Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part 2

[Queen Mary I]

Are you refering to all the cheating Diana did? As we all know now, she took more than one lover. Many of Diana's lovers had partners or were married, how much heartbreak did she cause to those women and their children, how much interferring? None of them lasted, so it could hardly have been for love. Charles and Camilla have been in love for 35 years and finally deserve to be happy.
Would you be so vindictive towards Diana, if she was now mrs al Fayed? Would you still be baying for Camilla's blood?
As Diana admitted in her infamous 1995 interview, they lived separate lives from 1988. They were both having affairs as early as 1986 (1981 if Hewitt is to be believed), so there was no marriage in the true sense of the word.

Adultery is adultery. Taking one lover doesn't make you better than the person who has more than one. The commandments on thou shalt not commit adutery and thou shalt not covet another man's wife make no distinction between one extra-marital affair or many. And I only mention this because the Archbishop of Canterbury called Prince Charles a 'confirmed Anglican' when the wedding was announced, and I notice Charles and Camilla seemed to attend church while living together. Just from a Christian standpoint they sinned no more, and no less than Diana.

And I have never seen or heard any confirmation that Diana had affairs with married men. I have only read about them in books.

 

[ysbel]

I never said Diana was a saint. She responded in the wrong way to a philandering husband and a mistress who did not respect the late Princess Of Wale's marriage even before it began. Diana should have sought a divorce right away or better yet an annulment (at least a civil annulment-I don't think those are possible in the C of E-like in the C of R).

My sister did the same thing as Diana in response to a cheating husband-which is one reason this is such a sore point for me. Adultery causes so much pain, and heartache for all involved. It is like my sister said about 'the other woman'. 'What did I ever do to her that she would do this to me? I didn't even know her'. The same could be said in regards to Diana and Camilla. Camilla threw the first punch in my estimation. Along with Charles. Diana did not know how to fight back. Her own parents had a horrible marriage record.

Hi Queen Mary I,

I had wondered where you had gone to. Glad to see you back. Now I can understand a little since this happened to your sister. I hope she was able to overcome the hurt and build her life again. If its any consolation (and maybe its not) but I think the hurt that your sister felt came from her husband and not the other woman. Sadly, if a man is willing to have an affair that is strong enough to break up his marriage, he will eventually find someone who will go along with him.

I've seen marriages fall all around me due to adultery and other things. Its not a good time to be living in if you want to be happily married and I keep my fingers crossed.

I think there are two types of affairs; affairs that appear when the marriage is going strong and wreak it and then there are affairs when the marriage is troubled and you reach out to someone else. The affairs in Charles and Diana's case were the latter type, in my opinion.

The marriage was already in trouble before William was born and I don't think it was because Charles had Camilla already in his pocket. I don't think he did. Diana had tremendous trouble in her first year of marriage; the publicity, getting pregnant at 20 and suffering post-partum depression bringing on the eating disorder that she had suffered as a teenager and being married to a family who didn't know what to do when she went into her crying fits. Charles did ask his friends what to do about Diana and IMHO when he asked Camilla he was asking for trouble because they had had a relationship in the past.

Was it a mistake? Yes, it was. And you are right, Charles and Diana should have gotten a divorce in the beginning; then they would have been able to put their lives together much sooner. However, I think the protocol in the Royal Family worked against them; disastrously for their own personal happiness.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I still blame Prince Philip in some of this. I wish there were times the Queen would have put him in his place like Victoria did to Albert.

If he would have let his children make their own decisions...and I am talking about the period in the late 1970's, maybe Charles would have been happily married to someone else..not Camilla or Diana...just married..quiet and happy..

 

[ysbel]

I still blame Prince Philip in some of this. I wish there were times the Queen would have put him in his place like Victoria did to Albert.

Well Lady Marmalade, Prince Albert died before his children got married; at least all but one. Prince Philip did his fair share of pushing but then so did a lot of other people. Charles was raised from a child not to make waves; it took him awhile to throw off the conditioning. Some waves are worth making. And I don't mean running off with another woman.

 

[Elspeth]

Gyles Brandreth was interviewed in Majesty Magazine about his latest book, which is about Charles and Camilla, and he lays the blame for Charles's unrealistic expectations at the door of the Queen Mother, who he said spoiled Charles rotten and gave him the idea that he could live like an Edwardian prince rather than a modern one. The Queen Mother didn't seem averse to the idea of mistresses (at least for other princes) since she was apparently friendly with Lady Furness during her relationship with the Prince of Wales; she seemed to think that adultery was OK as long as people were discreet about it. Between that message and the stuff Charles was getting from Mountbatten - the two people whose opinions he valued more than anyone's during his formative years - it's no wonder that he's stuck uncomfortably between the present and the past.

