huge gaps in interests, lifestyles and ideas. The existence of Camilla in his heart. just reminded him from time to time how matchable they were compared to Diana and him. I think Charles is unable to love another person like the way he loved Camilla. He burned too much passion in Camilla. What he wanted was a peaceful marriage not an intensified love. The tragedy has been already written in the fate. Camilla is probably too perfect for him in every aspect except she was not a virgin, older than him,no title, no too much fortune, and no attractive face.

 

[ysbel]

I agree. I think you and I know the difference between right and wrong.

I will say this. I sincerely believe had it not been for the type of marriage Diana and Charles had, I wonder how many other crown princes, married since 1999, would have been able to marry the kind of women they have.

I give these men credit. They are real men. Marrying women they love, strong, no bs kind of women, wholly and exceptionally educated, outspoken in a wonderful way, and I suspect would not roll over kindly to the mistress if there would ever happen to be one.

These are women not to be messed with and, unless these crown princes are exceptional actors with Oscars on the horizon coming their way, they all married for love, real, unquestionable love.

Yes, Lady Marmalade, I see what you mean. I think it will be very interesting to see how the latest royal marriages will work out. The first generation of commoner Queens (Sylvia of Sweden and Sonja of Norway) have succeeded remarkably well. They've found love of their spouses and respect of their people. Marrying a heir to the throne is very tough even with love. I wish these new princesses all the best.

 

[tiaraprin]

I am not and do not twist my words around and do not label me, my dear.

In a society where marriage vows should be taken with your whole heart, soul, mind and everything else, you should do everything in BOTH your powers to try and make it work. If it does not work, and you have tried every means to fix it with exhaustion, then get a divorce.

I am talking about the modern day world here.

Oh yeah..it is so cool, isn't it..to cheat on our spouses...just the height of absolute chic.

Well said Lady Marmalade!!! Kudos to you!!

 

[Skydragon]

Oh please..give me a break. Maybe in some backward third world country it is.
I certainly can pass judgement on a person who breaks their marriage vows. I have seen it happen with my own parents.
I have no problem ignoring the person who caused all the pain from it.
If you are not adult enough to work through your marital problems, then get a divorce or anullment.

I thought you had people with multiple wives in America ie. the mormons.
It seems that your personal experience clouds your judgement, if one parent is making the other miserable, are they both supposed to live in misery? Are you right to pass judgement on the person who brings happiness to one of your parents? Even as a child of the situation, you can't know fully what went on within your parents marriage.
A fact that some seem to ignore is that Diana and Charles both admitted to the affairs starting in 1986, (as I and others have pointed out, Hewitt says his affair with Diana started earlier), you can't therefore put all the blame on Camilla and Charles.
Perhaps the question should be if Diana had been supportive and faithful to her husband, would he have turned to Camilla?

 

[Skydragon]

I just wonderd how many people truly believe that Charles loved Diana when he got married? I don't.

As I said in my earlier posts, I don't believe they were in love. Charles loves and has always loved the countryside, walking, dogs, horses, organic farming, he worries about the environment. Diana loved shopping, fashion, parties and celebrity events.
How could it possibly have worked, can anyone name one thing they really had in common?

 

[tiaraprin]

I thought you had people with multiple wives in America ie. the mormons.
It seems that your personal experience clouds your judgement, if one parent is making the other miserable, are they both supposed to live in misery? Are you right to pass judgement on the person who brings happiness to one of your parents? Even as a child of the situation, you can't know fully what went on within your parents marriage.
A fact that some seem to ignore is that Diana and Charles both admitted to the affairs starting in 1986, (as I and others have pointed out, Hewitt says his affair with Diana started earlier), you can't therefore put all the blame on Camilla and Charles.
Perhaps the question should be if Diana had been supportive and faithful to her husband, would he have turned to Camilla?

First of all, it is illegal to practice polygamy in the USA. The Mormon church has banned it but there are some who still try to get away with it.

Secondly, maybe if Charles didn't look at Diana as simply a brood mare, maybe she would have been more supportive?

 

[ysbel]

I just wonderd how many people truly believe that Charles loved Diana when he got married?

