Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part 1

[wymanda]

The worst part is that Diana will be forever under 40 and pretty (I never did buy the line that she was "gorgeous, stunning, etc"). However, things will come into perspective when William & Harry have wives & children & these people cannot conceive the idea of Diana as a Grandmother. I am sure that Camilla will fulfil that role for both her own & Charles' grandchildren.

[sara1981]

Originally Posted by wymanda

The worst part is that Diana will be forever under 40 and pretty (I never did buy the line that she was "gorgeous, stunning, etc"). However, things will come into perspective when William & Harry have wives & children & these people cannot conceive the idea of Diana as a Grandmother. I am sure that Camilla will fulfil that role for both her own & Charles' grandchildren.

i totally agree with you!

im wishes Diana was here! but she and Charles would loves being as grandparents of their boys to become dad in future but Charles still alives over 50's but he almost 60 years old! but Camilla would loves being as grandparents of Charles's grandchildren but if im correct or im mistakes! but Princess Diana still in heaven and she is current 43 will become 44 in July 1st many people will still in Diana's legacy after her death in 1997 for almost 8 years but now as 7 years.

Sara Boyce

[lashinka2002]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lashinka2002
Very good statement! You also earn respect when you stand up for what you believe in. Charles doesn't seem to have any respect.



Quote [For Diana?] Quote

yes and for himself. He could have said no to a marraige with Diana or anyone else for that matter if did not want to marry them. If he wanted to marry Camilla he could have held his ground (look at Hakoon and Mette-Marit of Norway - he threatend not to take the throne at all if he couldnt marry her or he could have just refused to marry like Prince Albert) In this day and age I don't think the RF would have thrown him out.
Yet he married Diana with mistress in tow and then didn't stand by her through their marraige. After he did his duty by fathering the children he just sort of abandoned trying to repair the marraige and fled to his mistress. Doesn't seem like a very strong man to me. Marraige is always hard work and never easy; not to be entered into lightly. If anything this should have been drummed into his head as a child considering the huge role he had to play. Very cowardly! No respect for this man here!
He seems to be trying to stand up for what he wants now with Camilla but to little to late. The damage is done. The respect people had for him relationship wise is gone. How can he respect this marraige if he could'nt even take the first one seriously??

[Alexandria]

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

He could have said no to a marraige with Diana or anyone else for that matter if did not want to marry them. If he wanted to marry Camilla he could have held his ground (look at Hakoon and Mette-Marit of Norway - he threatend not to take the throne at all if he couldnt marry her or he could have just refused to marry like Prince Albert) In this day and age I don't think the RF would have thrown him out.

When Charles and Diana married, it wasn't "this day and age" however. It was 1980 and times were different for monarchies. Haakon and Felipe both (allegedly) threatened to give up the throne in 2000 and onwards -- a lot has happened in monarchies in those 20 years, especially in the British royal family where we saw Anne get divorced and married again, Andrew get married and divorced, and Charles himself get divorced, and all the subsequent scandal associated with all of these divorces and controversies for the British royal family. It was not just an "anus horribilus" for the Queen, but a solid decade of "horribilus."

In a (bad and unfortunate) way, Charles and Diana's tragic and troubled relationship paved the way for Haakon and Mette-Marit and Felipe and Letizia. The othe royal families must've looked at the public scandal that Charles and Diana's mutual affairs and subsequent divorce created and wanted to avoid such scandal at all costs. If it mean allowing their sons to marry a single mom or a divorcee, yet two women their sons loved deeply, then letting true love prevail might be a better chance then forcing Haakon and Felipe to marry someone else they didn't love at all yet may have been a more "presentable" choice of bride.

The Queen would not have thrown her son out of her family, yes. But, Charles could've been removed from the line of succession. In the Dutch royal family Johan Friso and Mabel failed to seek permission from the Dutch government and as such, while Johan Friso is still his mother, Queen Beatrix's second son, he is no longer part of the royal family though he is part of the Queen's family.

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

Yet he married Diana with mistress in tow and then didn't stand by her through their marraige. After he did his duty by fathering the children he just sort of abandoned trying to repair the marraige and fled to his mistress.

Charles never abandoned his children. Even by Diana's own accounts Charles was always a good father to his sons. And judging by the affection his sons show him, I don't think they feel abandoned by their father in the least. They may be disappointed that their father and mother's marriage didn't work out or that they didn't live happily ever after, but William and Harry were most certainly not abandoned by Charles because of his affair with Camilla.

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

Marraige is always hard work and never easy; not to be entered into lightly. If anything this should have been drummed into his head as a child considering the huge role he had to play. Very cowardly! No respect for this man here!

Both Charles and Diana are responsible for the failure of their marriage. It is really unfair to point the finger at Charles solely.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

The Queen would not have thrown her son out of her family, yes. But, Charles could've been removed from the line of succession.

Please explain how Charles could have been removed from the succession and on what grounds.

The only grounds I can think of are adultery - which hasn't been a bar in the past and in which quite a few British people have also committed. It isn't a crime so he has done nothing illegal.

