Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part2 - Page 3

Lady Marmalade · #41 11-11-2005, 12:11 PM

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** · #42 11-11-2005, 12:37 PM

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** · #43 11-11-2005, 12:58 PM

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 · #44 11-11-2005, 05:53 PM

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 · #45 11-11-2005, 06:28 PM

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 · #46 11-11-2005, 06:44 PM

Quote:

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 · #47 11-11-2005, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel

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 · #48 11-11-2005, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

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** · #49 11-12-2005, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel

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 · #50 11-12-2005, 04:46 AM

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 · #51 11-14-2005, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

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:o

Queen Mary I · #52 11-14-2005, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Princejohnny25 · #53 11-14-2005, 10:54 PM

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 · #54 11-14-2005, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25

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 · #55 11-15-2005, 12:56 AM

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 · #56 11-15-2005, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 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 · #57 11-15-2005, 03:31 AM

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 · #58 11-15-2005, 03:53 AM

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 · #59 11-15-2005, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Mary I

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