There are different kinds of love. Charles was never the passionate, burning type of lover. Even now with Camilla he is more gallant and gentlemanly rather than a burning Casanova. He and Diana were both very sensitive with an ability to feel deeply and they shared traditional values (at the time Diana said she wanted a lot of children and outrival Queen Victoria). He had in his mind to marry the young English Rose before he ever met Diana. That's the type that Charles fell in love with at the time. Both Charles and Diana were in love with an idealized picture rather than a real person. It wasn't the type of love that was going to be everlasting but it doesn't make the love any less real.

He was being pushed into marriage before he met Diana so he didn't suddenly see Diana as a broodmare. Lady Jane Wellesley was the daughter of the Duke of Wellington, a close friend of the Queen with an internationally famous and well respected title. His ancestor defeated Napoleon. I remember their dating; Charles was being pushed very hard in that direction but he held off. He liked Jane but he didn't love her, she was a bit tough-nosed as I see that Camilla is now.

It wasn't until later when he saw his ideal of marriage with the young English Rose horribly disintegrate that he examined his ideals and beliefs and found that a love with the tough country girl, while initially less romantic, would be more lasting.

 

[Queen Amina]

"Oh please..give me a break. Maybe in some backward third world country it is.
I certainly can pass judgement on a person who breaks their marriage vows. I have seen it happen with my own parents.
I have no problem ignoring the person who caused all the pain from it.
If you are not adult enough to work through your marital problems, then get a divorce or anullment.

Lady Marmalade with regard to the comments you just made I must whole heartedly disagree with you. My maternal grandfather was married to my grandmother and another woman, they lived in the same house, were friends and cared for each other's childern. They both left him later when he married another woman without consulting them, the woman in question happened to be my grandama's best friend. I cannot stand my grandfather and that woman whom I call the step monster because she made the lives of my mom and her siblings by my grandma and mama L (wfe no.2) hell, and my grandfather did nothing to stop it. So you're views however rightly justified you feel they are don't apply to everyone.

NB I am dead set against adultery but I won't judge a person too harshly about it unless they're being hypocrites about it.

 

[una]

Secondly, maybe if Charles didn't look at Diana as simply a brood mare, maybe she would have been more supportive?

He was hoping to love her with time-- but any love he might have begun to feel for her was drowned at birth because she was suffering from anxiety, depresson, bulimia, and possibly a personality disorder. She needed 24 hr a day support herself. She wasn't able to sacrifice her own needs to support any man in a consistent way. Certainly not one like Charles who needed quite a lot of support himself.

 

[iowabelle]

The same could be said for Laura Parker Bowles and William and Harry. All four kids watched all four of their parents have affairs. (I am not sure about Andrew Parker Bowles having affairs however. I think he just stood by and watched his wife have one.).

It's pretty well known that the Parker Bowles had an "open marriage". Andrew cheated on Camilla even before they got married.

As for afterwards, I think Andrew was flattered that Charles was interested in Andrew's wife. Sort of the British tradition, isn't it, among the royals and their circle? The real problem came when the media "outed" this arrangement, and Andrew was pretty thoroughly humiliated in public (and even Camilla's father had words with Charles about the disgrace that Charles had brought to this family).

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I thought you had people with multiple wives in America ie. the mormons.
It seems that your personal experience clouds your judgement, if one parent is making the other miserable, are they both supposed to live in misery? Are you right to pass judgement on the person who brings happiness to one of your parents? Even as a child of the situation, you can't know fully what went on within your parents marriage.
A fact that some seem to ignore is that Diana and Charles both admitted to the affairs starting in 1986, (as I and others have pointed out, Hewitt says his affair with Diana started earlier), you can't therefore put all the blame on Camilla and Charles.
Perhaps the question should be if Diana had been supportive and faithful to her husband, would he have turned to Camilla?

In order to educate you a little, it is called polygamy, and it is against the law in our country, Mormon religion or otherwise.

And if you read my earlier posts, I said none of them are innocent by any means.

And if you read my earlier posts, I clearly stated that if there are problems and you have exhausted every resource to repair the damage, then divorce.