Being divorced - something which happens to about one third of the British people I believe.

OK remarrying - again not illegal.

Next remarrying a divorcee - again not illegal.

If any of the above were sited for being reasons to remove him from the succession they would be seen as being against the Discrimination Act as you can't discriminate on the grounds of marrital status.

At a time when the people want the discrimination against Roman Catholics removed the only way to bar Charles would be to include disrimination against divorcees and remarried people.

The government couldn't just pass an act to bar one person as that would be discriminatory.

The Netherlands situation is different because the government has to give consent at the beginning whereas in Britain only the monarch does - once the monarch has given their consent the government can't do anything. The parliament is only involved if the monarch won't give consent and then the person, being over 25, can appeal directly to the parliament, wait a year and if both houses agree the person can then marry.

[lashinka2002]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

When Charles and Diana married, it wasn't "this day and age" however. It was 1980 and times were different for monarchies. Haakon and Felipe both (allegedly) threatened to give up the throne in 2000 and onwards -- a lot has happened in monarchies in those 20 years, especially in the British royal family where we saw Anne get divorced and married again, Andrew get married and divorced, and Charles himself get divorced, and all the subsequent scandal associated with all of these divorces and controversies for the British royal family. It was not just an "anus horribilus" for the Queen, but a solid decade of "horribilus."

In a (bad and unfortunate) way, Charles and Diana's tragic and troubled relationship paved the way for Haakon and Mette-Marit and Felipe and Letizia. The othe royal families must've looked at the public scandal that Charles and Diana's mutual affairs and subsequent divorce created and wanted to avoid such scandal at all costs. If it mean allowing their sons to marry a single mom or a divorcee, yet two women their sons loved deeply, then letting true love prevail might be a better chance then forcing Haakon and Felipe to marry someone else they didn't love at all yet may have been a more "presentable" choice of bride.


The Queen would not have thrown her son out of her family, yes. But, Charles could've been removed from the line of succession. In the Dutch royal family Johan Friso and Mabel failed to seek permission from the Dutch government and as such, while Johan Friso is still his mother, Queen Beatrix's second son, he is no longer part of the royal family though he is part of the Queen's family.


Charles never abandoned his children. Even by Diana's own accounts Charles was always a good father to his sons. And judging by the affection his sons show him, I don't think they feel abandoned by their father in the least. They may be disappointed that their father and mother's marriage didn't work out or that they didn't live happily ever after, but William and Harry were most certainly not abandoned by Charles because of his affair with Camilla.



Both Charles and Diana are responsible for the failure of their marriage. It is really unfair to point the finger at Charles solely.

Your quote about avoiding scandals may be very well true but marrying someone you love was already common sense for most people even 20 years ago. Royal or not.

I never said that Charles abandoned his children. What I said was that he did his duty by fathering children and then abandoned the marraige.

Charles and Diane are both responsible for the marraige true, but it's also difficult to begin a loving and lasting marraige when your husband's mind is on his mistress even at the wedding isn't it?

[Elspeth]

The Netherlands situation is different because the government has to give consent at the beginning whereas in Britain only the monarch does - once the monarch has given their consent the government can't do anything. The parliament is only involved if the monarch won't give consent and then the person, being over 25, can appeal directly to the parliament, wait a year and if both houses agree the person can then marry.

Where Princess Margaret and Group Captain Townsend were concerned, it sounds as though Parliament was prepared to refuse to grant her any money through the Civil List if she went ahead and married him, and that Parliament was also prepared to see to it that she was essentially relegated to the position of a private citizen, even though she'd waited until she was 25 before trying to insist on anything. I realise that Prince Charles has income independently of the Civil List, but it was pressure by Parliament that stopped both Edward VIII and Princess Margaret from marrying people considered unsuitable while staying in the line of succession.

I doubt Camilla Shand would have been considered to be as unsuitable as the other two since she wasn't divorced at the time she first knew Charles. However, at that time Charles was in his early twenties and a naval officer who was being heavily influenced by his parents, grandmother, and Lord Mountbatten (who had his own ideas on a suitable candidate for Charles's wife, i.e., one of his own granddaughters); some of these other crown princes who have stood up to their parents have been men in their thirties in somewhat less formal monarchies than the British ones and living in countries where there isn't a ready-made aristocracy and nobility from which royalty were supposed to pick spouses.

It sounds as though the Queen isn't someone who likes to give a direct "no" to her children in matters concerning their personal lives, but if Charles had been set on marrying Camilla in the early 1970s the Queen would probably have been telling him to wait for a while, in the hope he'd have found someone considered more suitable. This is the way the Queen also put off dealing with her sister's romance until the government more or less took the decision away from her by turning it into a Hobson's choice.

[EmpressRouge]

I forget where this came from, but somewhere it said that Charles and Diana's marriage was an arranged marriage that she mistakened for a fairy tale love match. She fell in love with the idea of Prince Charles, not the man. Besides the 13 year age gap, they had completely differently personalities. Charles is an introvert who likes the quiet, country life. Diana was the sloane range into all things hip and comtemporary and the city life. In last year's 20/20 special on modern royals, they said that Charles was the last European crown prince who had to find a "virgin bride."