 

[Warren]

The Queen Mother didn't seem averse to the idea of mistresses (at least for other princes) ...; she seemed to think that adultery was OK as long as people were discreet about it. Between that message and the stuff Charles was getting from Mountbatten - the two people whose opinions he valued more than anyone's during his formative years - it's no wonder that he's stuck uncomfortably between the present and the past.

Perhaps this will be Camilla's greatest legacy: in a few years time people may be commenting how she has brought Charles more into "the real world". Having her by his side will give him less need for introspection, and a lot more confidence. Just see how happy and relaxed he appeared during the US Tour with Camilla there to share the experience. She will certainly have an effect and it will be interesting to chart the changes Camilla influences in the demeanour, outlook and confidence of the Prince of Wales.

 

[Skydragon]

And I have never seen or heard any confirmation that Diana had affairs with married men. I have only read about them in books.

Barry Manakee, Philip Dunne, Oliver Hoare, Will Carling were I believe married, James Gilbey's fiance killed herself shortly after the affair broke the news and Nigel Havers said Diana made a play for him knowing that his wife was dying. Are they all to be disbelieved because they are not Diana?
Are you saying that it's ok to set out to steal someone's partner if they are not married?
It is sad when any long term relationship breaks up, what is sadder still, is that everyone takes sides, possibly without knowing all the facts and taking everyone concerned into consideration. You can't make one person love another as should be evident from the Charles/Diana debacle.

 

[Skydragon]

. And I only mention this because the Archbishop of Canterbury called Prince Charles a 'confirmed Anglican' when the wedding was announced, .

You can be confirmed into the anglican church from 11 years old I believe, it is simply a ceremony. Many people are confirmed and change their minds when they grow up. Some churchgoers have never been confirmed or christened.

 

[Charlotte1]

And I have never seen or heard any confirmation that Diana had affairs with married men. I have only read about them in books.

Diana's affair with Oliver Hoare is on public record as it came to light as a result of a police investigation. Oliver Hoare's wife contacted the police as they were receiving anonymous phone calls, the police traced the calls and embarrassingly for Diana they were traced back to her. Oliver Hoare had ended his affair with Diana and she harassed him with telephone calls. When his wife answered the phone she would hang up.
Julia Carling (Will Carling's 1st wife) has also said somewhere that his affair with Diana was the cause of their marriage breakup.

James Gibney ( he of the 'squiggygate phone tapes) was involved in a live in relationship when he had his affair with Diana. His girlfriend had quite a fragile personality and couldn't cope with his infactuation with Diana, they broke up and a while later she committed suicide.

 

[una]

... a mistress who did not respect the late Princess Of Wale's marriage even before it began.(

I'm not sure this is true. Camilla told Diana that she had an agreement with Charles not to contact him after the wedding. There is no evidence I know of that she did.

Diana should have sought a divorce right away or better yet an annulment .

Diana should have turned down Charles' proposal of marriage since she knew about Camilla before the proposal. She went into the marriage with her eyes open. But she may have believed Charles when he told her he would be faithful in the marriage, or she may have thought she could "see off" Camilla. In any event, she was too caught up in her Princess fantasy to give it up, IMO.

I'm sorry about your sister, but the cases are not alike-- Diana had serious mental health problems, and IMO, Camilla had little to do with the failure of the marriage. By the time Charles went back to Camilla, the marriage was over in all but name.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Okay...let's just say it once and for all, we know they are all to blame equally.

Man....Dynasty and Dallas have nothing on these people.

If the Royal Family were a soap, the ratings would have been through the roof in the 80's and 90's.

 

[Warren]

To paraphrase the ever-elegant Lady Marmalade (compliment returned - we're even), none of us know the mechanics of what happened inside that marriage. None of us knows who did what to whom first; none of us know when Charles turned to Camilla, none of us know when Diana first had an affair. We may pretend we do, but we don't. Everything is based on our and other people's speculation, and a "pay-back" book, interview and leaks from Diana, who would obviously portray herself as the injured party. Maybe she was, but none of us know for certain.

No doubt this saga will be debated endlessly by some, but as time passes it seems pretty pointless to continue poking through the entrails of a dead marriage with a blunt stick. Choose sides, pick favourites, whatever, but surely we can move on instead of interminable rehashing, saying the same thing over and over again. Fresh insights and interpretations and theories are fine, but playing the blame game gets tiresome for those of us who prefer to retain a bit of distance and choose not to get emotionally involved in a marriage which was effectively over almost 20 years ago.

The single most important goal in anybody's life is to "find happiness." Charles and Camilla appear to have done just that. Wishing them doom and gloom will not return Diana from the dead, and vindictiveness and bitterness are not attractive character traits in anyone. Diana died shockingly and tragically at her peak, and she will remain forever an icon. Accept that, and move on.

 

[Ennyllorac]

I wonder how long people can continue talking about the relationship between these 3 individuals? It's not like new information is out there. I really don't think blame falls on one individual. I think all three parties had their faults and their blame in what happened.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Ennyllorac...for as long as there are people who wore born at the time she was alive.....

I put the blame on the media, that Burrell, Ken what's his name, Hewitt, and a few others.

JUST LET THE WOMAN REST IN PEACE ALREADY!!!!

We can't do what if's anymore. He has married the mistress...move on....I may not like it but I oh well..she's not my stepmother.

 

[ysbel]

Well, at the risk of throwing some salt on this oh-so-sensible appeal to move on:

There's a Southern saying 'a pig in a poke'. It literally refers to when people sold pigs in burlap sacks. The buyer couldn't see what he was getting.

The public was sold 'a pig in a poke' with Charles' and Diana's relationship from beginning to end. First it was 'the fairytale romance of the prince and the virgin bride' then it was 'the poor innocent Diana who was so cruelly hurt by the evil Charles and his venom-spitting partner Camilla'.

Many believed at the time and now they're looking in the bag to see what the pig looks likes. And the pig looks a whole lot different than what they thought it would.

The public does not like being sold 'a pig in a poke'. Whether it was the Royal Family that tried to sell us the fairytale marriage or Diana trying to recruit our sympathy in her war against Charles and Camilla, the public does take offense at being deceived.

So you see the hashing and re-hashing of events. People go back and wonder how they could be fooled so easily. Will it end? Probably. Soon? Don't know about that.

Wish I could be more positive.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Man....Dynasty and Dallas have nothing on these people.

Earlier this year, I did a voice over for a spoof soap called 'Pallas'. It was shown in the 80s and they brought it back. Basically, it was a load of lookalikes who were blurred and then voices were dubbed to make certain situations. For instance, there was Diana crying because the heel on her shoe had snapped and the Queen running after the 'dawgs' and Prince Philip swearing - it wasn't amazingly amusing but I found parts of it funny. In the end it never went on air (as far as I know) - I did one episode and I think it must have a been a pilot. It was quite a novel idea. So, the Royal Family has been turned into a soap!

 

[Incas]

There's a Southern saying 'a pig in a poke'. It literally refers to when people sold pigs in burlap sacks. The buyer couldn't see what he was getting.

I just love the folksy old sayings! Not always pretty, but to the point.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Earlier this year, I did a voice over for a spoof soap called 'Pallas'. It was shown in the 80s and they brought it back. Basically, it was a load of lookalikes who were blurred and then voices were dubbed to make certain situations. For instance, there was Diana crying because the heel on her shoe had snapped and the Queen running after the 'dawgs' and Prince Philip swearing - it wasn't amazingly amusing but I found parts of it funny. In the end it never went on air (as far as I know) - I did one episode and I think it must have a been a pilot. It was quite a novel idea. So, the Royal Family has been turned into a soap!

Pallas, huh? That would have be interesting to see an episode of that.

 

[Warren]

More poking pigs please

There's a Southern saying 'a pig in a poke'. It literally refers to when people sold pigs in burlap sacks.

There's nothing new in this thread Ysbel, just the same old stuff going round and round in ever-decreasing circles. Could you tell us more about the pigs in burlap sacks, please?
Did they poke the pigs through the burlap? What implement did they use to poke the pigs? How did they know it's really a pig in the burlap bag? Is there a choice of materials besides burlap? Is this 'poking the pig' tradition carried on in the Southern states to this day? Do they have pig-poking demonstrations at the County Fairs? Or competitions? Are there pig-poking Champions? Is it a family-friendly activity? Can anyone join in to give a pig a poke?
.

 

[ysbel]

Not that kind of poke Southerners talk funny. A poke is a bag although nobody says poke anymore except to say pig in a poke. They don't know what's in the bag, that's the whole point of the saying.

Now if you're being sold a pig in a poke, no doubt you want to poke the pig like Charles/Diana/Camilla are being poked and poked and poked in this thread. Yeah, you're right its going round and round in circles but that's what people do when they get a pig in a poke.

 

[Aussie Princess]

Earlier this year, I did a voice over for a spoof soap called 'Pallas'. It was shown in the 80s and they brought it back. Basically, it was a load of lookalikes who were blurred and then voices were dubbed to make certain situations. For instance, there was Diana crying because the heel on her shoe had snapped and the Queen running after the 'dawgs' and Prince Philip swearing - it wasn't amazingly amusing but I found parts of it funny. In the end it never went on air (as far as I know) - I did one episode and I think it must have a been a pilot. It was quite a novel idea. So, the Royal Family has been turned into a soap!

Well it sounds amazing amusing to me! I would love that sort of thing

 

[Queen Mary I]

I wonder how long people can continue talking about the relationship between these 3 individuals? It's not like new information is out there. I really don't think blame falls on one individual. I think all three parties had their faults and their blame in what happened.

Posterity will be talking about it for centuries to come. Especially because at the end of the non-fairytale Diana died violently, and 'mysteriously' as far as some are concerned. The 'second car' and all that. Like the Mary, Queen Of Scots, Lord Darnley murder scandal. Or Elizabeth I and her 'Robin' and his wife Anne who was found dead at the bottom of some stairs. This love triangle will have no end.

 

[Saragli]

It is not a love triangle. More like a hexagon with Chaz and Milla and Diana and all her lovers. Grow up people. The marriage failed. She died tragically. It is written and history and needs to be left in the past.

 

[Queen Mary I]

It is not a love triangle. More like a hexagon with Chaz and Milla and Diana and all her lovers. Grow up people. The marriage failed. She died tragically. It is written and history and needs to be left in the past.

Charles and Milla sowed their wild oats young. It does not make them better than Diana.

Anyone who thinks it will be left in the past is dreaming. This 'hexagon' as you prefer to call it will have books written about it long after we are gone. That's just the facts. If historians were more 'grown up' they wouldn't have written about Mary, Queen Of Scots affairs, Elizabeth I's and so on. It's human nature to hash over historical figures and their romantic messes. Diana is part of British history now. Get used to it folks.

 

[love_cc]

I have already thought about the comments about Charles, Camilla and Diana by historians. What would they say? The three people had all caused the biggest damage to the monarch since 1936.We need more journals, diaries, and personal correpondents to find the truth of their relationships. Not Until the deaths of all parties then we shall find out.

I just wondered whether Charles had loved Diana. Personally I don't think he loved her before their marriage based on Dimblebly's book but he tried to work out his marriage. Charles seems to fall into love easily but the love usually does not endure. It may be the case for Diana and him. No doubt, Camilla is the love of his life and their love is very devoted and enduring. They are bond by the deep friendships and intimacy which no one or nothing can easily break. This is the biggest threat in Charles and Diana's marriage. She cannot stand the relationships between Charles and Camilla even it is platonic. But Charles cannot break his bond with Camilla. She satisfied all his needs, physically and emotionally. What a pity that they don't realise when they were young.

 

[Queen Mary I]

I have already thought about the comments about Charles, Camilla and Diana by historians. What would they say? The three people had all caused the biggest damage to the monarch since 1936.We need more journals, diaries, and personal correpondents to find the truth of their relationships. Not Until the deaths of all parties then we shall find out.

I just wondered whether Charles had loved Diana. Personally I don't think he loved her before their marriage based on Dimblebly's book but he tried to work out his marriage. Charles seems to fall into love easily but the love usually does not endure. It may be the case for Diana and him. No doubt, Camilla is the love of his life and their love is very devoted and enduring. They are bond by the deep friendships and intimacy which no one or nothing can easily break. This is the biggest problem.

I think because we are contemporaries of C & C and the late Diana-we are sick to death of all the re-hashing. I will be honest as much as I love Diana-I wish she would be left in peace. But it's not going to happen and just for myself and I can't help but jump in in her defense whenever I think she is being unfairly portrayed. That's just me.

I wish Charles had figured it all out in his youth but he didn't and it is done. I have to say I do think he and Camilla are far more compatible. Their betrayal of Diana and some people's 'so what-she had affairs too' attitude about it is what disturbs me. This is imo but I think Charles knows in his heart who betrayed who first. But as I wrote in another thread adultery is adultery. With one person or many-if one goes by the 4th Commandments there are no codocils. It says 'thou shalt not commit adultery' not 'you may commit adultery with one person all your life but if you sleep around it is far worse'. And then there is the other about coveting a neighbor's wife. There are no innocents in this trio. But someone betrayed someone first and I think those someones are both still alive. That is why biographers, and trash novellists are going to writing about. It was sordid all around. If Charles had divorced Diana 20 years ago (and I wish he had) let's say the first year they married and realized it was a mistake-I doubt very much would be written about them. And Diana is like Marilyn Monroe or a James Dean. A dead star with charm and intrigue. Someone in our local papers wrote of Diana 'she always was a headache but she never was a bore-now as for Charles and his Camilla it's the other way around-snooze'. I think it is down to sex. Sex sells as the saying goes. This is why everyone all over the internet chats about her, them, and theirs. And love and heartache too in my view. It tugs at the heart-their stories.

edited to add: I hope Charles, Camilla, and Diana's Estates don't go the way of Queen Victoria-I believe she had a daughter burn all her letters. Horrors for nosy fans like me! I am hopeful they will not wait too long either to release letters, and such. Princess Margaret I believe stated in her will that her correspondense was not to be released for 50 years or something after her death. :/

 

[ysbel]

Some of what people call Diana-bashing is simply a re-evaluation of Diana and the whole situation. While she was alive, we took her word for what was going on. She actively included the public in her side of the argument and sought public sympathy.

Having been close to a really nasty breakup, I've learned not to trust what married couples say when they go through something like this. They exaggerate, make up lies, and they're good people, they're just hurting.

Now people are looking back at what she said and asking, "Is this really true? Was she totally honest with us?" That's the pig in the poke that people bought without question when she was alive. And it was OUR heartstrings that she involved in this battle. People don't like their heartstrings being used and abused.

 

[ysbel]

Queen Mary I, I think you're right about the difference in Diana and Charles, Diana may have been a headache but never a bore. That is the cult of personality at work here.

As a society we don't honor quiet achievement, we honor flash and an engaging public image. Its why no man (or woman) of substance can get elected to be President.

The fact that two totally different men with two very different outlooks, Bill Clinton and George W. have held the highest public office in the last 16 years is quite telling. The American public IMHO didn't change that much in its fundamental values from the time they elected Clinton to electing Bush; but the two men had a more engaging stage presence than their opponents.

This is what bothers me about the so-called moralizing about Charles' and Camilla's deception. I think what the public really blames Charles for is pushing out Diana for someone less beautiful and with less public personality than Diana. A few, like the Church of England clergy may have some reall ethical doubts about C&C but I don't think public opinion cares about the general morals and sanctity of marriage.

And as far who started the affairs first, I guess I've been around too many kids whose first excuse when they do something wrong is, "Well he hit me first." It looks childish, it sounds childish and as a parent, you get tired of hearing it and you send both kids to their rooms.

Believe me, there were many times I wanted to send Charles and Diana to their rooms for some time out.

 

[Charlotte1]

edited to add: I hope Charles, Camilla, and Diana's Estates don't go the way of Queen Victoria-I believe she had a daughter burn all her letters. Horrors for nosy fans like me! I am hopeful they will not wait too long either to release letters, and such. Princess Margaret I believe stated in her will that her correspondense was not to be released for 50 years or something after her death. :/

Neither Queen Victoria's letters or extensive diaries were destroyed, they've been published. And they do make interesting reading, historical royal biographies quote her words. She would write daily to her daughter Victoria and underline words for emphasis.
Diana's mother and sister Sarah did shred a lot of Diana's papers after her death at Kensington Palace, unfortunately there was so much 'out there' that tabloid authors will have material for years!

 

[Skydragon]

Queen Mary I, I think you're right about the difference in Diana and Charles, Diana may have been a headache but never a bore. That is the cult of personality at work here.

As a society we don't honor quiet achievement, we honor flash and an engaging public image.
And as far who started the affairs first, I guess I've been around too many kids whose first excuse when they do something wrong is, "Well he hit me first." It looks childish, it sounds childish and as a parent, you get tired of hearing it and you send both kids to their rooms.

Ysbel, you are quite right when you blame todays society for awarding Diana 'celebrity' status. A lot of people don't fall for it though, I prefered the quite and regal monarchy we had before Diana, when the only excitement was Princess Anne telling someone to get lost.
If you took away the royal status and made Diana and Charles just Mr & Mrs, would people support the emotional blackmail that Diana tried. Wouldn't her parents and friends have advised her to get out of the situation. In the world of celebrity, do people refuse to go and see Tom Cruise because he split with Nicole Kidman, are they nasty about his new love interest, or anyone who meets someone else and leaves?
Who indulged first is subject to who you speak to or what you read.
I know a woman whose husband left her 20 years ago and she has never looked at another man, that is commitment to your marriage vows! A persons conduct after a split is a measure of their true worth IMO.