And my personal experience does not cloud my judgement so how dare you even imply that.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Lady Marmalade with regard to the comments you just made I must whole heartedly disagree with you. My maternal grandfather was married to my grandmother and another woman, they lived in the same house, were friends and cared for each other's childern. They both left him later when he married another woman without consulting them, the woman in question happened to be my grandama's best friend. I cannot stand my grandfather and that woman whom I call the step monster because she made the lives of my mom and her siblings by my grandma and mama L (wfe no.2) hell, and my grandfather did nothing to stop it. So you're views however rightly justified you feel they are don't apply to everyone.

NB I am dead set against adultery but I won't judge a person too harshly about it unless they're being hypocrites about it.

Point taken. You and I have both dealt with it from the generation before us. I am sure you handled it the best way for you to help you heal and I hope you did it your way, and no one else's.

 

[ysbel]

She wasn't able to sacrifice her own needs to support any man in a consistent way. Certainly not one like Charles who needed quite a lot of support himself.

That's very true una. But in all fairness to Diana and Charles, that's usually the way it works. You can't truly take care of someone else until you're pretty good at taking care of yourself. Its like the announcement when you board an airplane, "Put on your own oxygen mask before you put on your children's' It's so common sense really but most people don't think that way.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Hmm....tongue in cheek comment here and I hope no one is offended by it because I mean no offense by it.

I wonder if before they got married, Camilla sat Charles down and told him she would not tolerate no cheating whatsoever, if for some reason the marriage went bad down the road.

 

[ysbel]

Hmm, good question, Lady Marmalade, but I was more thinking of Charles sitting Camilla down. We all know a lot more about Diana and Charles' marriage and why they cheated (the marriage was a mess) because they were in the spotlight. But we don't know as much about the Parker Bowles marriage because no one was paying attention to them at the time.

If the Parker-Bowles marriage was relatively stable before Charles came in the picture then he would have a good reason to have a talking to her before the marriage.

 

[love_cc]

Hmm....tongue in cheek comment here and I hope no one is offended by it because I mean no offense by it.

I wonder if before they got married, Camilla sat Charles down and told him she would not tolerate no cheating whatsoever, if for some reason the marriage went bad down the road.

Camilla will always tolerate her husband's cheating but she would find her way to seek the balance. I think Camilla is very traditional because she did not want a divource but she has a strong personality which does not allow her to be under any disadvantage. So Camilla had Charles because Andrew had his ladies throughout their courtship and their marriage. But Camilla will keep quiet and discreet about her affairs. Compared to Andrew, Charles is certainly very faithful to Camilla.Certainly Camilla will make sure only she can stay in Charles's life. I don't think Charles can live without Camilla after the death of Queen Mother. He relies on her too much since their youth. What between them is probably an unbroken bond.
Camilla and Andrew are probably too strong for each other. Camilla and Charels may be better because Camilla is stronger but she would let Charles play the lead in the public.

 

[Skydragon]

If the Parker-Bowles marriage was relatively stable before Charles came in the picture then he would have a good reason to have a talking to her before the marriage.

From all that we do know, APB was constantly unfaithful, his present wife was his mistress for a long time.
The only lover that we know Camilla had, was Charles. I think if there had been any others they would have surfaced by now and there has never been a hint of any other men in her life and the press certainly dug about in their efforts to discredit her over the years.

 

[Skydragon]

In order to educate you a little, it is called polygamy, and it is against the law in our country, Mormon religion or otherwise.
And if you read my earlier posts, I said none of them are innocent by any means.
And if you read my earlier posts, I clearly stated that if there are problems and you have exhausted every resource to repair the damage, then divorce.
And my personal experience does not cloud my judgement so how dare you even imply that.

I Know full well that it is called polygyny, so I don't need the education but thanks anyway. The mormons do still practise polygynous behavior and very little is done about it.
f I upset you by making assumptions, it was wrong and I apologise.
We all base our lives and thoughts about others, on our own experiences, that is life and as we get older and experience more of life, our views and reactions to situations change. Thats the way it is supposed to work.

 

[Warren]

This thread has now reached 18 pages. It has been difficult to find an appropriate spot to close it and open Part 2.

So I will do so now.

Here is the link to Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part 2:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/diana-charles-camillas-relationships-pt2-7841.html#post317174