lashinka2002
Serene Highness
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,090
- City
- Toronto
- Country
- Canada
Alexandria said: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?
Last edited: