The comments on the DM are as usual all about Charles whining rather than seeing them for what they are - evidence of his love and pride in Diana as late as 1985.
It's an example of how unrealistic and even fantastical the diehard-Diana-fans seem to be: in private letters we speak to our confidantes about our life. It is just so.
What else would it be? We have that right. But even I wondered if Charles would come in for another bashing because these private letters show him (days after his official separation was announced) mentioning the difficulties of the marriage (not in detail, even, just in general). And sure enough there are the comments. Charles remains discreet in a letter, and yet still comes in for a bashing.
These letters give me hope that one day all Charles' letters will come to light that detail what he experienced, because that is one side of the story we have never heard. It has only ever been Diana's spin that has dominated the legend of the Wales' marriage.
What is puzzling is that Diana's one long whine about Charles, about the BRF, about the BP 'grey men', you name it: former lovers, former friends, the list is large, all that was okay. That was Diana telling her story, being emotional, showing truth to the world. It is celebrated as a brave thing she did. Yet the same largesse does not apply to Charles. Why?
What then went wrong for both of them to seek love outside the marriage in 1986 - is of course a discussion for another thread - but the Diana fanatics are still having their argument that Charles cheated on her from Day 1 despite all the evidence that wasn't the case - and that comes up on the comments over and over again.
I have come to realize that this is the
raison d'etre of the entire 'Diana thing'. I have puzzled over it and it's come to me. Diana knew she had to make Charles the culprit. She was in trouble: she had engaged in not just one long-standing affair (with James Hewitt) but was having several involvements. She was a future Queen. It was all coming out. She went on the offensive and devised a masterful stroke: the Morton book, in which she spun the deflection onto the BRF and Charles in particular. Rather than face the reality of exactly who this young woman was, it is 'easier' to justify her (pretty shocking) behavior and actions as being
caused by Charles. Diana was an innocent. This is what it all hinges on.
Imagine for one moment if Kate Middleton was behaving in this manner. Just imagine if it came out that Kate was involved in a long-standing love affair, and worse, was having several serious flirtations. How would people greet that? And what if Kate rationalized her actions as being 'necessary' because she was so miserable being married to 'boring' William, and went on to hector the BRF and tell tales. How would that go over? Imagine if she went on to further implicate William in a love affair with an old girlfriend as an excuse for sleeping around? I think we know it wouldn't go over. Kate would be skewered alive. It suggests to me that the 'Diana thing' is rooted in something pretty obvious.
The letters will be a major source for seeing the 'whole Charles'. A great archive, happily preserved and now shared publicly, though I wonder if Charles was consulted, and if any letters have been held back until after he is gone.