[Elspeth]

Oh, so you're saying that adoptive and step-parents can't give love? How offensive.

No, I think she was saying that the sort of love that a grandparent gives his/her own grandchildren is a different sort of love from the love he/she has for other people's grandchildren. You may not agree with that opinion, but it isn't offensive. I agree that the notion that adoptive and step-parents can't give love is offensive, but that isn't what was said.

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

But they aren't really that close to Camilla. Well, Harry isn't at all close to her.

[wymanda]

Originally Posted by gaggleofcrazypeople

But they aren't really that close to Camilla. Well, Harry isn't at all close to her.

So the press tell us!
Has anyone ever heard Harry say that he doesn't like Camilla????

[lashinka2002]

Has anyone ever heard Harry say that he does like Camilla?

[wymanda]

So, basically, non of us know exactly what Harry thinks about his stepmother but we assume that he hates her - How juvenile!

[lashinka2002]

Who says that he hates her? Dislikes her, most likely. Tolerates her, definiltely.
As juvenille as you may think it sounds it is not.
It is only common sense that his feelings towards Camilla would be considerably mixed up. His feelings for her would not be of a genuine love & unconditional nature as they would be to his own mother. She did not raise him or nurture him or guide him through his life. If Camilla had come along as a positive influence when Harry was a child (without the affair issue) then maybe some sort of bonding and lasting relationship could have formed.

Aside from the fact that Charles seems to be happy with Camilla can you or anybody please tell me why you think that Harry would like her?

[wymanda]

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

Aside from the fact that Charles seems to be happy with Camilla can you or anybody please tell me why you think that Harry would like her?

Perhaps as a confidante when he feels he can't talk to his father or as a way to let his father know things he doesn't feel comfortable discussing with him? I understand that many stepmothers fulfill this role for their husbands adult children. I think Camilla is too intelligent to set herself up as a replacement for their mother but I think that she will do her very best to be a freind to William & Harry and to listen when they need someone to talk to.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

can you or anybody please tell me why you think that Harry would like her?

God forbid, perhaps Camilla is a nice person? I've yet to read an opposite opinion from anyone who actually knows her. Which, stating the obvious, none of us do.
.

[Sammy]

Putting myself in Harry's place, nope, can't say that I would have warm, fuzzy feelings for Camilla. Perhaps we should remember that Diana died just days before Harry's 13th birthday. It is said that he used to run into the room and jump into her lap for a cuddle. So in many ways he just a little boy when she died. So it is likely that the little boy still has some harsh feelings for the woman who duped his mother.

[lashinka2002]

I'm sure Camilla will listen to the boys if ever needed but I'm not so sure they would turn to her. If they feel they can then great for them but there are other women in or outside of the family that they would probably choose to speak to first. To name a few their old nanny (with whom they were very close to), Diana's sisters, Princess Anne, the Queen...

[Alexandria]

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

but there are other women in or outside of the family that they would probably choose to speak to first. To name a few their old nanny (with whom they were very close to), Diana's sisters, Princess Anne, the Queen...

I think you've listed the Queen twice -- she is the Queen as well as being their "old nanny."

I don't know how close William and Harry really are to their maternal aunts and uncle. Despite Earl Spencer's vow at Diana's funeral that William and Harry would be raised in the manner Diana would've wanted by her "blood relatives" (or something like that), I think Diana's sisters and brother saw William and Harry a handful of times in the months after Diana's death but not too often in recent years. They of course saw them at Francis Shand's funeral, but with William being away at St. Andrew's and Harry travelling during his gap year, I don't think they see much of their Spencer aunts to confide in them. Frankly, I don't think they see much of Princess Anne or Sophie either to have a relationship that they would feel comfortable to confide in them the way they might with their mother. Camilla and the Queen are probably the two maternal figures they see the most and have the most interaction with.

[susan alicia]

I would think of Anne first, her son is sort of similar to William and Harry, she is closer in age and does not have the emotional baggage Camilla brings (even though they might like her a lot)

Anne is often overlooked.

Originally Posted by Alexandria

I think you've listed the Queen twice -- she is the Queen as well as being their "old nanny."

I don't know how close William and Harry really are to their maternal aunts and uncle. Despite Earl Spencer's vow at Diana's funeral that William and Harry would be raised in the manner Diana would've wanted by her "blood relatives" (or something like that), I think Diana's sisters and brother saw William and Harry a handful of times in the months after Diana's death but not too often in recent years. They of course saw them at Francis Shand's funeral, but with William being away at St. Andrew's and Harry travelling during his gap year, I don't think they see much of their Spencer aunts to confide in them. Frankly, I don't think they see much of Princess Anne or Sophie either to have a relationship that they would feel comfortable to confide in them the way they might with their mother. Camilla and the Queen are probably the two maternal figures they see the most and have the most interaction with.