Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part2

**Warren** · #1 11-07-2005, 07:18 AM

Welcome to the Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Thread Part 2

Part 1 can be found here:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...hips-5642.html

Lady Marmalade · #2 11-08-2005, 02:45 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...861956,00.html

Very interesting article...

tiaraprin · #3 11-09-2005, 12:16 AM

Excellent article Lady Marmalade!! Spot on!! Diana lives on. . . .:)

Skydragon · #4 11-09-2005, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiaraprin

Excellent article Lady Marmalade!! Spot on!! Diana lives on. . . .:)

I am certain they don't want to follow in Diana's footsteps and have affairs and divorce in their families. It will be interesting to see how it turns out for them all. They have married for love but even that can change. Getting married and having children does not guarantee a 'happy ever after'.

Incas · #5 11-09-2005, 07:14 AM

9 November 2005
CAMILLA RULES!
Polly Hudson on ITV1's new Royal drama

WHEN I woke yesterday morning I had no strong feelings either way about Camilla Parker Bowles, or the Duchess of Doodah, or whatever we're supposed to call her nowadays.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_obje...name_page.html

tiaraprin · #6 11-09-2005, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I am certain they don't want to follow in Diana's footsteps and have affairs and divorce in their families. It will be interesting to see how it turns out for them all. They have married for love but even that can change. Getting married and having children does not guarantee a 'happy ever after'.

Equally they don't wish to follow in Charles' and Camilla's footsteps. A great deal there not to emulate either.

BeatrixFan · #7 11-09-2005, 07:55 AM

For Goodness Sake. Maybe they want their own lives and don't want to follow in either parents foot steps? Does nobody think of them as William and Harry the individuals? They are not extensions of Diana nor are they miniatures of Charles. They are young men who will build their own lives and their own personalities so anyone hoping that they are going to be photocopies of their parents should come to terms with that and stop the endless comparison.

ysbel · #8 11-09-2005, 08:10 AM

It will be interesting to see how the new crown princesses will turn out.

They seem to have learned the lesson that there must be love but they haven't learned the lesson that the girl must also be a good fit for a life in a monarchy. I think some of the royal families are taking chances with recent marriages here. Only time will tell how it will turn out.

Diana was not a good fit within the royal family and the institution of the British monarchy. If she had been able to work more effectively within the confines of the monarchy, she may have had a better chance of getting Camilla away from Charles.

Did they need love to succeed? Not a burning passionate love but definitely affection and respect.

People marry because they want to share their life with someone else. I don't think I'm the only one who has loved someone but not married him because I couldn't imagine living with him.

Charles and Diana had such different expectations of married life it was hard for them to create a life together that would satisfy both of them. The more different the background between the crown prince and his new crown princess the more likely their expectations of what a marriage entails will differ from each other.

So I think they have mitigated one risk and increased the other risk.

Skydragon · #9 11-09-2005, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiaraprin

Equally they don't wish to follow in Charles' and Camilla's footsteps. A great deal there not to emulate either.

The comparison you were making was with Diana, saying her marriage into royalty had opened the way for other 'commoner' wives. I was trying to point out that it was not such a good example, if you consider how it all ended!
I hope they do follow in Charles and Camilla's footsteps, they have been in love for 35 years.:)

tiaraprin · #10 11-09-2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

The comparison you were making was with Diana, saying her marriage into royalty had opened the way for other 'commoner' wives. I was trying to point out that it was not such a good example, if you consider how it all ended!
I hope they do follow in Charles and Camilla's footsteps, they have been in love for 35 years.:)

Yes, but how many people did they hurt to do it?? And I do not just mean Diana. That is not an example to follow.

branchg · #11 11-09-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

The comparison you were making was with Diana, saying her marriage into royalty had opened the way for other 'commoner' wives. I was trying to point out that it was not such a good example, if you consider how it all ended!
I hope they do follow in Charles and Camilla's footsteps, they have been in love for 35 years.:)

The Queen Mother was a far better example of a successful marriage of commoner and royal prince, don't you think?

Princejohnny25 · #12 11-09-2005, 04:54 PM

The Scottish Queen and King George were a much better example. He was the first royal to marry outside the royal families of europe and marry a noble scotwomen.

ysbel · #13 11-09-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

The Queen Mother was a far better example of a successful marriage of commoner and royal prince, don't you think?

Yes, she is but there are many differences between the Queen Mum and Diana.

