The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 11-07-2005, 07:18 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,299
Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part2

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
__________________

__________________
  #2  
Old 11-08-2005, 02:45 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,531
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...861956,00.html

Very interesting article...
__________________

__________________
  #3  
Old 11-09-2005, 12:16 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Excellent article Lady Marmalade!! Spot on!! Diana lives on. . . .:)
__________________
  #4  
Old 11-09-2005, 04:58 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
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'.
__________________
  #5  
Old 11-09-2005, 07:14 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: , Canada
Posts: 1,692
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
__________________
  #6  
Old 11-09-2005, 07:46 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
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.
__________________
  #7  
Old 11-09-2005, 07:55 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Re:

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.
__________________
  #8  
Old 11-09-2005, 08:10 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
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.
__________________
  #9  
Old 11-09-2005, 10:42 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
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.:)
__________________
  #10  
Old 11-09-2005, 03:51 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
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.
__________________
  #11  
Old 11-09-2005, 04:28 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
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?
__________________
  #12  
Old 11-09-2005, 04:54 PM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
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.
__________________
  #13  
Old 11-09-2005, 05:04 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
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.
__________________
  #14  
Old 11-09-2005, 06:53 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
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.
__________________
  #15  
Old 11-09-2005, 06:57 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: , Canada
Posts: 1,692
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.
__________________
  #16  
Old 11-09-2005, 07:06 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
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.
__________________
Duchess
  #17  
Old 11-09-2005, 08:11 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
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.
__________________
  #18  
Old 11-09-2005, 11:06 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
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.
__________________
  #19  
Old 11-10-2005, 05:19 AM
Queen Mary I's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 177
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.:)
I wouldn't want my sons to emulate a father who cheated on me throughout my marriage with another woman. Or to emulate the woman who interfered in a marriage. Being in love doesn't justify deceit, and stealth. If Charles and Camilla's friends helped them by offering their homes for the 'lovers' to meet then they are as guilty of adultery as C & C of this sin. I suppose this is why they chose the 'manifolds sins' prayer for all to read out at their blessing service. I found the Archbishop asking if everyone-meaning C & C's friends in the congregation-if they would help C & C to be faithful rich indeed. They sure were no help to Diana in her lifetime.
__________________
  #20  
Old 11-10-2005, 05:48 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
They sure were no help to Diana in her lifetime.
Thats true. Diana was having many affairs herself. So don't forget that. Blame doesn't lie solely with Charles or Camilla. It also lies with Diana, Hewitt, The Queen etc etc.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, diana princess of wales, duchess of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales, princess diana, relationships


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Imperial Family of Japan Picture Thread mandyy Imperial Family of Japan 81 10-03-2013 09:42 AM
Relationships of Prince Charles and his parents love_cc The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 56 07-08-2013 06:13 PM
Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part 1 blondebeauty123 The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 342 11-07-2005 07:15 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven pom pregnancy president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess marilene princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:24 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]