The Queen Mum didn't marry the Duke of York expecting to be queen. As Duchess of York, she was expected to carry out public functions on a limited basis but that was it. She did not have the pressure that Diana had or even Camilla has in marrying the heir to the throne.

Another difference she had was that there wasn't that large of a difference between accepted behavior in the aristocracy and in royalty. There were differences, some of them funny, such as the one where royals never smiled or looked into the camera but for the most part, titled society in general had a certain code of ethics for living and that code of ethics has been eroded.

Lastly, the major difference between Diana and the Queen Mum was that the Queen Mum came from an intact and fairly happy family who supported her. Diana's family was dysfunctional; there were rivalries between the sisters and she never got the support from her family that the Queen Mum got from hers.

It makes a difference in how successful a commoner can be marrying into a royal family.

branchg · #14 11-09-2005, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel

Another difference she had was that there wasn't that large of a difference between accepted behavior in the aristocracy and in royalty. There were differences, some of them funny, such as the one where royals never smiled or looked into the camera but for the most part, titled society in general had a certain code of ethics for living and that code of ethics has been eroded.

I would agree the major point of difference, divorce, was certainly an unacceptable behavior in the 1920's by the standards of the aristocracy, while somewhat more acceptable (although by no means desirable) by the 1960's aristocracy. We shouldn't forget Diana's lineage as a Spencer-Churchill was far superior to a Bowes-Lyon in the eyes of the peerage.

People have confused Diana's public icon image for who she really was. While she certainly came to effectively utilize the power of the media to shape her public and private agenda, she was no commoner. She was an aristocrat of the first order and fully understood her duty to the monarchy. The problem was she became too enamoured of her power with the public and forgot the Queen was the boss. So, in the end, she did herself in and was torpedoed right out.

Incas · #15 11-09-2005, 06:57 PM

I would add another major difference between QM's marriage and Diana's was the role of the press. As Duchess of York, she was very popular and often photographed. However, the press during her time, and for the most part throughout her life, was very flattering to the point of obsequiousness. While the press was eager to place nice with Diana more often than not, they did turn hostile at times against her. Regardless of Diana's role in the change, the attitude of the press, both established and freelance, toward royals were quite different.

Duchess · #16 11-09-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

For Goodness Sake. Maybe they want their own lives and don't want to follow in either parents foot steps? Does nobody think of them as William and Harry the individuals? They are not extensions of Diana nor are they miniatures of Charles. They are young men who will build their own lives and their own personalities so anyone hoping that they are going to be photocopies of their parents should come to terms with that and stop the endless comparison.

correct me if i'm wrong but the reference "follow in diana's footsteps" meant the ladies in the article not william and harry.

ysbel · #17 11-09-2005, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

She was an aristocrat of the first order and fully understood her duty to the monarchy. The problem was she became too enamoured of her power with the public and forgot the Queen was the boss. So, in the end, she did herself in and was torpedoed right out.

branchg, I agree with you on the last point but how much did her aristocratic background help her understand her duty to the monarchy? The only way I see is if she got some advice from Lady Fenmoy, her grandmother, the lady in waiting to the Queen Mother.

But from what I read, other than Lady Fenmoy, the Spencers relationship to the Royal Family was more on a social level rather than an official level. I don't understand the position of the aristocracy in normal society today but in the 1920s and 30s the class hierarchy among all classes was more firmly ensconced and everybody knew their place so to speak. The aristocracy received their own deference from the common classes back then but by the time Diana came along, I don't believe this class structure was as strong as it had been.

branchg · #18 11-09-2005, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel

branchg, I agree with you on the last point but how much did her aristocratic background help her understand her duty to the monarchy? The only way I see is if she got some advice from Lady Fenmoy, her grandmother, the lady in waiting to the Queen Mother.

But from what I read, other than Lady Fenmoy, the Spencers relationship to the Royal Family was more on a social level rather than an official level.

Well, Diana certainly understood from Lady Fermoy what she was getting into. Also, remember, Lady Jane was married to Robert Fellowes who was already Assistant Private Secretary, so it's not like Diana was clueless as to her duties.

The Spencers were close to the Crown formally, rather than socially. Baron and Lady Fermoy were both close personal friends of George VI and Queen Elizabeth during their reign and Ruth was appointed a Lady of the Bedchamber to the Queen Mother in her widowhood.

Lady Fermoy was appalled at Diana's behavior and the separation and refused to speak with her until she was close to death. She felt Diana had betrayed her solemn oath to the monarchy and brought shame on her family for not staying in the marriage.